Anarchism?

[Sakuuma]

CAn someone enlighten me? im not wholly sure on how anarchism can work.

[katie mccready]

it canot it only worked in the begining

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...t=ST&f=6&t=6421 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6421)Anarchism for Dummies (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6421)

It has worked before, in Spain and in Paris for example.

[Morpheus]

Anarchists adocate the abolition of hierarchical authority, including capitalism & the state. Instead society should be organized by voluntary non-hierarchical associations. It has nothing to do with choas or throwing bombs at everyone or anything like that. See http://www.anarchism.ws or http://www.anarchyfaq.org for mroe.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 01:27 AM
Anarchists adocate the abolition of hierarchical authority, including capitalism & the state. Instead society should be organized by voluntary non-hierarchical associations. It has nothing to do with choas or throwing bombs at everyone or anything like that. See http://www.anarchism.ws or http://www.anarchyfaq.org for mroe.
How are you going to abolish capitalism (the voluntary exchange of goods and services) without any hierarchical authority? Won't some central authority need to intervene as soon as a business is successful and starts making profits? If not, how are you going to force businesses to comply with collective demands?

Also, if society is to be organised by voluntary associations, what if people decide not to be part of said association?

[Pete]

Capitalism is a form of hierarchy. It cannot exist in anarchy.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Cr[email protected] 29 2003, 03:17 AM
Capitalism is a form of hierarchy. It cannot exist in anarchy.
How so?

[Monty Cantsin]

read The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism and Anarchism by L. Susan Brown

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 03:47 AM
read The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism and Anarchism by L. Susan Brown
Um, sorry, but I'd rather not. :P

[Bolshevika]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 03:25 PM
http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...t=ST&f=6&t=6421 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6421)Anarchism for Dummies (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6421)

It has worked before, in Spain and in Paris for example.
In Spain the inefficient Anarchist's were destroyed by the more efficient professional army.

In Paris, I suppose you mean the Paris Commune? Well, that was not really Anarchist. Workers elected delegates, a president was elected by the delegates (Blanqui), prior capitalist machinary was destroyed, and replaced by a new central machinary, it was the first "dictatorship of proletariat" according to Marx and Engels. Although their main gripe with it was some of its Anarchistic tendencies which Marx said was "not using central powers to the fullest extent".

Anyway, I'm going off topic, but the Paris commune was not Anarchist, they had what you Anarchs call a "political hierarchy". Marx even said the reason the Paris commune was destroyed was because of its Anarchistic tendencies.

[Pete]

Originally posted by Nyder+Nov 28 2003, 10:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nyder @ Nov 28 2003, 10:34 PM)
[email protected] 29 2003, 03:17 AM
Capitalism is a form of hierarchy. It cannot exist in anarchy.
How so? [/b]
Class dinstincitions, are you blind to the world around you?

[Nyder]

If what you mean by heirarchy is inequality in income, then capitalism is heirarchical.

[Pete]

Yes, exactly. Thus, capitalism is not anarchy, and cannot exist in an anarchy. :)

-Pete

(stupid short post... )

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 04:54 AM
Yes, exactly. Thus, capitalism is not anarchy, and cannot exist in an anarchy. :)

-Pete

(stupid short post... )
If by anarchy you mean no centralisation of power then I don&#39;t see how capitalism could not operate.

Capitalism is just the voluntary exchange of goods and services. &#39;Capital&#39; is the investment by an entity to produce or acquire those goods and services.

Actually I think capitalism could flourish under anarchy, as long as there were some laws like intellectual property, upholding of contracts and other property rights. You would need some way to punish people for committing crimes of using force like murdering, stealing or assualt. But apart from that capitalism would work just fine.

[Nyder]

Furthermore, if anarchy is against inequality (which is inherent in capitalism), then that means it would have to use some sort of centrally controlled force in order to take income from those that are successful to distribute it to those who who are poor. Therefore you can&#39;t really call it anarchy as controls and force would still need to exist.

[Morpheus]

Nyder: Capitalism is not merely the voluntary exchange of goods & services. That is what markets are. Capitalism is an economic system based on wage-labor. Under capitalism the majority of the population has to sell their labor in order to make enough money to survive. The means of production (factories, mines, land, etc.) are monopolized by the capitalist class (who own them), everyone else sells their labor to this class of people. We have to sell our labor because the capitalists own the means of production, we are denied access to them. Capitalism is hierarchical - you have bosses telling wage-laborers what to do. It is also highly centralized - look at any corporation, it&#39;s a miniature centrally planned economy. Capitalism is one form of class system. Class is economic hierarchy, a social relation in which some have power over others with regard to economics. Other forms of class society include feudalism, in which serfs work the land and give a portion of what they produce, and/or unpaid labor, to the nobles and slavery, in which the master class controls the slaves, whom they own. Markets have existed in many class systems, not just capitalism. In class systems the ruling class (those on top of the hierarchy) use their power to exploit those on the bottom and gain extra priviledges and wealth. Under capitalism this works like this:

http://www.anarchosyndicalism.org/images/cartoons/work_faster.jpg

Capitalism cannot exist without a state because it requires a state in order to enforce property rights, maintaining the capitalists monopoly over the means of production. That monopoly was brought about by state violence and is maintained by state violence. See my essay Tyranny of the Invisible Hand (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/capitalism.html) for an elaboration on this.

Bolshevika:

In Spain the inefficient Anarchist&#39;s were destroyed by the more efficient professional army.

Actually, they were destroyed by Stalinist "allies" who shot them in the back.

You are correct that the Paris Commune was not anarchy. It also was not a "dictatorship of the proletariat." the Parisisan working class were predominantly artisans at the time, not proletarians in the normal Marxist sense, what most Marxists call &#39;petty bourgeoisie.&#39; Most of the people elected to the communal council were also non-proletarians, and the majority of the were Jacobins, not socialists. The Paris Commune was basically a left-Republican uprising, it was no where near as radical as it is usually portrayed.

Paris was in anarchy during part of the French Revolution. The Sans-Coullotes (poor people) formed sectional assemblies, and confederations of these assemblies, which for a time ran Paris. The Jacobins shut them down by beheading lots of people.

[Bolshevika]

Actually, they were destroyed by Stalinist "allies" who shot them in the back.

Well, clearly the Anarchists stabbed themselves in the back for refusing to listen to the communists. If it wasn&#39;t for the "Stalinists", the undisciplined CNT army would&#39;ve been crushed even faster.


You are correct that the Paris Commune was not anarchy. It also was not a "dictatorship of the proletariat." the Parisisan working class were predominantly artisans at the time, not proletarians in the normal Marxist sense, what most Marxists call &#39;petty bourgeoisie.&#39; Most of the people elected to the communal council were also non-proletarians, and the majority of the were Jacobins, not socialists. The Paris Commune was basically a left-Republican uprising, it was no where near as radical as it is usually portrayed.

I agree that the majority of the members in the Paris Commune were Artisans and not Proletarian, however the governmental practices that the Communards took were hailed by Marx and Engels. In Marx&#39;s book on the French Civil War he says the Paris Commune is his ideas put into action, the first real "dictatorship of the proletariat" . Remember, the dictatorship of the proletariat does not necessarily have to be exactly by the proletariat, but it could also be someone acting in their interest (a revolutionary vanguard). Most of the communards were Blanquists, socialists, and then there were some bourgeois republicans, yes. The Paris commune shows the republican aspects of Marxism and how Leninism is not a perversion of Marxism at all.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 03:25 PM
http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...t=ST&f=6&t=6421 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6421)Anarchism for Dummies (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6421)

It has worked before, in Spain and in Paris for example.
It didnt work in either Spain or Paris, for any notable length of time. Paris about 2 months before it collapsed (though that was because of outside pressure). Spain the Soviets took over, and kicked the anarchists out.

[Guest1]

no... spain the fascists took over because of stalinist betrayal, and proceeded to slaughter anarchists and communists alike.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by Enigma+Nov 30 2003, 12:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Nov 30 2003, 12:04 PM)
[email protected] 19 2003, 03:25 PM
http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...t=ST&f=6&t=6421 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6421)Anarchism for Dummies (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6421)

It has worked before, in Spain and in Paris for example.
It didnt work in either Spain or Paris, for any notable length of time. Paris about 2 months before it collapsed (though that was because of outside pressure). Spain the Soviets took over, and kicked the anarchists out. [/b]
What Che Y Marijuana said, and the Stalinists actually locked up all of the trotskyists they could get their hands on, rather than than just the anarchists. The trotskyists were a lot more heavily targeted, for they were &#39;really with the fascists&#39;, you see.

[Bolshevika]

Man, it seems us Stalin supporters are to blame for everything wrong that happens in the world eh? We are to blame for the defeat of the Anarchist army in spain, we are to blame for the rise of Hitler in Germany, we are to blame for all of World war II, we are to blame for the collapse of the Soviet Union we can&#39;t do anything right can we? Well it&#39;s our leaders fault, who we sing in praise to every day around a campfire and plot on killing everyone who disagrees with us.

Can you tell me how "Stalinists" are to blame for the slaughter of communists (we are communists whether you like it or not by the way) and anarchists?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 02:18 AM
Man, it seems us Stalin supporters are to blame for everything wrong that happens in the world eh? We are to blame for the defeat of the Anarchist army in Spain, we are to blame for the rise of Hitler in Germany, we are to blame for all of World war II, we are to blame for the collapse of the Soviet Union we can&#39;t do anything right can we? Well it&#39;s our leaders fault, who we sing in praise to every day around a campfire and plot on killing everyone who disagrees with us.

Can you tell me how "Stalinists" are to blame for the slaughter of communists (we are communists whether you like it or not by the way) and anarchists?
Now you are just whining.

No one but a handful of bourgeois idiots "blames" Stalin "for" World War II. The collapse of the USSR was clearly the work of those who followed Stalin into power...though some of those people were selected by Stalin and enjoyed his confidence.

But you cannot expect your "communist" pretensions to go unquestioned given the overall lack of communist practice in the circles of those who still profess to admire Uncle Joe.

In the case of Spain, the conservative and pro-bourgeois bias of both the Spanish Communist Party and the Comintern (Uncle Joe) is a matter of historical record. It can&#39;t be denied, regardless of squabbles over the details. You can try to defend that bias, echoing the arguments that were made at the time...but you cannot deny it without lying.

Had the "ultra-left" prevailed, the fascists might have still won...that&#39;s a fact. Only if the USSR had stepped up and fully matched the German and Italian intervention might the outcome have been different. That didn&#39;t happen...thanks to Uncle Joe.

That was then...this is now. What is most aggravating about modern "Stalinists" is your persistent refusal to learn from history. You are so anxious to "rehabilitate" Stalin&#39;s historical reputation that you simply cannot progress beyond the level that he attained.

You are a mirror-image of the Trotskyists that you despise--both groups stuck in some time-warp where it is always 1920 or 1930 or 1940 and the same things happen over and over again...the same polemics, the same strategies, the same battles, the same wins and losses, blah, blah, blah.

Insofar as you address present concerns at all, you simply want to emulate what Lenin or Stalin did. Lenin&#39;s party ran candidates for the Duma? Then "we will too"...ignoring 80 years of futility in bourgeois electoral politics. Lenin thought anarcho-syndicalism and direct workers&#39; control of the economy was a really bad idea? Then "we do too"...ignoring all the evident failures of state-monopoly capitalism in the USSR and elsewhere. Lenin and Stalin developed "democratic" centralism? Then "we will too"...ignoring the stultifying and demoralizing effects of such procedures on our own members...not to mention how much that sort of thing alienates the working class.

If you were to confine yourselves to something along the lines of "Stalin wasn&#39;t nearly as bad as everyone thinks he was" and move on to how you propose to do better than Stalin did...well, that at least might secure you a respectful hearing and a thoughtful consideration of your views.

One of the very first threads I ever started on a political message board was entitled "Stalin as Rock Star"...in which I suggested that internet &#39;Stalinists" are not really "political" at all--they are fans.

Perhaps I exaggerated...but not by much. Your post conveys the outrage of a groupie that his favorite icon has been defamed...shown to be a tone-deaf, semi-literate clown of a musician.

Groupies are not "respected"...not even by those they worship. Someone who "gushes" over Stalin is no different from someone who "gushes" over the latest pop construct...both demonstrate a marked lack of reasoning ability if not of intelligence altogether.

In the age of Linux, you want us to go back to using CP/M.

No one with any sense is going to do that.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

:D

[shakermaker]

Anarchism would be fun, until you get killed or &#39;til the army comes to stop it...

[S.B.]

Comrades


Anarchism truly has much to contribute to socialist theory and practice ... dont let the ismatic label throw you,too often people make the mistake(as I myself did initially)that Anarchism simply denotes chaos and confusion ... I tell you here and now that Anarchism is far from expressing such notions.

Anarchism is a socialist theory in which harsh authoritarianism is abandoned for a more just mode of socio-political interaction,one in which governance begins with the individual himself,and this is truly the correct approach to acheiving any semblance of the society whose arrival we anticipate.

Were this merely a forum in which comrades come only to bash and belittle their fellow-comrades then I would see no purpose in visiting such a site,however,there are true socialists here who wish to investigate and explore all the various avenues of thought available to us by which we can perfect our overall ideology and this makes each visit meaningful and worthwhile.


K.S.B.

[Bolshevika]

No one but a handful of bourgeois idiots "blames" Stalin "for" World War II. The collapse of the USSR was clearly the work of those who followed Stalin into power...though some of those people were selected by Stalin and enjoyed his confidence.

Why do you put so many things in "quotes" and bold ?

Anyway, I don&#39;t know if you consider Trotskyites "bourgeois idiots", but they blame Stalin for everything bad that happened in Eastern Europe. The Ukranian famine, the overstatement of the purges (the Trots say 40 million?&#33; My god, that is what Goebbals would say)


But you cannot expect your "communist" pretensions to go unquestioned given the overall lack of communist practice in the circles of those who still profess to admire Uncle Joe.

Lack of communist practice? Collectivization, democratic ownership of factories, excellent education and state welfare system are all communist practices. I do not call myself a Stalinist, I am a Marxist-Leninist. It is Anarchists, Trotskyists, and Libertarian "communists" who use the term "Stalinist" against all that&#39;s evil. I know, because I once did it, I was a lot like you ideologically. But you know what happened? I woke up.


In the case of Spain, the conservative and pro-bourgeois bias of both the Spanish Communist Party and the Comintern (Uncle Joe) is a matter of historical record. It can&#39;t be denied, regardless of squabbles over the details. You can try to defend that bias, echoing the arguments that were made at the time...but you cannot deny it without lying.

Pro-Bourgeois bias? How so? Because he supported the communists over the reactionary Anarchists?


Had the "ultra-left" prevailed, the fascists might have still won...that&#39;s a fact. Only if the USSR had stepped up and fully matched the German and Italian intervention might the outcome have been different. That didn&#39;t happen...thanks to Uncle Joe.

This is a form of imperialism and would definetly trigger a war with Western Europe and America. I agree that with the Anarchists in power the Fascists would overthrow them immediatly and crush them, but not with the evildoing Stalinist. We know how to deal with fascism.

What kind of communist are you by the way, don&#39;t you support U.S. military intervention in Viet Nam, Korea, etc etc? Well what you suggest is something similar.


That was then...this is now. What is most aggravating about modern "Stalinists" is your persistent refusal to learn from history. You are so anxious to "rehabilitate" Stalin&#39;s historical reputation that you simply cannot progress beyond the level that he attained.

The reason I try to dispute the lies you Anarchists, Trotskyists, Nazis, and capitalists spout out against Stalin is, frankly, because they are not true. How can you tell me that when the history channel call Stalin "Hitler 2" it is not propaganda? Or in the "crimes of Stalin" thread where you blame Stalin for the Ukrainian famine? Do you not agree that many of these lies against him are either purposely taken out of context or simply made up?


Insofar as you address present concerns at all, you simply want to emulate what Lenin or Stalin did. Lenin&#39;s party ran candidates for the Duma? Then "we will too"...ignoring 80 years of futility in bourgeois electoral politics. Lenin thought anarcho-syndicalism and direct workers&#39; control of the economy was a really bad idea? Then "we do too"...ignoring all the evident failures of state-monopoly capitalism in the USSR and elsewhere. Lenin and Stalin developed "democratic" centralism? Then "we will too"...ignoring the stultifying and demoralizing effects of such procedures on our own members...not to mention how much that sort of thing alienates the working class.

You call the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat ran by Lenin and Stalin &#39;wrong&#39;? You are no Marxist.

You would want a bunch of illiterate, hungry, and superstititious peasants to run the economy? You are a dogmatist(a lot like the Trots) for not considering the material conditions they were met with. Your theory in the USSR would be met with absolute failure. In fact, Lenin and Stalin did the best they could to concentrate power into the workers hands, with collectivization and state-run factories. The workers elected delegates and held debates on efficiency, etc.

I believe if you study Marx&#39;s works, you will see what he means by "dictatorship of proletariat" (the concept was used after the experiences in the Paris Commune, which was strkingly similar to the USSR but on a very large scale, so of course it would have some problems and bureaucratic elements&#33;) is a group of professional revolutionaries and elected delegates making decisions for the proletariat.

Your Anarchist is nothing like what Marx says in regards to socialism. It is in fact confusing you call yourself a communist, why not call yourself a &#39;punk rocker&#39; instead like the rest of your anarchist friends?


If you were to confine yourselves to something along the lines of "Stalin wasn&#39;t nearly as bad as everyone thinks he was" and move on to how you propose to do better than Stalin did...well, that at least might secure you a respectful hearing and a thoughtful consideration of your views.

But you see, I do do this. I take the good from the experiences of the Paris Commune, Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc and I debate the bad amongst other communists. We debate it and we come to a conclusion on how to replace it or fix it. This is the "demoralizing" democratic centralism for you,


One of the very first threads I ever started on a political message board was entitled "Stalin as Rock Star"...in which I suggested that internet &#39;Stalinists" are not really "political" at all--they are fans.

That is because you do not know the dozens of revolutionary movements inspired and supported by Stalin, including the Chinese, Angolian, and many others.

It is ridiculous to say we are not political, we are usually the ones most knowlegable in Marxism-Leninism because we see through the lies about Stalin. To see through the lies about Stalin, you must first master Marxist theory.

The lies told about Stalin are no more truer than the lies told about Lenin, Castro, Che, Mao, etc.


Perhaps I exaggerated...but not by much. Your post conveys the outrage of a groupie that his favorite icon has been defamed...shown to be a tone-deaf, semi-literate clown of a musician.

Actually no. What I&#39;m saying is how is it possible for people who admire Stalin to be responsible for every bad thing that happens in the communist movement?

I am outraged by the fact that some of you believe these lies and are not willing to prove them. How is Stalin responsible for the deaths of Anarchists and Communists? *Tumbleweed rolls by*

[The Feral Underclass]

S.B


investigate and explore all the various avenues of thought available to us by which we can perfect our overall ideology and this makes each visit meaningful and worthwhile.

It is refreshing to hear such words comrade.


too often people make the mistake(as I myself did initially)that Anarchism simply denotes chaos and confusion ... I tell you here and now that Anarchism is far from expressing such notions.

I am glad that you have a better understanding of anarchism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Bolshevika

It&#39;s not really my debate, but I want to make some comments...


The reason I try to dispute the lies you Anarchists, Trotskyists, Nazis, and capitalists spout out against Stalin is, frankly, because they are not true. How can you tell me that when the history channel call Stalin "Hitler 2" it is not propaganda? Or in the "crimes of Stalin" thread where you blame Stalin for the Ukrainian famine? Do you not agree that many of these lies against him are either purposely taken out of context or simply made up?

You did not answer Redstars comments. He was not talking about lies. He was making a statment about the attitudes of stalinists. Go back and read it again. Then answer it. I am interested to know your reply.


You call the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat ran by Lenin and Stalin &#39;wrong&#39;? You are no Marxist.

Marxism is not all about the dictatorship of the proletariat. In fact, it probably wouldnt have anything to do with Marxism at all had Marx lived through 20th centuray.



You would want a bunch of illiterate, hungry, and superstititious peasants to run the economy? You are a dogmatist(a lot like the Trots) for not considering the material conditions they were met with. Your theory in the USSR would be met with absolute failure. In fact, Lenin and Stalin did the best they could to concentrate power into the workers hands, with collectivization and state-run factories. The workers elected delegates and held debates on efficiency, etc.

Again, you did not address redstars comments.


I was a lot like you ideologically. But you know what happened? I woke up.

Can you safly say that you understand redstars ideology? As for waking up...what did you wake up from. Because as far as I can tell your understanding of Marx is the same as my understanding of quantum physics.


I believe if you study Marx&#39;s works, you will see what he means by "dictatorship of proletariat" (the concept was used after the experiences in the Paris Commune, which was strkingly similar to the USSR but on a very large scale, so of course it would have some problems and bureaucratic elements&#33;) is a group of professional revolutionaries and elected delegates making decisions for the proletariat.

Actually Marx wrote very little about the dictatorship of the proletariat. Please show me quotes where he says that "professional revolutioanries and elected delegates make(ing) decisions for the proletariat."

Due to your age I have a slight feeling that redstar has done a tiny bit more studying of Marx&#39;s work than you have&#33;


That is because you do not know the dozens of revolutionary movements inspired and supported by Stalin, including the Chinese, Angolian, and many others.

I am a volunteer who will work in Angola so I know my angolan history. The Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola, or MPLA, which you are refering too came into existence in 1961. Almost a decade after Stalin had died. The MPLA leadership never called themselves Stalinists. Infact, niether did the Chinese&#33;


The lies told about Stalin are no more truer than the lies told about Lenin, Castro, Che, Mao, etc

So the thousands of eye witness accounts were all paid actors were they? Or are they all just liars too? The siberian camps, they were models built by the media? The documents and letters were all forgeries? The displaced people were just confused?

How can you account for all this?


Actually no. What I&#39;m saying is how is it possible for people who admire Stalin to be responsible for every bad thing that happens in the communist movement?

But you werent&#33;

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 06:49 PM
Lack of communist practice? Collectivization, democratic ownership of factories, excellent education and state welfare system are all communist practices.
Actually, it&#39;s state capitalism. They implemented those things in Mexico and many other capitalist countries, too.


Pro-Bourgeois bias? How so? Because he supported the communists over the reactionary Anarchists?

The Spanish Communist Party, following Moscow&#39;s orders, made Juan Negrin the Prime Minister of Spain. Negrin was a member of the capitalist class. They also broke up the anarchist collectives, by force, and restored private property.


You would want a bunch of illiterate, hungry, and superstititious peasants to run the economy?

How classist. You do realize that October would never have happened without those "superstitious" peasants? I see nothing wrong with the peasant revolution waged in Russia and the Bolsheviks should be condemned for their suppression of it. The peasants didn&#39;t practice private property, their revolution was based on their own communes & local soviets.


Lenin and Stalin did the best they could to concentrate power into the workers hands, with collectivization and state-run factories.

Actually, they concentrated power in the hands of the party. All opposition was suppressed, and any Soviet that won an opposition majority was forcibly disbanded.


I am outraged by the fact that some of you believe these lies and are not willing to prove them. How is Stalin responsible for the deaths of Anarchists and Communists?

He ordered them shot and their organizations outlawed, in Spain and elsewhere.

[redstar2000]

You would want a bunch of illiterate, hungry, and superstitious peasants to run the economy?

And is that the situation we face now?

If there is a proletarian revolution in western Europe or north America, is the "main danger" that power will fall into the hands of "illiterate, hungry, and superstitious" peasants? Is a Leninist-Stalinist party "needed" to "avert" that "terrible fate"?

What century are you living in?

Even in the conditions of 1917-21, your position is questionable. Not all peasants were illiterate and superstitious...and that was even less true of the working class in Petrograd, Moscow, and other cities.

Perhaps they would have "fucked up" terribly and ended up handing power back to the capitalists...which is what happened anyway&#33;

In any event, they never got the chance. It was your "hero" Lenin and your "hero" Stalin--and even your "arch-demon" Trotsky--who all agreed on the absolute supremacy of the Communist Party, period. The only honest word in your phrase "democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants" is dictatorship.


It is in fact confusing you call yourself a communist, why not call yourself a &#39;punk rocker&#39; instead like the rest of your anarchist friends?

Perhaps because I&#39;m not at all fond of punk rock. :D

But if anyone is guilty of terminological inexactitude, it is yourself. There was never anything "communist" about the Communist Party of the Soviet Union or any of its international franchises. At best, it claimed to be "for communism" in some misty, far-off "future"...bearing precisely the same relationship to practical affairs as "the return of Jesus"...zero.

If you were honest, you would call yourselves Leninist-Stalinists or perhaps Leninist-Maoists. And you would never be permitted to use the word "communist"...what you actually intend to establish is a variant of "socialism" at best...and pretty undemocratic "socialism" at that. Your party and its "great leader" will rule and everyone else will obey...or else&#33;

How do I know this? Because this is what you praise and hold up as a "shining example" to us all.


We debate it and we come to a conclusion on how to replace it or fix it.

Well, when does this happen? Do you have fresh ideas already? What are they? Do you intend to produce fresh ideas in the future? Then why don&#39;t you begin to do so...and quit spending all your time re-hashing ancient battles.

You hate it when people joke that all you guys do is sit around and plan who to kill...and when. But whenever you speak, you rarely miss a chance to talk about "Trotskyite-fascists" or "anarchist-fascists" in tones that strongly imply a murderous intent. Indeed, it&#39;s almost as if the thing that you really admire about Stalin is that he was such an "efficient" and "effective" killer.

(The romanticization of death is a feature generally characteristic of fascist ideologies.)


I am outraged by the fact that some of you believe these lies and are not willing to prove them.

Evidence has been offered in dozens of threads and hundreds of books on the subject.

Personally, I think that Stalin&#39;s infamy has been wildly exaggerated by the bourgeois media and by academics and politicians who were/are explicitly anti-communist. His real crimes and fuckups were bad enough. And, of course, he had lots of help...mainly from the secret police.

But that doesn&#39;t concern me greatly and I don&#39;t see why it concerns you. If Stalin&#39;s politics were "correct", then the "errors" will be forgotten.

The politics were not correct and led directly to the crimes and fuckups...that&#39;s my view and the view of many who are neither "Trotskyists", "anarchists", or "bourgeois".

You have not and cannot defend the politics of Stalin in either Marxist or humanitarian terms...all you can do is respond with abuse.

That&#39;s not going to work.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Bolshevika]

I&#39;m being gangbanged by a bunch of crazy Anarchists&#33;


Marxism is not all about the dictatorship of the proletariat. In fact, it probably wouldnt have anything to do with Marxism at all had Marx lived through 20th centuray.

Actually, the dictatorship of the proletariat is just the name for Marx&#39;s overall ideas on the Socialist stage. I don&#39;t know where you Anarchists get this about Marx disagreeing with his very authoritarian ideas if he lived today. In fact, he would possibly be more authoritarian today. I think you are mixing him up with Bakunin.


Can you safly say that you understand redstars ideology? As for waking up...what did you wake up from. Because as far as I can tell your understanding of Marx is the same as my understanding of quantum physics.

On Marxism: Likewise. I believe you are either very confused about Marx and Engel&#39;s, or have only read their work before the 1860&#39;s/70&#39;s

On Redstar: Yes I understand his ideology. He is definetly an Anarcho-"communist", yet supports some authoritarians. He has this fantasy that Marx and Engels were Anarcho-Syndacalists as well.


Actually Marx wrote very little about the dictatorship of the proletariat. Please show me quotes where he says that "professional revolutioanries and elected delegates make(ing) decisions for the proletariat."

Here is a piece from the Marx-Engels reader dated 1871 regarding you Anarchists and the job of a revolutionary government:

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Marx and Engels are very pro-authoritarian. By supporting the Paris Commune he supports elected delegates running a centralized workers state.

Also, I&#39;d like to know where Marx and Engels say that when they say Dictatorship of the proletariat they mean Federalist anti-authoritarian mutualism? Why do you like Marx anyway, he opposed people with your ideas (see the first International)


Due to your age I have a slight feeling that redstar has done a tiny bit more studying of Marx&#39;s work than you have&#33;

I agree he does know some things about Marx and Engels, but he grossly misinterprets them. I suggest you read Marx and Engels&#39; latest works for their ideology after the experiment in the Paris Commune (most important advancement in Marxist theory).


I am a volunteer who will work in Angola so I know my angolan history. The Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola, or MPLA, which you are refering too came into existence in 1961. Almost a decade after Stalin had died. The MPLA leadership never called themselves Stalinists. Infact, niether did the Chinese&#33;

The MPLA was a Marxist-Leninst, or, "Stalinist" party after the late 60&#39;s/70&#39;s. Simply because was dead does mean they did not support Stalin&#39;s actions.

And to say the Chinese revolution and Maoism are not influenced by Stalin is ridiculous. I suggest you read about Chairman Mao, he was what you call a Marxist-Leninist, or, "Stalinist" just applying Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin&#39;s ideas to Chinas massive amounts of small farmers, agricultural workers, etc.


How can you account for all this?

Firstly, those "thousands" of people who complain about being purged by Stalin are either counter-revolutionaries, subversionists, or criminals. What Stalin did was in defense of the revolution. However, Stalin did not really make these decisions in an autocratic way like you Anarchists and other bourgeois propagandists portray him. The Politburo and the Peoples Commission made all the decisions on executions, arrests, imprisonments etc. Marx agrees that it is justified to take any means necessary to defend the revolution.

I&#39;d like to say that the thousands of people you claim are against Stalin are outnumbered by everyone else in Russia. Stalin has a very good approval rating for someone that has been bashed and has had many lies told by Russian-American human rights© groups/imperialist propagandists. Even on the anniversary of his death when thousands of Russians when out to mourn old comrade Stalin, the group tried to realease pictures of the Ukrainian famine and put on commercials on the television saying "this is what Stalin did to Russia", when in reality, capitalist Russia doesn&#39;t collapse once and for all because of the unpenetrable base Lenin and Stalin have built

On to Morpeus


Actually, it&#39;s state capitalism. They implemented those things in Mexico and many other capitalist countries, too.

To compare the USSR under Lenin and Stalin is ridiculous.

Please explain whose ass you Anarchists pull the "State capitalist USSR" bit from? I don&#39;t see how it was state capitalist, labour was distributed equally (except for certain positions in civil service, which I agree was wrong, and have criticized it numorous times), nobody profitted or exploited the labour of peasants for their own gain, all industry was nationalised, there was no horrible wage differences in places of employment (no CEO&#39;s, distribution of wages in accordance to conditions of individual worker, etc), the government was not bureaucratic at all, and the work place was collectively run by workers and their elected delegates represented them. How can you say this is not the most Marxist Russia could become at the time&#33;? The workers had the liberty to criticize, elect, and praise their delegates. Nobody put guns to their head and said "hang up a portrait of me in your house or you will die".

Mexico on the other hand is a nation where a few powerful businessmen from the imperialist nations privately control the nation. These aristocrats charge rediculously high prices to attend Mexico&#39;s colleges, public healthcare is garbage, millions live on the street, children sleep on the streets, police commit crimes like rape and murder and get away with it, and up to a few years ago the people of Mexico did not elect any of their officials, it was a bureaucracy. Mexico is an American slave state where the United States exploits its peoples labour.

How can you compare this to the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin? Even the Soviet Union after Stalin was nothing like Mexico is today.


The Spanish Communist Party, following Moscow&#39;s orders, made Juan Negrin the Prime Minister of Spain. Negrin was a member of the capitalist class. They also broke up the anarchist collectives, by force, and restored private property.

Yes, Negrin was depostic. But I do not see how Moscow forced this. Negrin did help some communists get into power, but he was more of a moderate than a communist. I don&#39;t believe they made him prime minister, I think they made him head of the Republican army or something (I&#39;m not too sure). This is not the fault of "Stalinism" since many "Stalinists" opposed Negrin as well.

You know, the CNT was offered government power and authority. But the naive CNT was against any form of government, so they were not represented, hence they were destroyed. It is their fault they were destroyed.

You anarchists have been proven wrong from this experience. You see, the CNT&#39;s failure to align itself with the Barcelonian government (although at the time powerless, they were still anti-Franco and fighting the fascists) led to their destruction, not the capitalist Negrin, their lack of of leadership was a big mistake that made their struggle fail. You anarchists view anyone who has any capitalist ideas as an enemy, instead of a potential comrade, that is your downfall in all your movements.


How classist. You do realize that October would never have happened without those "superstitious" peasants? I see nothing wrong with the peasant revolution waged in Russia and the Bolsheviks should be condemned for their suppression of it. The peasants didn&#39;t practice private property, their revolution was based on their own communes & local soviets

I agree, the peasants are the ones who carried the revolution on their shoulders. However, you being an anarchist and opposed to addressing the Peoples needs, who would teach them to read, write, eliminate superstition and antagonisms amongst them and eveything else a Marxist is responsible for? Surely, they were not capable of all this, due to the fact that they were under a feudal system before the revolution.

The Kronsadt &#39;uprising&#39; by the bourgeois individualists needed to be crushed. This minority, a few thousand, wanted to destroy the revolutionary social programs that was improving the lives of millions of Soviets?


Actually, they concentrated power in the hands of the party. All opposition was suppressed, and any Soviet that won an opposition majority was forcibly disbanded.


I do not see a problem in having the bourgeois opposition surpressed. That is what the dictatorship of the proletariat is surpression of old, played out, failing bourgeois ideas. Anarchist bourgeois individualism, social democrats, petty-bourgeois republicanism, fascism, and capitalism are all the ideas of the ruling class and against the proletariat, the point of the revolutionary governmnet is to replace the bourgeois with proletariat. Class struggle was common in the USSR, so unfortunately we did not get to the stage of proletarians running themselves. Any Russian will tell you that he would rather have a revolutionary centralized Socialist with an adequate leader and efficient delegation, rather than an Anarchist mutualistic economy, with no state or state run programs.

The people elected their delegates, who were mostly workers or peasants with Marxist ideas. Now note, not all of them were staunch authoritarians, but they were communists. A socialist government calls for socialist contribution.

Bourgeois ideas and nature are not to be tolerated. If some soviets elected Anarchists as their representatives, than it shows their bourgeois individualist nature and how they would need to be changed into revolutionary members of the working class.

However, proletarian opposition was not surpressed. As I&#39;ve said before, the criticism of Lenin and Stalin was very common.


He ordered them shot and their organizations outlawed, in Spain and elsewhere.

So Stalin actually sent soviet troops to go and shoot random anarchists and other bourgeois sympathizers?

RedStar

I will get to your post tomorrow afternoon, I have to leave the computer at the moment.

[redstar2000]

You anarchists view anyone who has any capitalist ideas as an enemy, instead of a potential comrade, that is your downfall in all your movements.

"Anarchists" like Marx and Engels? They were rather notably unfriendly to people "with capitalist ideas".

On the other hand, Leninists have something of a history of cooperating with "progressive" bourgeoisie.

Not exactly something to brag about, is it?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

:ph34r: Bolshevika

I&#39;m not going to bother replying to all of your post. It&#39;s pointless, and quite frankly, boring. I will say this to you. And hopfully you wont take it the wrong way. You probably will, but try not too. It makes sense.

You have to stop talking as if you know everything there is to know about everything. you dont. Neither do I. your 14, im 21. We are absolutly no where near the level of intellectual capacity we will be at 40, 50 and 60. Your not even an adult yet, and I am just. So it is impossible for us to know everything. To even know a fraction there is to know about all this stuff. It isnt productive to sound off as if you know and understand everything...those wiser comrades know we dont. No matter how much we talk like it, think like it and shout about it.

When I was 14 I joined the socialist workers party. I thought I had everything figured our. I though I knew everything to know about freeing the working class. I use to argue with people (my own age) and win. I thought I was a savier, that I was going to single handedly change the world. Until I met a guy called Keith. I tried to debate this guy and it failed miserable. I fell flat on my arse. In front of all my friends who thought I was indestructable, this guy said things, and used words I just didnt understand. He made me look stupid. Then I realised I didnt know anything about it at all...i felt shitty...then I moved on...then I learnt a great deal from him. He introduced me to materialism, dialectics and the whole ideas about consciousness. He made me understand what oppression actually was. He made me understand what capitalism really was....admitadly I turned into an anarchist because of it which didnt go well with his Leninism, but we are still friends nonetheless.

-------------

You know more about marxism than I did at 14. But dont fall into the trap of believing you have the answers (maybe you dont think it...but you sound like you think it). Because you dont. Seven years later you will have a completely different perspective of life than you do now...I talk with my friends and we all say the same. How crazy we were when we were 14 and how different we are now. be aware that your mind will change dramatically over the next seven years.

If you think I am being a twat, fine...you might think I have know Idea what i am talking about...fine...but I was 14 once, and it wasnt that long ago&#33;

[Bolshevika]

And is that the situation we face now?

If there is a proletarian revolution in western Europe or north America, is the "main danger" that power will fall into the hands of "illiterate, hungry, and superstitious" peasants? Is a Leninist-Stalinist party "needed" to "avert" that "terrible fate"?

Actually, I do fear the American people getting political power, why? Because they have no class consciousness, they are extremely well indoctrined, and frankly, are cowardly and have no revolutionary feelings or thoughts. I believe your anarchist revolution will never happen here in the West, my "Leninism" has a chance. Why? Because the American people need the government nanny to clean up after their messes, provide security, social benefits, education, etc.

Actually, I don&#39;t plan on instating my ideas in the West. Frankly, I see most of the people in the west as the enemy and as the class oppressors (except maybe some of the negros, homeless, and women who are oppressed). I believe on bringing my ideas were the soil of revolution is fertile, where material conditions are good, where mere social evolution and "reforms" are going nowhere, where capitalism claims its most victims. The third world is the answer.

I plan on bringing my "evildoer Stalinist" ideas to the areas where they are needed and wanted. Peru, Colombia, Nepal, all are experiencing Peoples Revolutions. I believe my Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideas are getting far more support amongst the toilers than your anarchist ideas, am I right? Do you know why? Because Anarchism is bourgeois individualism, and the People in general don&#39;t want individualism, they want a home, stable employment, and their patriotism back (which has been stolen by the capitalistcorporate snakes).


In any event, they never got the chance. It was your "hero" Lenin and your "hero" Stalin--and even your "arch-demon" Trotsky--who all agreed on the absolute supremacy of the Communist Party, period. The only honest word in your phrase "democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants" is dictatorship.


Thank you Goebbels.

There certainly were some bureaucratic elements in Soviet democracy, but that is due to Russia&#39;s conditions at the time. Note that other democratic Marxist-Leninists states inspired by the Soviet Union (China, Albania, Cuba) have slightly different systems. Again, this is due to their post-revolution conditions.


But if anyone is guilty of terminological inexactitude, it is yourself. There was never anything "communist" about the Communist Party of the Soviet Union or any of its international franchises. At best, it claimed to be "for communism" in some misty, far-off "future"...bearing precisely the same relationship to practical affairs as "the return of Jesus"...zero

Well, we call ourselves communists because we one day hope to achieve communism. I think that is pretty clear, no?

Another thing, are you one of those PLP people who want to go straight from capitalism to communism? Well, if you study history, you can see that is suicide (See: Asian experiments in communism)


If you were honest, you would call yourselves Leninist-Stalinists or perhaps Leninist-Maoists. And you would never be permitted to use the word "communist"...what you actually intend to establish is a variant of "socialism" at best...and pretty undemocratic "socialism" at that. Your party and its "great leader" will rule and everyone else will obey...or else&#33;

How do I know this? Because this is what you praise and hold up as a "shining example" to us all.[/Quote]

Indeed. I call myself a communist because I hope to one day achieve communism. Lenin outlined a new phase to Marx&#39;s steps to communism, Lenin added imperialism as an addition to capitalism.

First we must overcome imperialism, then we talk about communism. There will be no way in hell that the imperialists will allow any country with more than a million people run a communist nation. See: every communist revolution on the planet. There has been imperialist military intervention in all of them, if it wasn&#39;t for authoritarianism the revolutions would&#39;ve been overthrown. That is the Anarchists problem, he does not see the state as a useful tool for abolishing the bourgeoisie class. As Marx says: "Anarchists do not realize that a revolution is infact an authoritarian act".

I&#39;d like to ask, why do Anarchists insist on fighting in the name of Marx and Engels? Haven&#39;t they made it very clear that they believe in authoritarianism and think Anarchists and other "anti-authoritarian" bourgeois individualists are in fact the enemy of the proletariat?

If anything, you Anarchists have no sense of class consciousness or unity, that is why you always fail to win the support of the majority of the workers.


Well, when does this happen? Do you have fresh ideas already? What are they? Do you intend to produce fresh ideas in the future? Then why don&#39;t you begin to do so...and quit spending all your time re-hashing ancient battles.

Yes, I have fresh ideas, but the problem is, they are simply additions to the bases Marx, Engels, Blanquist, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao have built. In the end, there are still fallacies I am trying to improve, but they are minor ones, frankly I have trouble finding alternatives.

Idealists and sentimentalists like you Mr Red Star have out of this world ideas that are impossible to execute in a world of state dependent humans. I am particularly amazed at the fact that you claim to follow Marx and Engels? Maybe philosophically you do, but certainly not ideologically. I know my ideas aren&#39;t the exact Marx-Engels dogma, due to the fact that unique situations call for unique measures, but they are pretty damn close, a lot closer than yours or Bakunins, do you not agree?



You hate it when people joke that all you guys do is sit around and plan who to kill...and when. But whenever you speak, you rarely miss a chance to talk about "Trotskyite-fascists" or "anarchist-fascists" in tones that strongly imply a murderous intent. Indeed, it&#39;s almost as if the thing that you really admire about Stalin is that he was such an "efficient" and "effective" killer.

When I say things like "that icepick looked good on Trotsky eh?" I am kidding. I do not support the death penalty for criminals. However, subversionists are a special case. Some subversionists are so well indoctrined that even if you put a gun to their head they will not change. So that leaves us no choice.

I believe Stalin held similar views. Anarchists and Trotskyists are dogmatic, revisionist (kind of an oxymoron huh?), idealist, and selfish. I believe the anarchists and Trotskyists should be given a chance to state their ideas to the Politburo/central comittee, if they make any good points, we take them up, if they do not make any good points and stick to their regular rhetoric, then they should keep their ideas to themselves or write them down if they wish and should be prohibited from spreading propaganda in public (this applies to all opposing parties). You see, I can fit your individualist "freedoms" into my heart, I&#39;m not the stereotypical "Stalinist big brother" who wants to butcher the working class and jail jews (some guy on the history channel seems to believe this).


Personally, I think that Stalin&#39;s infamy has been wildly exaggerated by the bourgeois media and by academics and politicians who were/are explicitly anti-communist. His real crimes and fuckups were bad enough. And, of course, he had lots of help...mainly from the secret police.

I believe he took the necessary measures.

As for the NKVD, I disagree with some of the things they did too. They are an organization seperate from Stalin and carried out many purges on their own behalf rather than Stalin&#39;s.


The politics were not correct and led directly to the crimes and fuckups...that&#39;s my view and the view of many who are neither "Trotskyists", "anarchists", or "bourgeois".

You have not and cannot defend the politics of Stalin in either Marxist or humanitarian terms...all you can do is respond with abuse.

The Soviet Union is a massive territory, the biggest in the world, how else is Stalin going to keep control of his nation?

Most who were executed were Trots, Anarchists, Fascists, or bourgeoisie. The Soviet governmet gave these people a fair trial, with judges sometimes from the western countries. Most who were executed were warned and told to stop their illegal actions, they didnt&#39; stop so they payed.

In Marxist terms, Stalin did everything possible to defend the proletariat and give them a sucessful workers state, with the ability to elect delegates, run factories (although the state did impose quotas), run collectives in a democratic fashion, the international communist movement was strongest under his leadership, he fought hard against racism/sexism, and did many other things Marx called for.

In humanitarian terms, Stalin did his best to address the needs of the people and lived a simple life. He even got Americans to flee to the Soviet union during the great depression.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Nydar you are assuming that money exists, in true communism (not sure about anachism) money does not exist

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 11:21 PM
Nydar you are assuming that money exists, in true communism (not sure about anachism) money does not exist
In anarcho-communism & anarcho-primitivism money would be abolished. In other forms of anarchism it would still exist, or something similar to it (eg. labor certificates) would exist.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 04:52 AM
I don&#39;t know where you Anarchists get this about Marx disagreeing with his very authoritarian ideas if he lived today. In fact, he would possibly be more authoritarian today.
For the record, most of us don&#39;t. In my opinion Marx planted the seeds of Leninist tyranny with his advocacy of dictatorship and centralism.


Please explain whose ass you Anarchists pull the "State capitalist USSR" bit from?

Anarchists have been calling the USSR state-capitalist since 1918. Earlier in this thread I explained what capitalism is:


Capitalism is not merely the voluntary exchange of goods & services. That is what markets are. Capitalism is an economic system based on wage-labor. Under capitalism the majority of the population has to sell their labor in order to make enough money to survive. The means of production (factories, mines, land, etc.) are monopolized by the capitalist class (who own them), everyone else sells their labor to this class of people. We have to sell our labor because the capitalists own the means of production, we are denied access to them. Capitalism is hierarchical - you have bosses telling wage-laborers what to do. It is also highly centralized - look at any corporation, it&#39;s a miniature centrally planned economy. Capitalism is one form of class system. Class is economic hierarchy, a social relation in which some have power over others with regard to economics.

The USSR was state-capitalist because most people (the working class) had to sell their labor to the state in order to survive. In state monopoly capitalism everyone sells their labor to the state, instead of to corporations as we do in corporate capitalism. It is still a form of capitalism.


nobody profitted or exploited the labour of peasants for their own gain

Actually, they did. Ever heard of grain requisitions? Forced collectivization?


all industry was nationalised

A key characteristic of state monopoly capitalism.


there was no horrible wage differences in places of employment (no CEO&#39;s, distribution of wages in accordance to conditions of individual worker, etc)

Actually, there was. Numerous Bolsheviks attest to this, including Alexandra Kollontai - the only senior Bolshevik leader to support Lenin&#39;s April Theses from the very beginning. There was lots of economic inequality from the beginning.


the government was not bureaucratic at all

Not according to Lenin. Ever read his later writings?


the work place was collectively run by workers and their elected delegates represented them.

Actually the workplace was run by managers appointed by the central authorities. The elected factory committees were disbanded over several years, starting in March 1918. Workers had no real say in the running of the factory.


The workers had the liberty to criticize, elect, and praise their delegates. Nobody put guns to their head and said "hang up a portrait of me in your house or you will die".

They put a gun to the head of anyone who publicly criticized the party, and frequently pulled the trigger. If workers expressed anything that disagreed with the party they would be jailed. They did not have the liberty to criticize the policies of the government. They "elected" representatives but could only elect people approved by the party. When a majority of those opposed to the party won the elections in Spring 1918 the Bolsheviks disbanded all opposition controlled soviets. They suppressed democracy. All of this is supported by many Bolshevik sources.


Yes, Negrin was depostic. But I do not see how Moscow forced this.

The Communist Party strongly supported Negrin. They were acting on orders from Moscow, this has been proven by the opening of the Soviet Archives. Go find the book "Spain Betrayed", it has translations of some of these documents (you can ignore the stupid right-wing commentary that accompanies the translations). And yes, they did make him Prime Minister after the Maydays. You are incorrect, the CNT did accept positions in the government, that was a huge mistake that allowed the Marxist-Leinists to destroy the revolution. Initially, they did align themselves with the Barcelona government and helped revive it - this was part of their downfall. You don&#39;t know what your&#39;e talking about.


you being an anarchist and opposed to addressing the Peoples needs,

No I&#39;m not. That&#39;s a more apt description of Leninists.


who would teach them to read, write, eliminate superstition and antagonisms amongst them and eveything else a Marxist is responsible for? ... Surely, they were not capable of all this, due to the fact that they were under a feudal system before the revolution.

People who know how to read, write, etc. You don&#39;t need a dictatorship, hierarchy or even Marxism to do that. They were obviously capable of throwing off enough supersition to wage the revolution. Marxists had no real following among the peasants because of their anti-peasant prejudices.


The Kronsadt &#39;uprising&#39; by the bourgeois individualists needed to be crushed. This minority, a few thousand, wanted to destroy the revolutionary social programs that was improving the lives of millions of Soviets?

First of all, the Kronstaders weren&#39;t a minority. They were part of a large wave of unrest, including many strikes & hundreds of peasant uprisings, against the Bolsheviks. The majority was against the Bolsheviks. Furthermore, they weren&#39;t "bourgeois individualists" they were the folks who put the Bolsheviks in power. They were militant revolutionaries. The Bolsheviks were calling them the "backbone" and the "pride and glory" of the revolution until they rebelled. The quality of life for the common person was much worse under the Bolsheviks, this is admitted by Bolshevik sources. The Kronstaders were acting to defend the revolution against the Bolsheviks, who were the real minority destroying the revolution. The program of the Kronstdat rebellion was:


1. In view of the fact that the present Soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, to immediately hold new elections to the Soviets by secret ballot, with freedom of pre-election agitation for all workers and peasants.

2. Freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, anarchists and left socialist parties.

3. Freedom of assembly of both trade unions and peasant associations.

4. To convene not later than March 10th, 1921 a non-party Conference of workers, soldiers and sailors of the city of Petrograd, of Kronstadt, and of Petrograd province.

5. To free all political prisoners of socialist parties, and also all workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors imprisoned in connection with worker and peasant movements.

6. To elect a Commission for the review of the cases of those held in prisons and concentration camps.

7. To abolish all POLITOTDELS, since no single party should be able to have such privileges for the propaganda of its ideas and receive from the state the means for these ends. In their place must be established locally elected cultural-educational commissions, for which the state must provide resources.

8. To immediately remove all anti-smuggling roadblock detachments.

9. To equalize the rations of all laborers, with the exception of those in work injurious to health.

10. To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all military units, and also the various guards kept in factories and plants by the communists, and if such guards or detachments are needed, they can be chosen in military units from the companies, and in factories and plants by the discretion of the workers.

11. To give the peasants full control over their own land, to do as they wish, and also to keep cattle, which must be maintained and managed by their own strength, that is, without using hired labor.

12. We appeal to all military units, and also to the comrade cadets to lend their support to our resolution.

13. We demand that all resolutions be widely publicized in the press.

14. To appoint a travelling bureau for control.

15. To allow free handicraft manufacture by personal labor.

I also encourage you to read their newspaper, you can find an english translation at http://www.struggle.ws/russia/izvestiia_krons1921.html How is this "bourgoeis individualism"?&#33;? These were the same people who helped put the Bolsheviks in power, militant revolutionaries, who now accused the Bolsheviks of betraying the revolution.

You contradict yourself by saying you have no problem with suppressing the "bourgeois opposition" (meaning any ideas that disagree with the party, including anarchism) yet simultaniously claiming that the workers&#39; had freedom to criticize. If the workers expressed "bourgeois" ideas (ie. ideas that disagree with the party) they would be repressed, meaning they did not have have the freedom to criticize. Proletarian opposition most certainly was suppressed. Lenin himself admitted this and defended it, he claimed repression had to be directed not only at the bourgeoisie but also at "wavering" elements of the proletariat (meaning elements of the proletariat who didn&#39;t agree with his policies). "revolutionary coercion is bound to be employed towards the wavering and unstable elements among the masses themselves." - Lenin, Collected Works Vol. 42, p. 170 You really have no idea what your&#39;e talking about, you don&#39;t even know the standard Marxist-Leninist line on some of the things brought up here.


So Stalin actually sent soviet troops to go and shoot random anarchists and other bourgeois sympathizers?

No, he ordered the Spanish Communist party to do that. And they did.

[Guest1]

morpheus, I&#39;d just like to thank you for bringing alot of information to this site on issues that have rarely been mentioned.

I have reached what most say in the pattern at che-lives is the plateau, where I&#39;m supposed to have learned pretty much everything important or interesting that I ever will from here. but yeah, I&#39;m suddenly quite interested.

[The Feral Underclass]

Morpheus

A great post comrade. I would like to ask some questions if that&#39;s ok. Why do you oppose Marxism so much? Is there a scrap of Marxist theory you think is worth anything?

I always new Soviet Russia was bad, but not in such a stark and disturbing way. These leninists really have got it wrong. I have never seen this Kronstadt demands. Where did you get it from? Is it also possible for you to give me your sources on the following comment:


Actually the workplace was run by managers appointed by the central authorities. The elected factory committees were disbanded over several years, starting in March 1918. Workers had no real say in the running of the factory.

Again, a great post. You have shown the way&#33;

[Misodoctakleidist]

I&#39;ve been trying to find a detailed description of anarchist theory, could any of you recomend any good books on anarchism?

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 08:32 AM
I&#39;ve been trying to find a detailed description of anarchist theory, could any of you recomend any good books on anarchism?
Look no further than Demanding The Impossible by Peter Marshall (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0002178559/qid%3D1070414797/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/104-2837231-9969560). It is the most detailed I have ever come across, apart from The Anarchist FAQ. (http://www.anarchist-action.org/sections/anarchism/anarchistfaq)

[redstar2000]

I believe your anarchist [sic] revolution will never happen here in the West, my "Leninism" has a chance. Why? Because the American people need the government nanny to clean up after their messes, provide security, social benefits, education, etc.

That&#39;s certainly a novel analysis...one that I&#39;ve never seen anyone make before. What makes it interesting is the fact that conservative political groups enjoy a wide appeal on the basis of promising to "shrink" the "nanny state".


Actually, I don&#39;t plan on instating [sic] my ideas in the West. Frankly, I see most of the people in the west as the enemy and as the class oppressors (except maybe some of the negros, homeless, and women who are oppressed).

Well, there you are, then. If the working classes in the west are your "enemy", then why should I or anyone who lives in the west give a rat&#39;s ass what you think?


I believe on bringing my ideas were the soil of revolution is fertile, where material conditions are good, where mere social evolution and "reforms" are going nowhere, where capitalism claims its most victims. The third world is the answer.

I&#39;m sure they are all awaiting your arrival with feverish impatience.

May I suggest a deep suntan and proficiency in a "third world" language as minimum requirements?

Enjoy your trip.


Because Anarchism is bourgeois individualism, and the People in general don&#39;t want individualism, they want a home, stable employment, and their patriotism back (which has been stolen by the capitalist corporate snakes).

Some anarchists are "bourgeois individualists"; the vast majority are not.

But your statement really reeks of nostalgia...like something from a dummyvision show back in the 1950s.

"Revolutions" that seek to restore "a golden age" are almost always if not always reactionary in content.

And patriotism? Even Lenin himself would find that a bit embarrassing.

Ever hear of proletarian internationalism?


Thank you Goebbels.

Shouldn&#39;t that be "Comrade Goebbels"? :lol:


Well, we call ourselves communists because we one day hope to achieve communism. I think that is pretty clear, no?

No.

Ritual declarations don&#39;t mean very much when the actual practice is exactly the opposite.


Another thing, are you one of those PLP people who want to go straight from capitalism to communism?

No, I&#39;m not one of "those PLP people".

Yes, I think we should completely bypass the so-called "socialist" stage and proceed at once to establishing the new society on a communist basis.

That&#39;s why I think I&#39;m really entitled to use the word communist and you and Leninists in general are not.

(The PLP, by the way, have a rather peculiar definition of communism. They plan to abolish the state and replace it with their party. They also have extremely "traditional values"...you might like them more than you think.)


Idealists and sentimentalists like you Mr Red Star have out of this world ideas that are impossible to execute in a world of state dependent humans.

"State dependent humans"? What interesting "sociological" notions you have. Is that your idea or did you copy it from someone?

Keep in mind the fact that for most of the 150,000 or so years of our species existence, we lived without a state.

Do you suggest that a recent "mutation" in the human genome has rendered that no longer possible?


When I say things like "that icepick looked good on Trotsky eh?" I am kidding.

Are you surprised that people don&#39;t find it very funny?


Anarchists and Trotskyists are dogmatic, revisionist (kind of an oxymoron huh?), idealist, and selfish.

Not to mention their notorious bad breath and body odor. :lol:

You suggest that my ideas are "out of this world"--what planet do you live on?

Or what era? I think you would be much happier in 1937 (roughly)...but getting there is the hard part.

At least you are learning the language.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Pete]

:lol:

A few minor nit-picking posts. Oh Bolshevika you lay yourself open for whatever comes your way, my friend.


reactionary Anarchists?

Do you know what the term reactionary means?

1) To react to events that happen (seems to remind me of Lenin running to Russia after the peasants revolted), or
2) One who wants to move to a past way of life.

Anarchists want to move forwards, although many of our ideals can be seen in the distant past. I recongize that human mentality has changed, but forward is the only direction possible under the linear view of time.


Your Anarchist is nothing like what Marx says in regards to socialism. It is in fact confusing you call yourself a communist, why not call yourself a &#39;punk rocker&#39; instead like the rest of your anarchist friends?


Communists want communism. Punk rockers want punk rock, or make punk rock. Anarchists want anarchy, which is by definition communism. I don&#39;t know how YOU call yourself communist. You seem to be looking directly at socialism until time unknowable...


you being an anarchist and opposed to addressing the Peoples needs

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Frankly, I see most of the people in the west as the enemy and as the class oppressors

So abandon your home to fight another fight. I do think that the West is sustained by oppressing the rest of the world, but there is alot that can be done here. Perhaps you could invest some time raising the workers consious instead of *****ing about it? That is what is called &#39;productive.&#39;


As Marx says

Why are you so infatuated with what Marx said? He is long dead and ignorant of the conditions of today. Don&#39;t you think using your own mind would be better than relying on the words of a man who died in the 1880&#39;s? Come on now, look in the mere and see the dogma.


Anarchists have no sense of class consciousness or unity

:lol: Anarchists, in my experience, are those with the most superior class consiousness and view of class unity. An anarchist sees the root of exploitation and tries to enlighten everyone else on it, instead of simply trying to place another system in the place of the old one. Where is the class consciousness and unity in Leninism? It seems you leninists want to run the show yourself, giving propagandic treats to the people. Reminds me of western &#39;democracy.&#39;


Stalin did everything possible to defend the proletariat

I think the fundamental problem is shown here. Stalin did not believe the proletariat could defend themselves.


-Pete

[Morpheus]

Che y Marijuana, your&#39;e welcome. Glad you like my posts. :D

Anarchist Tension, I&#39;m strongly opposed to Leninism because it has a history shooting anarchists in the back and in practice is little more than a left-wing version of Fascism. Most non-Leninist Marxists are theoretically potential allies, but there&#39;s a wide variety of different kinds of non-Leninist Marxism, from closet Leninists to people like RedStar, who is basically an anarchist with an identity crisis. I&#39;m against Marxism because most of it&#39;s theories are wrong and because in practice it has always lead to either Leninism or reformism. I used to be a lot more sympathetic to Marxist theories but the more I read of Marx & his critics the less and less of his theories seem valid. I ditched what I still believed of Marxist economics after reading "Debunking Economics" by Steve Keen, and I ditched what I still had of Marxist history after studying state autonomy theory. The biggest problem with Marx was his politics. Except for a short period in his younger years, Marx was very authoritarian and strongly advocated centralization & state power. His economic program was little more than state capitalism. This opened the door to Leninism, which was the natural evolution of Marxism once it came to power via a social revolution. I don&#39;t think *everything* Marx said was wrong, just most of it. And most of what he said which wasn&#39;t wrong was built off of other people. Some Ultra-Left "Marxists" like Anton Pannokek have good things to say, much more so than Marx himself. The main reason people read Marx today is because a bunch of totalitarian states used him to legitimize his rule (which is what truly made him famous), without Leninism Marxism would be as popular as Blanquism.

"Soviet" Russia implemented Red Fascism in late 1918, IMO, and stayed that way until Gorbachev. The Kronstadt demands I took from the first issue of their newspaper. I posted a link to an english translation of their newspaper earlier. Translations of their demands also appear in numerous books on the subject including The Kronstadt Commune by Ida Mett, Kronstadt 1921 by Paul Avrich, The Bolshevik Myth by Alexander Berkman, The Guillotine at Work by GP Maximoff and many others. Section H of the anarchists FAQ also has a well researched segment on the Kronstadt Rebellion. The bit about factory committees & managers is in many books as well, including Before Stalinism by Samuel Farber, Red Petrograd and others. The pamphlet "The Bolsheviks and Workers&#39; Control" also discusses it, you can read that pamphlet online here (http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/2163/bolintro.html). There are a number of good anarchist rescources about the Russian Revolution online at http://www.struggle.ws/russia.html

Misodoctakleidist, here is a reading list from the back of one of my pamhplets:

Introductions:
Anarchy: A Graphic Guide by Clifford Harper
ABC of Anarchism by Alexander Berkman
Anarchism by Daniel Guerin

Theory:
Anarchy in Action by Colin Ward
Quiet Rumors edited by Darkstar
Anarchism and the Black Revolution by Lorenzo Komboa Ervin
What is Property? By Joseph Proudhon
Bakunin on Anarchism edited by Sam Dolgoff
Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin
Mutual Aid by Peter Kropotkin
Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman
Red Emma Speaks edited by Alix Shulman
Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolph Rocker
Nationalism and Culture by Rudolph Rocker
Ecology of Freedom by Murray Bookchin
Post-Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin
Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky
What Uncle Sam Really Wants by Noam Chomsky
Propaganda by Jacques Ellul
Politics of Individualism by L. Susan Brown
Instead of a Book by Benjamin Tucker
The Ego and it’s Own by Max Stirner
Marx: A Radical Critique by Alan Carter
Against the MegaMachine by David Watson
Webs of Power by Starhawk

Historical:
Third Revolution by Murray Bookchin
A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn
The Great French Revolution by Peter Kropotkin
Against His-story, Against Leviathan&#33; by Fredy Perlman
The Cuban Revolution by Sam Dolgoff
Living My Life by Emma Goldman
Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution by Arif Dirlik

Spanish Revolution:
Spanish Civil War by Antony Beevor
Homage To Catalonia by George Orwell
Anarchist Collectives edited by Sam Dolgoff
CNT in the Spanish Revolution by Jose Peirats
Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War by Robert Alexander
Free Women of Spain by Martha Ackelsberg
Lessons of the Spanish Revolution by Vernon Richards

Russian & Ukrainian Revolutions:
The Unknown Revolution by Voline
History of the Makhnovist Movement by Peter Arshinov
Nestor Makhno in the Russian Revolution by Michael Malet
My Disillusionment in Russia by Emma Goldman
Guillotine at Work by GP Maximoff

Fiction:
The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin
Anarchist Farm by Jane Doe
News from Nowhere by William Morris

That&#39;s probably more than you wanted. Demanding the Impossible is euro-American centric, IMO, and it&#39;s written by a non-anarchist as you can tell by the title.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 02:06 PM
That&#39;s probably more than you wanted. Demanding the Impossible is euro-American centric, IMO, and it&#39;s written by a non-anarchist as you can tell by the title.
Well, he asked for a book, not a &#39;hundred&#39; of them. ;) Actually, Marshall has some good knowledge of anarchism, but from the 30 or so pages that I have read (I have just started), there have been quite a few terms that I wouldn&#39;t at all use, and would make a few adjustments. On the top of my head, to pick an example, he claims that anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism. And I myself am disappointed that he didn&#39;t put &#39;Impossible&#39; in quotations.

I am going to try some of those fictional books on anarchism. I am interested in seeing what they are like.

[redstar2000]

I ditched what I still believed of Marxist economics after reading "Debunking Economics" by Steve Keen...

Ka-ching&#33; Another &#036;1.00 to the inter-library loan program from me.

And, I suppose I must write some kind of review of it, too. :o

Damn&#33;

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Morpheus]

They charge you for inter-library loans? That sucks. Here they usually only charge me for out of state ILLs. FYI, debunking economics is mainly an attack on NeoClassical (&#39;free market&#39;) economics. It has one good chapter critiquing Marxist economics, and a good chapter outlining the alternatives to neoclassicalism. The author is basically a social democrat. He&#39;s got a website with excerpts from the book out there. It&#39;s an excellent critique of neoclassical economics, best I&#39;ve ever read, and is a good starting place for thinking systematically about economics and the various different paradigms.

When you get the chance, you may also want to check out States and Social Revolutions by Theda Skocpal. It has an anti-anarchist bias, but if you ignore that it is a good analysis of the French, Russian & Chinese revolutions from the perspective of State Autonomy Theory. An interesting alternative to the usual radical analysises.

Comrade James, Impossible isn&#39;t in quotes because the author believes anarchism is impossible. The fictional books are utopian fiction, basically. They tell a story set in an anarchist society. LeGuin&#39;s book is a good sci-fi book about a futuristic anarchist colony, Anarchist Farm is a sequel to Orwell&#39;s Animal farm, and William Morris&#39;s book is a classic utopian fiction work written party as a response to the more authoritarian visions by Bellamy & others.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 04:39 PM
Comrade James, Impossible isn&#39;t in quotes because the author believes anarchism is impossible.
I know, but I still express disappointment anyhow, since there have been extremely small glimpses that modern anarchism can work.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 07:18 AM
Man, it seems us Stalin supporters are to blame for everything wrong that happens in the world eh? We are to blame for the defeat of the Anarchist army in spain, we are to blame for the rise of Hitler in Germany, we are to blame for all of World war II, we are to blame for the collapse of the Soviet Union we can&#39;t do anything right can we? Well it&#39;s our leaders fault, who we sing in praise to every day around a campfire and plot on killing everyone who disagrees with us.

Can you tell me how "Stalinists" are to blame for the slaughter of communists (we are communists whether you like it or not by the way) and anarchists?
LOL a stalinist who has finally got it... well done, the first step to redemption, even though it was only sarcasm.

In answer to your question read "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell.

[shakermaker]

Nydar you are assuming that money exists, in true communism (not sure about anachism) money does not exist
money=shit,
but I can&#39;t imagine world without money, if money would not exist then what? ...back to middle-age and trade squirrelskins? :lol:
so, what do you mean when you say that in true communism money doesn&#39;t exist? maybe I&#39;m stupid &#39;cos asking this...but anyway.

[redstar2000]

but I can&#39;t imagine world without money, if money would not exist then what? ...back to middle-age and trade squirrelskins?

I recall a bourgeois economist suggesting once that if money did not exist, we&#39;d all have to take a goat or a chicken to the supermarket. :lol:

Seriously: in communist society, "stuff" is produced for use, not exchange.

You "take" what you need for free; and you "give" what you can for free.

This is easy to grasp for consumer goodies...more difficult to work out for "big" items, like electric power plants. This doesn&#39;t mean that "big" projects wouldn&#39;t take place at all...but it does imply that they would be rarer because they would require the agreement and cooperation of a great many people. You couldn&#39;t just "ram one through" the way it happens now...completely disregarding the vast majority of people that the project will affect.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Guest1]

just a question.

safety

what would guranteeing that look like in an anarcho communist society? Not talking about theft really, cause that&#39;s something that is likly to be pretty rare when everyone is provided what they need.

more like murder and rape. how would we replace the police? would there be an organized neighbourhood watch along with heightened communal sense of duty to help one another? would there be a volunteer force that is replaced every month? kind of like a guard duty for everyone that guarantees that no one is using it to their advantage?

unarmed? armed with non-lethal weapons like pepperspray and tasers?

[SonofRage]

Wow. I&#39;m always amazed by the delusions of Stalinists. :lol:

[Morpheus]

Short answer about murder, etc.: The abolition of hierarchy will cause most "crime" (murder, etc.) to disappear. Most of it is caused by hierarchy, including economic inequality & patriarchy. Killing people in robberies, etc. would dissapear with the end of the class system. What little is left would be better handled by the local community than by a centralized authority.

Long answer: See http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci58

[RedCeltic]

One major mistake I see people make often, and which has come up in this thread is defining capitalism as "the free exchange of goods between two parties." That, is not captialism... that is trade. If that was all there was to capitalism than every social group ever in existance would have been, and could possibly be... capitalist.

Rather, capitalism relies on two things.... wage labor and privete property. If I sell Malte something I made myself I am not a capitalist, I&#39;m only trading something and getting the full profit from my labor.

Yet if I sell Crazy Pete something I paid Malte to make... and only give malte a small portion of the profit, than I&#39;m a capitalist... and excerting athority over Malte.

Anarchists believe everything... land, labor and government should be cooperatively controled by direct democracy... which means it can only work among small groups of people.

[Morpheus]

Anarchists believe government should be abolished. Just because you ASSERT anarchism can only exist among small groups of people doesn&#39;t make it true. You have presented no evidence to support such a position. In the Spanish Revolution anarchists were able to implement anarchy on a large scale.

And I don&#39;t see why private property is necessary to have capitalism. Most capitalist societies have a combination of private and public (state) property.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 5 2003, 07:05 PM
just a question.

safety

what would guranteeing that look like in an anarcho communist society? Not talking about theft really, cause that&#39;s something that is likly to be pretty rare when everyone is provided what they need.

more like murder and rape. how would we replace the police? would there be an organized neighbourhood watch along with heightened communal sense of duty to help one another? would there be a volunteer force that is replaced every month? kind of like a guard duty for everyone that guarantees that no one is using it to their advantage?

unarmed? armed with non-lethal weapons like pepperspray and tasers?
Murder and rape are unavoidable, having a huge police will not avoid crimes but it will only punish them harder. I think people will try to take justice by their own hands, and a few people may carry weapons, they would be elected by the whole society, but i can&#39;t say how it will be because it&#39;s hard to determinate wow will people organise themselves. You can only guess.

[DEPAVER]

The word "anarchism" seems to cause so much apolexy amongst its percipients, why not just replace it with democracy? Democracy is government for the people, by the people and of the people.

Remember, anarchism doesn&#39;t necessarily mean no governance, it simply means there is no centralized, hierarchical, top-down system. People make decisions about their lives and their communities within communities free of oppression and coercion.

Now comes the tough question: How do we change our current system (speaking of the U.S.) into a democracy?

Violent revolution won&#39;t work. This just replaces one repressive regime with another. You cannot create a democracy from the top down; that&#39;s antithetical to the function of a democracy.

There are two ways this could go, or a combination of the two:

1) Through a long process of education and experimentation, the people can develop systems of local self-reliance, beginning with existing institutions such as neighborhood associations and cooperatives and building outward into the community, city, state and nation on a decentralized, non-hierarchical
model. At best this would take a long time, but look how far our present system has come in merely 200 years&#33;

2) Much more likely and much sooner: diminishing availability of world supplies of natural resources, specifically water and oil, will collide with military support of business and capitalist expansion, creating world recession and eventually severe economic depression. Expansionist economies and governments will be forced to pull back and reconsolidate, forcing citizens to work within local sustainable economies for everyday needs. As the centralized government drops social programs, public support will be picked up at the local autonomous level. Simple survival skills will replace centralized social systems, thereby reducing reliance on centralized political organization and planning.

The combination of these two threads, both readily apparent in today&#39;s world, should encourage local self-reliance and self-government within the next 50 years or less. The visible failings of a centralized political and
economic structure will encourage decentralized self-government in semi-autonomous local communities.

[Pete]

Welcome Depaver, I have no comment except agreeance with your setiments. It is good to have you here

-Pete

[DEPAVER]

Thanks, Pete.
I&#39;m impressed with the level of knowledge and passion I&#39;ve seen on this site&#33; It&#39;s great to see anarchists, students of Marx, socialists, environmentalists and activists of all stripes all on one site exchanging ideas.

I&#39;ve posted a lot today, perhaps too much. If so, I apologize, but I have much to say&#33;

I have to give credit to my son for pointing me to this site. He is wise beyond his thirteen years.

Kind regards....

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 07:51 PM
Anarchists believe government should be abolished. Just because you ASSERT anarchism can only exist among small groups of people doesn&#39;t make it true. You have presented no evidence to support such a position. In the Spanish Revolution anarchists were able to implement anarchy on a large scale.

And I don&#39;t see why private property is necessary to have capitalism. Most capitalist societies have a combination of private and public (state) property.
Well there are many different kinds of anarchists aren’t there. I was manly talking about the collectivist contingent that I am mostly familiar with here in Albany, where local anarchists live a communal lifestyle. And I’m not saying it doesn’t work at all… I’ve seen it work among these groups. People in the collective have basically broken themselves off from the capitalist society (as much as possible at any rate) and they don’t buy anything&#33; However if it wasn’t for a wealthy woman who donated them a house (and still pays the taxes on it) they would still be in need of money (which they go without.)

But as a member of the IWW… I am still a big fan and supporter of Syndicalism and believe if there was a way towards massed based successful anarchism; it would be by the workers taking control through one big industrial union

As for private property… well, because government buildings, parks and roadways may be publicly owned, does not make the capitalist system any fewer dependants on private property. To say that, is as if saying that because the Aztecs had markets that it was a capitalist system.

The fact of the matter is… that property is a large source of income. Real estate is a big business is it not? Private property is the reason why there are 3-4 houses or buildings that are boarded up in this city to every homeless person. It’s why all the independently owned shops in this city (Albany, NY) have closed up, and the property is so expensive in the suburbs that only major nation wide chains can open up there. Private property is why the overwhelming majority of poor are lumped together (mostly minorities) in one economically depressed section of the city.

And… realistically… is land owned by the city, state, or federal government truly “Public”? If Yellowstone National Park is “Public Property” than why are they talking about selling it off to developers? And… Why does the city kick homeless people out of the park? If it’s “Public” aren’t they sleeping on their own land?

[Guest1]

well, I agree that most crime is caused by the gap between rich and poor.

but what of just pure crime. by people like GW, people with blood-thirsty instincts. There would still be a few like that. there would still be a few for utter disregard for the wellbeing of others.

my question is one of probing, not of rebuttal. I still haven&#39;t read the link you put up, but I&#39;m assuming it doesn&#39;t address having a guard shift from amongst the community. so I&#39;ll ask more specifically.

would it be wrong to have some sort of group of people who would patrol, with every adult in the society getting a turn? I guess they would either be unarmed, or armed with pepperspray and handcuffs. this group would just be normal people with other areas of work, and they would just do this job as if it was taking out the trash.

[Guest1]

woah, never mind. it seems that the article addresses quite a bit of what I raised, and even the taking turns.

thanks alot.