Fear and Loathing in the Deep Left

[mother]

There I was, knee deep in bat country. Unsure of where to go next i found myself mired in my own thoughts on these philosophies and perplexed by what i had seen in others and in life and in this forum. Thusly i decided the only way to deal with these gruesome beasts was to take them head on, and so i joined.

Essentially, I started my political and philosophical life in High School, turned on to Ayn Rand by my home room teacher. That was okay for the time, it fit with the already rampaging stormy egotism and hero worship and cream rising to the the top. Then I started to notice as i read more and more of the books that I did not agree that it was contrary to a forward moving society to simply abandon everyone. It was around this same time i knew I'd be a therapist. I just had a huge want to do something for other people in a one on one way and it had helped me and i wanted to pay it forward.

That is how I became a Liberal when everyone i knew was progressing the other way from Liberal to Conservative. I kept leaning further left, because in my head there was no reason we are not capable of more, of better. I take messages like the one in say any of a million movies serious. That we are headed for a point of no return, one in which the result if we do not right our course will destroy us, or at least most of us. That while I see great terribleness in people, by becoming a student of the human mind, i can understand where those come from and what needs they are made to fulfill even if futile. I suppose this make me the biggest sap on earth, but I dont care. It feels right and on the last day of my life I'd rather feel right than either wonder or regret as much as possible.

So that is essentially how I found my way to Socialism, and then better understood it as a step or part of Communism. I was there for a solid minute. The more i read, the more I began to see some serious errors (imo) in the philosophy of Marxism and then in my opinion over corrections to it that resulted in bigger openings that ultimately lead to what we ended up with, which for me personally, I could not live with. Like, Stalism, Kimism, etc. now, you may have your opinions on why that isnt true or I'm an idiot, and thats all well and good. For me personally, I see the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat being hijacked by opportunists eventually everytime. This is all of course summarized and quick typed from work, so lets be reasonable. Every post doesnt want to start a tendency war as i have noticed. I just want some input no one has to die.

So I found myself at a crossroads of Anarcho Syndacalism/Colletivism/etc. I've never met another one personally face to face. From reading on here and a few other sites though, they all seem to be crazy assholes, lol. this does not define me in the least. I'm not the kind who backs down from a belief just because some of the other people claiming it are ridiculous. We can find a real nutball amongst any belief set. I'm sure even the Fascists have a guy they're like "Whoa" about.

So how to proceed thats the issue. I simply don't see Communism paying off, or rather getting where it was trying to go. I see it stopping short and either rapidly or eventually breaking down into the death it was trying to avert. I do not agree with the statement "from each ability, to each need". Maybe... "from each ability to each production"? Hmm... I feel like when you raise people into a society like this, they come out with what they are taught. I can steal and cheat, I can lie and abuse, i must accumulate, I must belong, etc. However I feel that if we were raised into a society based upon these ideals, that we taught empathy, coping skills, etc, then its not impossible. it only seems impossible with the deep set ideology we have. Surely Democracy was spoken about as a dirty word in the monarchies.

I'm not a total anarchist either, at least judging off the very few I have met, maybe not even a Anarcho-Synd. That is the purpose of this. To flesh out. I've read alot of posts, alot of threads, and I have seen many Anarchos say and explain little while the Comms just deliver these huge posts of info. i just want to make sure I'm not bastardizing a thing or blaspheming or doing myself the disservice of looking like an idiot. And I'm readin, reading, reading. How much can i take from a text going on 100 in modern times thought has had evolution. I'm reading them too, Chomsky, Engels, everyone. Still... I guess i just want to hear from some actual Anarchists who arent these apparent bastards on these factors.

Is this relevant or agreed on? ---> anarchosyndicalism dot net
Are we with the communists until the dictatorship and then we split? is it amicable? What of all of this dissent? So many people fleeing AS becasue the people they encountered were bastards and no one ever worked together on the actual movement? Was not the Communist movement the same for ages, is it a size issue, and more i cant even get to as I have to go back to my job, yay...

Please, forgive noobness. Work with me here.

[The Stalinator]

I'm trying to figure out the same as you, when it comes to the "to each according to his need" part, being a new leftist -- would someone who contributes much more to the communist society receive some benefits? If someone could answer that it would be great. Unfortunately I don't believe I'm in a position to give many answers...

...I fucking love Hunter S. Thompson though. High five, Comrade.

[The Jay]

Good to see you're coming around? What are your political views though, you mainly said what you're not.

[La Peur Rouge]

If you don't agree with "...To each according to his need.", then I don't know what to tell you. Every human being deserves to have their basic needs met, regardless of what they do. We each contribute what we can, we have our needs and wants met in return. If there is something unfair about that then I'm content with being unfair.

[Ocean Seal]

I'm trying to figure out the same as you, when it comes to the "to each according to his need" part, being a new leftist -- would someone who contributes much more to the communist society receive some benefits? If someone could answer that it would be great. Unfortunately I don't believe I'm in a position to give many answers...

...I fucking love Hunter S. Thompson though. High five, Comrade.
The point is that in communism we will have developed the capacities for abundance, so in reality it doesn't make much sense to give people different amounts since there is so much in excess of the necessities.
The saying is under socialism (precursor to communism) from each according to his ability to each according to his deeds. Under communism from each according to his ability to each according to his needs. So while we don't live in a society of abundance people will get different benefits based on how hard they work. This is different from capitalism as in capitalism you can own private property and live of the work of others, reaping nearly all the benefits from their labor.

[Revolution starts with U]

Mother... I am not sure what you are asking?

[Rocky Rococo]

If what you believe in lives out the words of The Internationale, then it doesn't really matter which precise little pigeon hole someone else might try to put it in.

Arise o prisoners of starvation
Arise o wretched of the earth
Our reason thunders indignation
From the old we'll bring new birth

We'll tear down this planet's false foundation
And build a better world anew
And we that live in humble station
Shall walk erect as is our due

Through the conflict comes power
Each one lift high your face
For in the end the Internationale
Becomes the human race
Through the conflict comes power
Each one lift high your face
For in the end the Internationale
Becomes the human race

That's what communism or anarchism or syndicalism or whatever you should choose to call your own way either is (or should be and isn't so get fixing it.)

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I'm fairly confident Hunter is turning in his non-existent grave right now.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

turned on to Ayn Rand by my home room teacher.
Worst. Teacher. Ever.

[Susurrus]

This would have been an awesome intro thread title(also good content too).

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

This would have been an awesome intro thread title(also good content too).

Elaborate.

[Susurrus]

Elaborate.

On what I said or what the person said?

[mother]

If you don't agree with "...To each according to his need.", then I don't know what to tell you. Every human being deserves to have their basic needs met, regardless of what they do. We each contribute what we can, we have our needs and wants met in return. If there is something unfair about that then I'm content with being unfair.

I think the primary issue i have is the generalized and open nature of that statement. Supposedly a tenant of socialism is, "The man who does not work, does not eat". I guess the thing for me is like Animal Farm/Stalin, DONT FREAK OUT, lets just say hypothetically okay? Who decides, who needs what?

See the issue is that greed isnt suddenly limited because money isnt there, especially since to really make a society like this work you need the education and life long vetting or conditioning that comes with it. that simply takes time. in capitalism your not just fighting an idea, but a dogma, one taught quite literally from the womb for ages now. Even if you succeed, this is a given of unchecked and unmastered human tendency, it will rear its head.

[mother]

The point is that in communism we will have developed the capacities for abundance, so in reality it doesn't make much sense to give people different amounts since there is so much in excess of the necessities.
The saying is under socialism (precursor to communism) from each according to his ability to each according to his deeds. Under communism from each according to his ability to each according to his needs. So while we don't live in a society of abundance people will get different benefits based on how hard they work. This is different from capitalism as in capitalism you can own private property and live of the work of others, reaping nearly all the benefits from their labor.

Right, the idea is that you are their machine making them a surplus value they then use to create a value on the product that isnt really there, its the amount you saved them by doing it cheap. you get screwed like any good robot/slave, and they go on to live a life of luxury while you toil and.. "no, Mr.Bond, i expect you to DIE!"

[mother]

I'm fairly confident Hunter is turning in his non-existent grave right now.

i've never followed norms or rules so i hoped that in my complete disregard for them, he might understand. Who knows... hehe..

[Franz Fanonipants]

I think the primary issue i have is the generalized and open nature of that statement. Supposedly a tenant of socialism is, "The man who does not work, does not eat". I guess the thing for me is like Animal Farm/Stalin, DONT FREAK OUT, lets just say hypothetically okay? Who decides, who needs what?

See the issue is that greed isnt suddenly limited because money isnt there, especially since to really make a society like this work you need the education and life long vetting or conditioning that comes with it. that simply takes time. in capitalism your not just fighting an idea, but a dogma, one taught quite literally from the womb for ages now. Even if you succeed, this is a given of unchecked and unmastered human tendency, it will rear its head.

Comrade, society does not need a market to decide whose needs are met. Nor are markets essential to human development (in the womb or otherwise).

The thing is, you're viewing things from what historians would call a "presentist" worldview. You assume that what you observe is the totality of human experience, it is not.

[mother]

Okay, one let me rephrase that, Syndicalists don't look like crazies from what I have read from the few I have seen here, it's that so many posts go "I used to be a Syndicalist, and I can't stand them they are all crazy".

Two people made a good point, it seems in my haste not to upset the boss, I may have left out great swaths of info and posted this in the wrong place maybe. Bear with me here guys, i did the best i could down there in that explanation, but this is really hard to do coherently while at work.

Without any crap from anywhere else, here is a bit about me, what I believe and believed. The question is, where do I belong? Not for the label, or the t-shirts, or whatever, so I can have a base of (friends?) whom I feel like understand me and I can bounce things off of, and (cousins?) ha-ha, that I can debate and discuss with. Does this make sense? I'd like to find some like thinkers in my region, it helps if I can say, I'm a "BLANK" too.
Here is what I think and believe. We can provide healthcare, it should be a right not a privilege in a civilized society. We do not need a state to function, however you cannot make a drastic change on this scale in this world overnight. Such a change is more susceptible to corruption than the thing it is replacing however odd or unbelievable that may sound. Any transition should be heavily edged towards the worker/common man as any form of state too quickly falls into opportunism and corruption. Participation should be compulsory with receivership. Education must be altered to teach coping skills, empathy, real living skills alongside history, math, language. People who can work and opt not to simply because they can't be bothered don't deserve anything. There is always a job to be done. Life should be about the living as much as the working and the working should be something you love and ace at as well.
People tell me that no one will work, that its utopia, that it fall to laziness. I tell them that people who are programmed for this will surely fail at that. That education a rearing can avoid all that. That capitalism is a utopian idea and is failing now, and we took a chance on it, why not take a chance on living. That even now people work long hours after work on the work of their dreams like electric cars, and all sorts of ideas for no pay, because they love it. How is this any different? Except that they will no longer be bound by the restrictions of affording supplies, affording ideas to move ideas forward? To harness peoples love of their talents and interests and the knowledge that work will reward with equal goods? That unlike Kpax, being civilized doesn't mean the end of living, it means the beginning of living. So, maybe I'm a loon or some bright eyed idiot, but I've managed to stay this way into my adult years and I live anything but a privileged life, it's been constant hardship with some bright spots. What I have they have made sure I paid for, many, many times over. I'll pay my fair share, but I don't think I'm getting a fair share and by that I mean time to live. I can see one day I am going to wake up and I will be too old and it will have all passed me by in the meantime while I was just making sure it was even possible.

Just after high school, knowing nothing of Marxism or Anarchism or really anything, I devised a kind of merit based system. The idea was to abolish money and yet allow people their inherent need to be better than someone else. There were levels, none was really poor. if you can work and you do work or your disabled, then you receive some sort of document and use it to get a certain amount of goods at set intervals. From cars to food. It had a lot of flaws, but then, I was 19.

[Franz Fanonipants]

anarchists/syndicalists ARE crazy comrade

[The Jay]

I agree with coping skills being taught in school, but I don't know about empathy. That's just a basic human skill like talking isn't it?

[mother]

Comrade, society does not need a market to decide whose needs are met. Nor are markets essential to human development (in the womb or otherwise).

The thing is, you're viewing things from what historians would call a "presentist" worldview. You assume that what you observe is the totality of human experience, it is not.

i do understand that, but by the same spade its the transition from one whole completely integrated idea into another. it's like leaving the matrix and being Neo right? You've got these abilities and you can barely take in the reality of the world and it's all on you suddenly. My statement, and I should specified is one of the medium, because honestly that is where we seem to get lost everytime. int he movement from one to another. I wholeheartedly agree, but surely we cant expect to even see or fully grasp the totality immediatley. I see, maybe a couple of egenrations before anything could even be fully realized. Am I wrong? I'm speaking purely from what i know of the human mind and its grasp of things as they are now and our experience as a whole is all. even thats... fuzzy. heh

[mother]

I agree with coping skills being taught in school, but I don't know about empathy. That's just a basic human skill like talking isn't it?

No, you would think so. but see the current idea, especially this whole concept of better than another and all that comes with it like capitalism itself teaches against empathy. Culturally, if you look, we weed out alot of empathy under the guise of fear and protection. Empathy, like any good trait has to be fostered and encouraged or it gets side lined by everything else in the ruch to accumulate. At least this is what seems clearly evident to me, and at least a handful of semi pro semi important thinkers about the human mind and development.

[mother]

anarchists/syndicalists ARE crazy comrade

But why? Please explain, or is this just a funny jab? I'm serious, i'm not mad...:)

[Franz Fanonipants]

i do understand that, but by the same spade its the transition from one whole completely integrated idea into another. it's like leaving the matrix and being Neo right?

This is rank idealism.

Ideas do not form our world, rather, our relationship to mat'l conditions do. When those mat'l conditions shift, our ideas follow suit, thus what you're talking about is a liberal fantasy. This is a cornerstone of Marxism.

Have you ever read any Marx?

[Art Vandelay]

First off mother I must say that I am a huge Hunter S Thompson fan so you thread title kinda jumped out at me and I loved the intro about bat country. I guess what I have got from reading your posts is that your new to the revolutionary left and you need a push in the right direction. It also sounds like you are more geared towards Marxism than anarchism as you seemed to stress the need for a transitional stage. And your mention of the matrix made me think of Plato's cave which might interest you if your a fan of that movie.

Okay first off I would suggest you check out maybe some left communism, I got the feeling that you came across as somewhat anti-authoritarian so I will leave those tendencies out but I am sure others can help you with them if you wish. A good place to start would maybe be Luxembourg, however I cannot stress enough, even as an anarchist, the necessity of reading Marx & Engels.

For anarchism I would suggest as a starting point maybe Berkman's the abc's of anarchism. I also happen to be a fan of Bakunin and Proudhon. I can easily mention some titles of works you could check out if your interested but the best place to go is marxism.org you can find pretty much anything there.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Okay first off I would suggest you check out maybe some left communism

laffo

[mother]

This is rank idealism.

Ideas do not form our world, rather, our relationship to mat'l conditions do. When those mat'l conditions shift, our ideas follow suit, thus what you're talking about is a liberal fantasy. This is a cornerstone of Marxism.

Have you ever read any Marx?

I have read the manifesto and i am in the process of digesting Das Kapital.

I am sorry if I offended.

I'm assuming mat'l is short for material?

Sure thats true, but to claim ideas in no way form our world, I dont see that at all. Sure. Some of the things I posted are utopian and probably nothing i will see in my life. Everything starts with an idea however. The part you quoted in my mind stands true. You were saying that I'm viewing it as though this is the totality of the human experience. I agree, a market is not necessary, yet we have yet to succeed in ridding ourselves of it in any applied society. Certainly its the totality of most peoples current experience, and the point for that was you cant dump a change in what people have been programmed into overnight. Not everyone will adjust at the same rate. Actually, you can, but why? That would be like shock and for what good, surely another method exists. thats what i see in Communism to date. Attempts to transition, that ultimately fail. The Soviet Union, China, etc. What i see is a transition to a promise of communism that never comes, because it always gets hijacked and then eventually reverts to some form of capitalism. In the middle we get lost. Why is that liberal fantasy?

I would contest that everything starts from an idea, and from that alone the greatest achievements we have made are born of such. That do not do so on their own, and i am not advocating doing nothing and waiting for life to come to us, but... perhaps i dont understand.

[Art Vandelay]

laffo

Thanks for that insight, really helped shed some light on a tendency for a new comrade. But then again I am not a stalinist so I guess I view other tendencies in a different light than you. Despite being an anarchist I do not hold the pompous and arrogant view that my tendency is the only way to revolution, which is why I would never tell someone not to check out its literature when by his own admission is new to the left.

But I guess I should be more like you and simply condescend him: "YOur such a utopian have you never even read marx!?" God the left would be such a better movement without people like you.

[Art Vandelay]

I have read the manifesto and i am in the process of digesting Das Kapital.

I am sorry if I offended.

I'm assuming mat'l is short for material?

Sure thats true, but to claim ideas in no way form our world, I dont see that at all. Sure. Some of the things I posted are utopian and probably nothing i will see in my life. Everything starts with an idea however. The part you quoted in my mind stands true. You were saying that I'm viewing it as though this is the totality of the human experience. I agree, a market is not necessary, yet we have yet to succeed in ridding ourselves of it in any applied society. Certainly its the totality of most peoples current experience, and the point for that was you cant dump a change in what people have been programmed into overnight. Not everyone will adjust at the same rate. Actually, you can, but why? That would be like shock and for what good, surely another method exists. thats what i see in Communism to date. Attempts to transition, that ultimately fail. The Soviet Union, China, etc. What i see is a transition to a promise of communism that never comes, because it always gets hijacked and then eventually reverts to some form of capitalism. In the middle we get lost. Why is that liberal fantasy?

I would contest that everything starts from an idea, and from that alone the greatest achievements we have made are born of such. That do not do so on their own, and i am not advocating doing nothing and waiting for life to come to us, but... perhaps i dont understand.

As a marxist-leninist the member you quoted would contend the exact opposite form what you just said. It is the material conditions that change this world not ideas.

[mother]

First off mother I must say that I am a huge Hunter S Thompson fan so you thread title kinda jumped out at me and I loved the intro about bat country. I guess what I have got from reading your posts is that your new to the revolutionary left and you need a push in the right direction. It also sounds like you are more geared towards Marxism than anarchism as you seemed to stress the need for a transitional stage. And your mention of the matrix made me think of Plato's cave which might interest you if your a fan of that movie.

Okay first off I would suggest you check out maybe some left communism, I got the feeling that you came across as somewhat anti-authoritarian so I will leave those tendencies out but I am sure others can help you with them if you wish. A good place to start would maybe be Luxembourg, however I cannot stress enough, even as an anarchist, the necessity of reading Marx & Engels.

For anarchism I would suggest as a starting point maybe Berkman's the abc's of anarchism. I also happen to be a fan of Bakunin and Proudhon. I can easily mention some titles of works you could check out if your interested but the best place to go is marxism.org you can find pretty much anything there.

Well, imagine it is the matrix, only instead of machines its a life long of conditioning into a system in which you were always lead to believe you could make it despite overwhelming evidence that you most likely would not. Isnt that capitalism? Is that not what keeps them fat and happy and working for the man? Is that not like being a junkie? I cant see the difference. One more, one more, just one more.

My reading list is as follows:
Done - communist manifesto
In progress - Das Kapital
TBR - Conquest of bread
Mutual Aid
The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution An Address Delivered in Paris

[mother]

As a marxist-leninist the member you quoted would contend the exact opposite form what you just said. It is the material conditions that change this world not ideas.

I see. I suppose it is possible that the ideas are thought of as a result of the condition that causes he need for the idea. Is this the only reason for any change in the world? Maybe up to some point in history i could see that. Will it always be the only reason and has it. I'm not sure I can agree with that. Often yes, only, eh... I'm not convinced.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I have read the manifesto and i am in the process of digesting Das Kapital.

I am sorry if I offended.

I'm assuming mat'l is short for material?

There's no offense at all comrade.

The thing is, in order to understand Marxism you'll need to understand that big parts of this ideology are based on rejecting the intrinsic value assigned to ideals (like natural rights, constitutionalism, etc.).

If a change is not based on a fundamental reordering of people's relationship to material conditions, then it is no change. You can truly and deeply believe in human rights, you can establish a world court at the Hague to try people who commit atrocities, you can enshrine liberty and democracy and free speech, you can do all these things but none of that will liberate a single individual.

The fact is, capital will still persist.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Thanks for that insight, really helped shed some light on a tendency for a new comrade. But then again I am not a stalinist so I guess I view other tendencies in a different light than you. Despite being an anarchist I do not hold the pompous and arrogant view that my tendency is the only way to revolution, which is why I would never tell someone not to check out its literature when by his own admission is new to the left.

But I guess I should be more like you and simply condescend him: "YOur such a utopian have you never even read marx!?" God the left would be such a better movement without people like you.

The problem is that you immediately jumped to "HEY CHECK OUT THIS AWESOME ULTRA-LEFT DEAL!"

We should not proselytize for our tendencies here, but rather give people a wide range of options and tools for forming a critique.

[mother]

There's no offense at all comrade.

The thing is, in order to understand Marxism you'll need to understand that big parts of this ideology are based on rejecting the intrinsic value assigned to ideals (like natural rights, constitutionalism, etc.).

If a change is not based on a fundamental reordering of people's relationship to material conditions, then it is no change. You can truly and deeply believe in human rights, you can establish a world court at the Hague to try people who commit atrocities, you can enshrine liberty and democracy and free speech, you can do all these things but none of that will liberate a single individual.

The fact is, capital will still persist.

Can you point me to something here? I don't see how any of those things is exclusively married to capital and capitalism.

Revolution is the only way, is what your saying... yes? This is the slow change / revolution debate? I dont know if thats what your asking. Not yet. You and i are here without a revolution. ont he other hand i see evidence for its need. I'm not decided. To call it like you did is a bit... I guess for its time i could agree when Marx was alive, but the more you educate a society i think it will eventually come to this on its own too. I'm not just not sure where i am on this yet.

Did the revolution and indeed marxism not come from an idea?

I am also saying post revolution this will all need need upkeep. From what I've seen, even revolutions and the results of them can slow slide and decay into capital so they alone are not enough. That's where the ideals and ideas that motivate come into play.

Your defining question is, "will it liberate"? if it cant liberate then its not worth it? those ideals of at least some of them, they do not factor in a marxist society?

[La Peur Rouge]

The problem is that you immediately jumped to "HEY CHECK OUT THIS AWESOME ULTRA-LEFT DEAL!"

We should not proselytize for our tendencies here, but rather give people a wide range of options and tools for forming a critique.

So you call for a wide range of options to be presented...then condemn an Anarchist for suggesting Left Communist literature...

[mother]

I have to be approved, so some of my posts are appearing but later, but in line timeline wise, so you have to go back to read what i said even it wasnt there before, its a little weird

[Franz Fanonipants]

Can you point me to something here? I don't see how any of those things is exclusively married to capital and capitalism.

Marxism is not a plan for restructuring society, unlike liberal ideas of freedom or equality. Rather, it's a working critique of capital.

The observation of mat'l conditions is more important than any sort of political agenda. So Marx, writing at the time of major expansion of capital, identifies the behaviors of capital and its relation to the means of production, labor, etc.

That's what Marxism is. A lot of fuzzy-headed business does go on in contemporary leftist thought about how if only people understood this, or knew that, they would be liberated. An idea, a knowledge, cannot liberate. Rather observation and criticism from observation need to always be deployed at the center of any Marxist political effort. In my opinion and whatever.

[Franz Fanonipants]

So you call for a wide range of options to be presented...then condemn an Anarchist for suggesting Left Communist literature...

my bad on that assumption then.

but really i mean what's the diff?

[RedMarxist]

I had the good fortune discover radical leftist politics by myself. It all began when I read the Communist Manifesto-and agreed with it.

We, as people, are basically chained to Capitalism. Remember what happened to Arbenz or even the Russian people during the revolution when they turned away from inhuman accumulation and towards helping society? Invasion.

Which is why we must-we must!-break away from it. I'm going to college soon, and well, I believe that I must do something-to use my skills once I get out of college to benefit the radical Left movement.

Which is why I plan to major in history-and use it to my advantage. To educate people about what Communism is and what went wrong in the world Communist movement of the 20th century.

But we mustn't repeat the stupid mistakes of the past- a one party system, total nationalization of industry that soon is taken under the wing of a few uncaring, greedy bureaucrats, and so forth.

We must do better next time.

[mother]

I'm wth you up to a point... I am just not sure past that point we will be on the same road yet. I will keep reading and maybe I'll find a place, or maybe I'll have to get creative I guess. I'm still reading threads here as well. I would like to hear some Anarchists at some point but there seems to be a smaller population of them, of course this threads ebeen here all of one day. I do look forward to more interaction but I suppose I need to be more versed and figure some personal thoughts out first.

[The Jay]

Why'd you choose the name mother?

[Leftsolidarity]

I do not agree with the statement "from each ability, to each need". Maybe... "from each ability to each production"?

Read Lenin's "The State and Revolution". He goes over this and talks about why you are correct to a point but that eventually it will be "to each according to his need".

[mother]

Why'd you choose the name mother?

Haha! It's been one of two of handles of mine forever, even before damn Dan Akroyd in Sneakers.