The ABC of Anarchism

[peaccenicked]

As someone who has spent most of thehis life with Leninist doctrine.
I have found I have no problems with this short essay whatso ever. Despite Lenins mistakes, I believe he would have very little problems with this too. It is written in the spirit of Leninism. I doubt though because of the nature of sectarianism that I shall build any bridges. Lenin has been bastardised by anarchists for far too long. I would go as far to say that Anarchist define themselves within the framework of the bastardisation of Lenin. Here is an exception that may prove the rule

http://www.cluefactory.org.uk/ace/abc/abc14.html

[Morpheus]

Lenin suppressed all opposition groups, ended free speech, and destroyed the Soviets & factory committees. This was not due to the civil war because it started before the civil war and because anarchists in Ukraine were able to defeat the Whites without such authoritarianism. Leninist actions and leninist manifestos are two very different things. They should be judged by their record, not their manifesto. The "bastardization" of Lenin is simply the ACTUAL Lenin, what he really did, while your "non-bastardized" version is an idealized version that only looks at his manifestos but not his actions.

[peaccenicked]

I know enough about the Russian revolution to know that you are simply lying by ommission.
Watch this space. I also notice that you have nothing to say about the article I linked you to.... Is that because you are fixated on the character assissination of Lenin.

"Excerpt from Lenin's Testament

by V.I. Lenin, 1922

By the stability of the Central Committee, of which I spoke above, I mean measures against a split, as far as such measures

can at all be taken. For, of course, the whiteguard in _Russkaya_Mysl_ (it seems to have been S. S. Oldenburg) was right

when, first, in the whiteguards' game against Soviet Russia he banked on a split in our Party, and when, secondly, he banked

on grave differences in our Party to cause that split.

Our Party relies on two classes and therefore its instability would be possible and its downfall inevitable if there were no

agreement between those two classes. In that event, this or that measure, and generally all talk about the stability of our C.C.,

would be futile. No measures of any kind could prevent a split in such a case. But I hope that this is too remote a future and

too improbable an event to talk about.

I have in mind stability as a guarantee against a split in the immediate future, and I intend to deal here with a few ideas

concerning personal qualities.

I think that from this standpoint, the prime factors in the question of stability are such members of the C.C. as Stalin and

Trotsky. I think relations between them make up the greater part of the danger of a split, which could be avoided, and this

purpose, in my opinion, would be served, among other things, by increasing the number of C.C. members to 50 or 100.

Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure

whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his

struggles against the C.C. on the question of the People.s Commissariat for Communications has already proved, is

distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has

displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.

These two qualities of the two outstanding leaders of the present C.C. can inadvertently lead to a split, and if our Party does

not take steps to avert this, the split may come unexpectedly.

I shall not give any further appraisals of the personal qualities of other members of the C.C. I shall just recall that the October

episode with Zinoviev and Kamenov was, of course, no accident, but neither can the blame for it be laid upon them

personally, any more than non-Bolshevism can upon Trotsky.

Speaking of the young C.C. members, I wish to say a few words about Bukharin and Pyatakov. They are, in my opinion, the

most outstanding figures (among the younger ones), and the following must be borne in mind about them: Bukharin is not

only a most valuable and major theorist of the Party; he is also rightly considered the favorite of the whole Party, but his

theoretical views can be classified as fully Marxist only with the great reserve, for there is something scholastic about him (he

has never made a study of dialectics, and, I think, never fully appreciated it).

December 25. As for Pyatakov, he is unquestionably a man of outstanding will and outstanding ability, but shows far too

much zeal for administrating and the administrative side of the work to be relied upon in a serious political matter.

Both of these remarks, of course, are made only for the present, on the assumption that both these outstanding and devoted

Party workers fail to find an occassion to enhance their knowledge and amend their one-sidedness.

Lenin.

December 25, 1922 Taken down by M. V. [Maria Volodicheva, a secretary]

Lenin believed so strongly in his cause that he deemed i t a project worthy of an international scale. Lenin was a brilliant man, an obsessed visionary who saw more than just a Russian revolution, he saw a world revolution. Lenin did not repress freedom of thought or expression as long as it was not anti-government because he was well aware of the people's fear of oppression. Lenin spent a good deal of his time, prior to the actual bolshevik revolution, in Germany. During this time he was engaged in intense contemplation of the cause in which he had placed so much faith. He published a good deal of writing on the topic of overthrowing the tsarist regime. His writings were printed in various underground newspapers and similarly subversive publications. After reading the above excerpt, it becomes clear that Lenin's writings are very convincing. This is due, in a large part, to the logical set up which he employs. Lenin has organized his thoughts in such a way that they make the utmost sense. It is difficult to refute his lines of thinking without the backup of history in one's arguments. The second thing that makes Lenin's writing so convincing is something that has already been mentioned, his great faith in the revolution. The idealistic views are moving because Lenin's candid belief if this course of action comes through in all of his earlier writings. Though the Marxist system is founded in a naivete of human nature, with no previous demonstration of a socialist country to refer to, it is to be expected that a series of well laid out plans in a logical argument should be believed in by a people who were desperately searching for salvation from the oppression of their Tsar. "
Here is quote from Shakespeare.

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them, The good is oft interred with their bones.”
You could well do thinking about it.

[redstar2000]

The evil that men do lives after them, The good is oft interred with their bones.

Shakespeare, of course, was a poet...not a historian.

In fact, the "evil" is just as likely as the "good" to be "interred with their bones".

The question of whether or not Lenin "meant well" is, in my opinion, trivial.

We should evaluate Leninism--both that of Lenin and those who claim to be his "heirs"--as objective historical phenomena.

What did they do? What did they accomplish? What can we actually learn from Leninist theory and practice?

To the bourgeoisie of his own time and ours, Lenin was simply a "devil". Revolutionaries are always regarded by their enemies in that fashion. Marx was a "devil", Bakunin was a "devil", Che was a "devil"...and, should they ever pay attention to this board, nearly all of us would be regarded as "devils".

To reject the bourgeois hypothesis that Lenin was a "devil" does not require that we "therefore" promote him to "proletarian archangel".

The historical record of Lenin's thoughts and deeds following October 1917 is quite clear...and completely inconsistent with any genuine exercise of working class power, political, economic, or even ideological.

Of course, there were reasons for this...found both in Russian material conditions and in the ideological assumptions that Lenin made when he formed his ideas.

But that's not the point: those who wish to defend Lenin's approach to post-capitalist society must either "politically justify" the dictatorship of an elite or simply deny historical reality...usually by digging up scraps from the archives where Lenin said "nice things". (Sometimes Stalin and Mao and Trotsky said "nice things" too.)

The complete inadequacy of the latter approach is obvious. It tells us nothing except something that we already know--Lenin was "not a devil".

What is really the subject of controversy is: is the Leninist path the best (or even only) path to communism?

And history's clear answer is: it is not a path to communism at all!

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

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

[peaccenicked]

Redstar2000.
The Leninist path to communism? Is that some sort of myth. It just does not exist.
A better question might be ''What relevance has "Where to Begin?" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/may/04.htm)have to the universal needs of revolution. I would contend that "What is to be done" is more specific to Russian conditions. I also agree that the vilification of Lenin is irrelevant .
I am only asking anarchists why it is so important to them.
I do not perceive elitism in Lenin's writings. I believe that anarchists are every bit as vanguardist as Lenin perhaps moreso because they disguise their vanguardism in denouncements of it.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 10:55 AM
I believe that anarchists are every bit as vanguardist as Lenin perhaps moreso because they disguise their vanguardism in denouncements of it.
Preposterous. If you are going to make such a bold assertion, you should back it up with more than mere rhetoric.

[The Feral Underclass]

peaccenicked

You failed to address any of the actual issues here. You do not compare the actions of Lenin with what Berkman wrote. What is the point of this exert if you can not actually back it up with evidence. Do you honestly believe that Lenin would allow a workers defence militia to be de-centralised? Do you think Lenin would have allowed the none existance of party officials within the ranks of these militias, giving out central committee orders? if this is the case and Lenin indeed agreed with Berkman on how to defend a revolution, why did he not do it?


Lenin believed so strongly in his cause that he deemed i t a project worthy of an international scale.

So did Hitler.


Lenin was a brilliant man, an obsessed visionary who saw more than just a Russian revolution, he saw a world revolution.

Being an obsessed visionary does not make you right.


Lenin did not repress freedom of thought or expression as long as it was not anti-government

But what does that mean. Anti-government. It could mean a whole range of things. In fact, it could mean anything Lenin wanted it to mean. This is an admission of how much control Lenin had. Is this to be the same amount for the next Lenin wannabe. Lenin should not have had the right to repress any freedoms or any "anti-governement sentiments" it should have been the workers to decide. This is exactly the reason anarchism exists. To counter the lies of the Leninists. You claim to want liberty and freedom, just as Berkman said, but then admit that it is acceptable to put the monopoly of power into the hands for some "brilliant man, an obsessed visionary." This isnt liberty or freedom. Because they say they have our interests at heart does not means we should hand over the control over our lives we had just fought capitalism to achieve. To give one or two or even a group of 20 the power to exercise such authority is utter maddess.

[peaccenicked]

Son of Rage, as someone who parties with many,many anarchists. I have even been invited to meetings and I have attended. As someone who in the UK who would rather read an anarchist newspaper than a mainstream left one. I can tell you with all certainty that the anarchists have try to lead me, show me that they know better than me, tried to show me that they are proffessional.
Told me as have Leninist organisations . 'All we want is people to think for themselves'. I have met and partied with people expelled from anarchist groups for misbehavior.
Anarchists=Vanguardists in Denial.
Proposterous -my arse.
Leninist meetings are much more fun even. The people are far more intellectually honest and dont BS with pretentions about the non existence of hierarchical structures.
The best thing I can say about the anarchist groups whom I have some experience of, is that the division of labour is spread out a little more, and the most active tend to take a very lot on board. I believe it is because they are so small. I have meet no difference in democratic standards. Except Anarchist smear other groups as a matter of habit (I mean less accurately).

Anarchist Tension,
What Lenin did in the time of a civil war was to organise for victory. He clearly stated that democratic questions would be addressed after the war.
Any pratical commander would have done the same. It is not a question of idealism but one of life and death. I have always found that the single most question that anarchists have been stupid about.

[peaccenicked]

Son of Rage
Not Just to use personal experience which might be just bad experiences.
I think this article shows just how confused anarchists are about themselves and their own nature.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/1714/sw171411.htm

[SonofRage]

Thanks, I'll read that

[SonofRage]

Interesting article. It doesn't support your claims of Anarchist as being vanguardists however.

[peaccenicked]

Vanguardism is meant to be top down. You show me one single anarchist organisation that is not. Who owns the journal?
Can a bigger organisation come in and take over. What are the safeguards!. It is impossible to organise from the bottom up.
Does the bottom start an organisation? Always the top does.
The whole idea is screwball. It just sounds nice but as no reality.
It cannot even be an ideal it is impossible.
How many anarchists actually think this through, the only assume it is possible.

Now to decentralisation.
Here is Berkman.
The military defense of the revolution may demand a supreme command, coordination of activities, discipline, and obedience to orders. But these must proceed from the devotion of the workers and peasants, and must be based on their voluntary cooperation through their own local, regional, and federal organizations. In the matter of defense against foreign attack, as in all other problems of the social revolution, the active interest of the masses, their autonomy and self-determination are the best guarantee of success.


Yeah a little bit both but it may demand obedience to orders.
Vanguards too encourage cadre initiative.

Vanguardists in denial may never change.

[redstar2000]

From peaccenicked's link...


Anarchism is generally taken to mean a rejection of all authority.

Not by anyone who knows anything about the subject. What is rejected is the authority of self-appointed elites acting "in the name of the working class".


Anarchism says that organisation has nothing to do with centralisation. For anarchism, any form of centralisation is a type of authority, which is oppressive. But arguing with someone to join a struggle, and trying to put forward tactics and ideas that can take it forward are attempts to lead.

Organizations may be centralized, de-centralized, federated, or whatever. What makes an organization "oppressive" is when the people who run it are a small self-perpetuating elite completely unaccountable to the membership.

Putting forward tactics and ideas is unobjectionable...issuing orders will not be tolerated.


It is no good people coming together in a struggle, discussing what to do and then doing just what they feel like as if no discussion had taken place.

That's so rare as to be caricature. People put forward "tactics and ideas". Those who are persuaded act to implement them. Those who remain skeptical may or may not participate as they see fit. If you try to "make them" carry out the "line" whether they like it or not...they will end up not liking it or you.

This is one reason why Leninist parties are "revolving doors"...people enter for a while, realize that the leadership regards them as "warm bodies" to carry out the leadership's decisions, get sick and tired of that, and quit.

It's thought that between 1920 and 1956, more than one million people passed into and out of the Communist Party U.S.A.

And a census of the German Communist Party in 1932 revealed the astounding fact that 90% of its 300,000 members had been in the party less than two years.


A picket line is "authoritarian". It tries to impose the will of the striking workers on the boss, the police and on any workers who may be conned into scabbing on the strike.

Word play...much like that of Engels in the embarrassing pamphlet On Authority.

The best anarchists have always been "authoritarian" with regard to the class enemy.

It's dishonest to blur that distinction in order to "justify" authoritarianism directed against the working class as a whole.


Such a party is democratic because its members constantly debate what is happening in today's struggles and the lessons that can be applied from past ones.

Bah! They do nothing of the sort and everyone with any actual knowledge of how "democratic" centralism actually operates knows that.


It is also centralised, as it arrives at decisions which everyone acts on. Without unity around decisions there would be no democracy--minorities would simply ignore majority decisions.

That's not the reason...the reason is that without "centralization" and "universal obedience", stupid decisions would be vigorously criticized and possibly even overturned...to the great embarrassment of the leadership.


Centralism is needed above all because the capitalist state is centralised. The police, media moguls, employers, the state bureaucracy and governments act in a concerted way to protect the system.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise, either in theory or in practice. France in 1968 was centralized...that did not stop the de-centralized French working class from shutting it down for a month.

It's also noteworthy that the French "centralized organ" of the working class did everything it could to stop further movement towards communist revolution.

De Gaulle, the ungrateful bastard, failed to award the French Communist Party the "Legion of Honor" medal that it so richly deserved.


The resulting confusion weakened all the protests.

Pure speculation!


The anarchist organisation inside the Spanish CNT, the FAI, was centralised and secret. A revolutionary party thrives on open debate and common struggle with wider groups of workers.

An astounding assertion! Without knowing anything about the FAI, I'm certain that this is either misleading or completely untrue.


History is full of mass struggles which have been able to win significant gains, but which have not had a clear leadership that can carry the struggle over to victory against capitalism.

Well, after a century of Leninist "clear leadership", we have (1) Cuba...a mixed economy tottering towards the restoration of capitalism; and (2)the "red Confucianist" despotism in North Korea...also making noises about capitalist restoration.

All the other "famous victories" are ashes.


The working class needs what anarchism rejects--a clear and determined revolutionary party which can lead the working class as a whole, and is not afraid to overthrow capitalism and set up a workers' state.

Perhaps...but it won't be Leninist. That's been tried and it didn't 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

[SonofRage]

As usual, Redstar tells it like it is.

[Pete]

What is the FAI? Redstars mention of them, saying that the quote was misleading, asks for a link or even a brief discussion about what it is.

-Pete

[peaccenicked]

Redstar2000.
You tell me one single Leftist organisation of the working class which is not a self perpetuating elite and what on earth does it have to do with Lenin.
Surely the very first organisations were such.
The reason why is the lack of dedicated staff. Voluntary organisations...bah.
Is 'where to begin' too complicated for you?

"It is not a question of what path we must choose (as was the case in the late eighties and early nineties), but of what practical steps we must take upon the known path and how they shall be taken. It is a question of a system and plan of practical work. And it must be admitted that we have not yet solved this question of the character and the methods of struggle, fundamental for a party of practical activity, that it still gives rise to serious differences of opinion which reveal a deplorable ideological instability and vacillation."

The struggle is and always been to turn a small group of dedicated people into a mass party.
It cant be a very wise move to get rid of your most experienced comrades, and replace them with less experienced comrades.


Utterly sensless 'path to communism' if you ask me.
If the group is useless,it will soon be found out, if it gets fucked by history then thats a different matter.

What is a political activist?a self perpetuating elitist who does not know when to take a back seat.

I have never heard so much Left wing childishness.

All of the Stalinist organisations you have mentioned had distinctly reformist programmes and were tied to Trade Union bureaucracy.
I would be suprised if any of their leaders had read more than Machaivelli.

[peaccenicked]

RedStar2000
Sorry I forgot.
Taking orders for a vounteer can only be acceptable with illegal work or in a war situation. I have no experience of people taking orders in an organisation that does only public work. Can you give me a few examples.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 02:04 PM
What is the FAI? Redstars mention of them, saying that the quote was misleading, asks for a link or even a brief discussion about what it is.

-Pete
Iberian Anarchist Federation: (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/Christie.html) it was a federation of autonomous affinity groups.

Check that link above...it is a book review on a book written about the FAI. It has some very useful information nonetheless.

[peaccenicked]

The group had no means of foisting a party line on grass roots.
What an organisational success!!
But exuse me.
I have been a member of four groups three of which considered themselves as Leninist.
I only remember on one occaision have anything foisted upon me. Just the usual numerous disagreeable articles in the parties central organ.
I had many of my letters published.
I remember trying to foist things on to the Central committee.
Maybe, I was not always successful, but sometimes I really did get somewhere. There was one organisation I feel out with because they supported the sale of council houses. That was an undemocratic experience, but on the whole I think I have been given plenty of means to air my views.


Maybe I am totally niave here but not getting things foisted on you just is not enough. If you cant foist things on the centre.
Where is democracy?
Is there even an organisation?

Do people even talk to one another?

When a group does nt have a party line then what is the target of criticism.

Life is so great when you dont have to think.
However I have heard horror stories within the same breath as Leninism.
I have said"No wonder people become anarchists"

Its great when everybody is trusted to do the right thing and when everybody acts on their own initiative, and everything is so harmonious that it is almost like telepathy,
Its a wonderful life. mass spiritual empathy. It is almost like politics being turned on its head.

Give me a break.



The idealisation of anarchist organisational principles is a sick joke.
With relatively healthy Leninist organisations you know what you are up against. You have to fight for everything. Heavyhandedness from a CC is a sign of weakness and thats why so many go bust.
There is no perfect way to organise.
The elementary need is trust. No organisation can last if it is not reeking out of it.
There will always be hierarchy, there always be people who are slightly more skilled in this direction or in that direction. there are people who learn slowly,people who learn quickly. people who just give up with one thing. There are people with confidence,people without confidence, if only in a few skills.
What develops is known as a tangled hierarchy, there is some form of it on Chelives. some people spend all of their time in music others in History.
There are so many different combinations of variables and that is even on a messageboard.
Life is a lot harder in the internal struggles of a Party.
When trust breaks down people leave. If trust breaks down a lot , then there is a split.
A party cannot grow without gaining trust .it cannot maintain its membership without gaining trust.
However a form without content may as well not exist.
My favourite at the moment is Indiemedia by all accounts an anarchist group but they do not preach theory but interpret the news.
No other left group is doing a better job than them at the moment in my books.
This is because what a if group produces is good, its form is invisible.
I have no idea of the internal dynamics of it but it looks good. It looks organised. That in itself generates trust.
At the end of the day I am not looking for form of organisation. I am lookin for results. it does not matter what a group calls itself be it Leninist or anarchist. It needs cohering internal dynamics for it to work.
It needs to be communicative. Otherwise it breaks down.
Content is a million times more import than form.
If the ideas of a group have no future then it is dead.
The present day struggle should primarily be {within socialism}.
What to day can we bring from our past that can clarify the political situation facing the international working class and how can we steadily deepen that understanding.

I dont want to be argueing about leftist prejudice or anarchist phraseology. I want to develop the content of leftist thinking in general.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 10:34 PM
What Lenin did in the time of a civil war was to organise for victory.
Nonsense. As I said in the second post of this thread Lenin started rigging elections, disbanding factory committees, suppressing opposition before the civil war started so this is a bogus excuse. See my essay Russia: Revolution, Counter-Revolution on my homepage for the data to back this up. Why don't you stop with the namecalling and actually address the arguement (ie. the actual results of leninism).


He clearly stated that democratic questions would be addressed after the war.

He clearly stated that the dictatorship of the proletariat would have to be a one-party state in all countries. Some "democracy." After the war was over he suppressed rebellions for socialist democracy, including Kronstadt, and increased repression.


Any pratical commander would have done the same.

Wrong. The anarchists in Ukraine were able to defeat the Whites without Leninist totalitarianism, proving that it was not necessary to defeat the Whites.


Vanguardism is meant to be top down. You show me one single anarchist organisation that is not.

The Alliance for Freedom and Direct Democracy.

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchist Tension,
What Lenin did in the time of a civil war was to organise for victory. He clearly stated that democratic questions would be addressed after the war.
Any pratical commander would have done the same. It is not a question of idealism but one of life and death. I have always found that the single most question that anarchists have been stupid about.

But your whole post is based on the fact that anarchism is really leninism? So you conceed that isnt true now?

Leninists attempt to add on complications to something which is quite simple because of a lack of understanding. you call it idealism, but the reason you do that is because you can not comprehend anything being done without such structures. Just as the workers believe it to be idealism that they could actually take control of society. It's called a lack of consciousness. All it takes is acceptance.

The defence of the revolution will be co-ordinated by workers militias with police or soldiers acting as guides. People with knowledge will help co-ordinate the action and will act in co-operation with other workers militias using the cast wealth of technology now available to us. It isnt any more complicated than that. We do not see the need for chain of commands, red army commisars, central committees, army officials...You simply organize and defend using the expertise of people who know what their doing.

[The Feral Underclass]

Vanguardism is meant to be top down. You show me one single anarchist organisation that is not.

The Anti-capitalist movement.

[SonofRage]

I would say that the Green Party has some anarchist characteristics and is very bottom-up. It may be a stretch, but I think of the Green Party as being "Anarchistish."

[Invader Zim]

Both Leninism and Anarchism I believe to be flawed, right down to fundamental levels, and as both have shown historically, they fail utterly in the real world.

I agree with Leninist principals to an extent, however Leninism as an ideology seams to permanently destined to turn into a dictatorship, which oppresses the Working class. Of course it is debatable if Lenin himself was a tyrant and oppressor, but his successor most certainly was. The fact that Leninist Russia actually allowed an individual such power alone proves that the Anarchists have a point regarding “power” and “centralisation”, which shows that the life of the average worker hangs in the balance. If the “Leninist” at the top of the totem pole happens to be a benevolent leader then all is well and good, but they are very rare because as the saying goes “absolute power corrupts absolutely”, however if you get a vicious authoritarian at the top, we all know what the result is, Gulags are in fashion. Leninism breed’s authoritarianism and dictators.

Of course Anarchism sounds all very nice, but as no actual working model has ever lasted without collapse within a very short space of time, who knows what it will be like in reality? Granted that it wasn’t actually the Anarchists fault that their models collapsed, the Paris experiment failed because of a capitalist invasion, and the Spanish anarchists were backstabbed by Soviets. However this shows lack of planning and naivety on the half of the anarchists, perhaps that is the problem of most anarchists, they put to much faith in people to be nice to one another, and this makes them naive? I believe so, with out some form of order society will collapse. The way which society has been ordered for millennia is in hierarchy, to try and completely abolish that is disastrous. For example in an anarchist society crime would be a major problem, as with out some form of code of conduct within society people would basically be able to do what they want without any fear of repercussions. If of course certain conduct was expected universally in the society, then who would enforce these “laws”, without becoming figures of authority? Such flaws riddle the anarchist ideology, from law enforcement right down to simple goods distribution.

In short it seems that neither system are particularly good as individual ideologies, but perhaps a happy medium could be found? A system with some central organisation, but cut down to a bear minimum, and supporting major anarchist principals. The idea of leaders abolished, and systems put in place, which make it impossible to hold any high degree of power.

Well that’s my view.

[The Feral Underclass]

Enigma

It comes down to a choice of belief. Either you can believe the working class can change or you can't believe it. I believe that the working class, indeed all humans, have the ability to change and understand certain things. I managed to do it. Redstar did, morpheus and the like all managed to understand certain things about history and about the world. To claim that it is "naive" to believe that human beings have the ability to be nice to each other implies that those who can be nice to each other and understand why that is important have some kind of superior brain power. This isnt the case.

If you think people do not have the ability to understand the benifits of anarchism and indeed to be nice to each other why are there nice people in the world? Are you claiming these are just examples to the rule. But what about families and friends? The vast majority of people have them and are nice to them everyday, pretty much. Capitalism is what has created the notion of selfishness and criminality when it does not exist niether will selfishness and criminality. Why do I think this? Because in order to destroy capitalism the people have too understand what selfishness and criminality is, what it does to people and want to get rid of it. From what you are saying the people will understand this, change it and then decide to revert back to the old ways without giving any reason for why that would happen. Once you have that understanding and consciousness, there is no going back.

[redstar2000]

There will always be hierarchy...


The way which society has been ordered for millennia is in hierarchy...

It seems to me that the logic of your position requires you to admit that you both "want to run the show" because you imagine that you are "more qualified", "more benevolent", or "more something-or-other".

Or, perhaps you are both overcome by fits of modesty (:lol:) and search for a "great leader" who will meet your "strenuous" requirements.

Either way, what's to discuss? If you both are right, then communism/anarchism will never exist in a stable form...and you can proceed to search for "the rightful king" without regard for malcontents like myself.

And I, for my part, will continue to puncture your absurd pretensions of "superiority" and "fitness to rule"...as well as any nominees you may choose, from time to time, to offer for the office of "good king".

Your position is that hierarchy is "inevitable". Mine is that it is not...and that it can be and should be banished from human social relations.

That's a real difference...in fact, I suggest, a revolutionary difference.

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

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

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 17 2003, 01:24 PM
Enigma

It comes down to a choice of belief. Either you can believe the working class can change or you can't believe it. I believe that the working class, indeed all humans, have the ability to change and understand certain things. I managed to do it. Redstar did, morpheus and the like all managed to understand certain things about history and about the world. To claim that it is "naive" to believe that human beings have the ability to be nice to each other implies that those who can be nice to each other and understand why that is important have some kind of superior brain power. This isnt the case.

If you think people do not have the ability to understand the benifits of anarchism and indeed to be nice to each other why are there nice people in the world? Are you claiming these are just examples to the rule. But what about families and friends? The vast majority of people have them and are nice to them everyday, pretty much. Capitalism is what has created the notion of selfishness and criminality when it does not exist niether will selfishness and criminality. Why do I think this? Because in order to destroy capitalism the people have too understand what selfishness and criminality is, what it does to people and want to get rid of it. From what you are saying the people will understand this, change it and then decide to revert back to the old ways without giving any reason for why that would happen. Once you have that understanding and consciousness, there is no going back.
My point was not that their are no nice people in the world, but that a lot of people aren't, perhaps they are the minority, but that doesn't matter. All it takes is one criminal to create a serious problem in a truly anarchist society. Take for example the Harold Shipman's, Ian Brady's, Ian Huntley's of the world, without forcing some for of hierarchy which forces them to be locked up, or even executed if your like Redstar? How do you do that without exerting some form of authority over these people?

It seems to me that the logic of your position requires you to admit that you both "want to run the show" because you imagine that you are "more qualified", "more benevolent", or "more something-or-other".

I have no craving to run society, I would rather just get on with it like everyone else, I have neither the patience or even the desire for that kind of responsibility.

Or, perhaps you are both overcome by fits of modesty () and search for a "great leader" who will meet your "strenuous" requirements.

Perhaps, but more likely you didn't actually read my post... you see if you read my post, I slag Leninism as well, and clearly speak against the idea of absolute rulers. I would say that a democratic socialist society is all round better, but that’s just my opinion.

If you both are right, then communism/anarchism will never exist in a stable form...

That’s about the score. I believe as I have said that although I cling to no specific ideology, the democratic socialist approach appeals most.

your absurd pretensions of "superiority" and "fitness to rule"...

What pretensions would these be, do enlighten me.

Mine is that it is not...and that it can be and should be banished from human social relations.

well I would like to draw your attention to the debate regarding execution of criminals, which you support. Surely the executioner has a position of authority over the criminal, surely the individuals who condemned them were in a position of authority? This suggests that you do support hierarchy to an extent. An extent to which you believe the state's appointed jury has the right to order the death of another person! That sends conflicting signals I'm afraid, you cannot banish hierarchy from "from human social relations" while supporting the states right to assert authority, it is a contradiction in terms. Make your mind up.

That's a real difference...in fact, I suggest, a revolutionary difference.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I will take it under advisement.

Have a good day.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 12:50 PM
Of course Anarchism sounds all very nice, but as no actual working model has ever lasted without collapse within a very short space of time, who knows what it will be like in reality?
This isn't true. There have been many primitivist anarchist societies that existed thousands of years, like the !kung. See the book Stone Age Economics by Marshall Sahlins. These were brutally wiped out by people like you, who believe in hierarchy. The attempts at industrial anarchy did not collapse, they were brutally suppressed by people like you. We know what anarchy would be like in reality because it has been implemented it and it worked well. The reason it isn't around anymore is because people like you put bullets in their head and brutally suppressed it.


However this shows lack of planning and naivety on the half of the anarchists, perhaps that is the problem of most anarchists, they put to much faith in people to be nice to one another, and this makes them naive?

No, it shows that anarchists have put too much faith in the statist left - they are the ones who have repeatedly stabbed us in the back. We need to be less trusting of them.


with out some form of code of conduct within society people would basically be able to do what they want without any fear of repercussions. If of course certain conduct was expected universally in the society, then who would enforce these “laws”, without becoming figures of authority?

Everyone would enforce it. If everyone is the authority then no one is the authority, and there is no hierarchy.

If people are too evil to rule themselves then they are far too evil to rule other people. If people really aren't that nice then they certainly shouldn't have power over others, that will only magnify the evil. It is the supporters of hierarchy who niavely assume that people are good, that those with power won't abuse it. Most of human history has been lived in anarchy. This and the Spanish Revolution prove that it works. As for crime, see http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci58

[peaccenicked]

Redstar2000

"Fitness to rule."
There is the business of puting on one pyjamas, the adminstration of a raffle.
I mean what are you talking about. The aminstration of things.
Or Help co oordinating widespread revolutionary tasks.


I did not say that Leninism and anarchism are the same thing, just that they both are vanguardistic in their nature, in a different manner. My position is that hieirarchy exists is a human thing. Not everybody can be the worlds tiddly winks champion. There are pecking orders on many levels throughout all of society.
This does not mean there cannot be a stateless society.

Hierarchy of political power is not the only hierarchy.
Social life is riddled with its complexity.
The hierarchy of one group over another is not inevitable. It is the very thing that socialist are trying to end.

All human social relations include soial skills. To ask for equality here is
laughable.
The people who are just new to communist thinking,say to me, we are just not all the same.

All I am saying is that all social difference is hierarchical and bound up with status issues. Awareness may make people nicer but it will not change the human feelings involved in division of human labour which no matter we try to distribute evenly is bound up with standards of quality of labour.

If that was the main problem of everyday life. I d be happy enough.

This heirarchy of social skills in practical terms conditions political organisations.
If people were picked by lottery like juries, not many would go for the post of branch secretary never mind chairperson of a national section of a movement.

The criticism of elitism might disappear in a lottery system. The ancient Greeks could have done it (if they allowed women and slaves the franchise :D ). The criticism of representative democracy may never dissappear.
When comes to direct democracy in the present rather than the future human beings are limited by their position in the capitalist economy perhaps more than anything. Being a delegate to a conference might be the only ''holiday' somebody can get.
Delegates then become "elitist.

Self pertuating gurus are a problem but thet eventually die. If the whole organisation is dependent on the guru. It will split into fragments on his death.
Anarchists have their most able spokesmen, too.
How much personality comes into organisational questions is a problem for the whole left.

There are no great leaders, only people who have been pushed beyond their limits.
Brain tumors is probably the most widespread symptom.

Modesty is my best quality. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I must admit when I lose temper, I feel my intelligence has been insulted,
I regret the loudness of my anger.
I do not feel fit to rule over very much other than myself and my creativity.
Yet It will not keep me from being quiet.

Morpheus,
I am not sure if your accusations are correct.
Yet I am sure of one thing the reds beat the whites.
something you should try to absorb.

Anarchist Tension,

Anarchists as persons are as everybit as nice as lLeninists,
the less bitter each is probably the better. Life should be simple but it cannot be legislated for

[redstar2000]

My position is that hierarchy exists is a human thing. Not everybody can be the worlds tiddly winks champion. There are pecking orders on many levels throughout all of society.

I think this is a confusing statement.

The "world's tiddly winks champion" has status--at least among other players and fans of tiddly winks.

But s/he has no power.

S/he cannot command that her/his closest competitor be taken out and shot for spurious reasons.

I have no doubt at all that people will claim status for themselves and ascribe it to others for reasons good and bad...that just seems to be one of the things we hairless primates do.

But I assert that status can and should be separated from political power...no one "deserves" to rule others.


If people were picked by lottery like juries, not many would go for the post of branch secretary, never mind chairperson of a national section of a movement.

Actually, that's what I advocate...it's called demarchy.

Democracy Without Elections (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1067737904&archive=1067850372&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1068687592&archive=1070511748&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

I think the number and quality of people who would volunteer for responsible positions would be quite surprising...once they grasped that the "social skills" of electoral politics were irrelevant.

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

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

[peaccenicked]

In essence, I tend to agree with you, thank you I did not know the term 'Demarchy.'
Fundamentally I agree with you on status but I am trying to get at is how status issues condition much of the development of political entities in the present at the social skills level.

"I think the number and quality of people who would volunteer for responsible positions would be quite surprising...once they grasped that the "social skills" of electoral politics were irrelevant"

That is very interesting for a while now I have been grappling with that question. What line of historical development could take us to that place ie demarchy.

The only conclusion that I have come to is that new organisations must come into being that start with older practices but start to bring lottery type procedures into their constitution.
This does not necessarily mean a political party but perhaps a pressure group on a single issue, take for example child labour.
It coud start with the positions of Treasurer and chair person. Secretaries need a little bit more experience than one can ordinarily expect. I know what it is like to be thrown into the dark and sometimes one finds way with a little help of knowledge of routine.

I am not planning anything but I will use the little time I spend with left activists to promote this idea. Comrades pick my brains sometimes, believe it or not, the idea would be to declare such practices as a success, assuming it is a success, and a practice well worth adopting.
A failure may just be something to learn from, it might be an idea to establish a committee training group which will get people started and some place they can turn to when they have problems.

If there is success here and if it is shown to develop a healthy pattern of organisation, it can be displayed to other larger groups and suggest as a new way to form sub committees.

This is getting me going a bit. I have just used my head too much and I an getting drowsy, It is 4.30 am here.

This might all be a bit too fast for a left which is being killed by moribund routinism and I am certainly not in any hurry.
There is also questions of organisational continuity.
I ll do a paper on it.
It might take a while.
I can always e mail it to you when I am finished.
It would be helpful for me if you did a post on demarchy, if you havent already, if you wish.
Bring my attention to anything you have done.I did nt catch it that last time I skimmed through your site..
Thanks again
paul.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Morpheus+Dec 17 2003, 11:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Morpheus @ Dec 17 2003, 11:08 PM)
[email protected] 17 2003, 12:50 PM
Of course Anarchism sounds all very nice, but as no actual working model has ever lasted without collapse within a very short space of time, who knows what it will be like in reality?
This isn&#39;t true. There have been many primitivist anarchist societies that existed thousands of years, like the &#33;kung. See the book Stone Age Economics by Marshall Sahlins. These were brutally wiped out by people like you, who believe in hierarchy. The attempts at industrial anarchy did not collapse, they were brutally suppressed by people like you. We know what anarchy would be like in reality because it has been implemented it and it worked well. The reason it isn&#39;t around anymore is because people like you put bullets in their head and brutally suppressed it.


However this shows lack of planning and naivety on the half of the anarchists, perhaps that is the problem of most anarchists, they put to much faith in people to be nice to one another, and this makes them naive?

No, it shows that anarchists have put too much faith in the statist left - they are the ones who have repeatedly stabbed us in the back. We need to be less trusting of them.


with out some form of code of conduct within society people would basically be able to do what they want without any fear of repercussions. If of course certain conduct was expected universally in the society, then who would enforce these “laws”, without becoming figures of authority?

Everyone would enforce it. If everyone is the authority then no one is the authority, and there is no hierarchy.

If people are too evil to rule themselves then they are far too evil to rule other people. If people really aren&#39;t that nice then they certainly shouldn&#39;t have power over others, that will only magnify the evil. It is the supporters of hierarchy who niavely assume that people are good, that those with power won&#39;t abuse it. Most of human history has been lived in anarchy. This and the Spanish Revolution prove that it works. As for crime, see http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci58 [/b]
There have been many primitivist anarchist societies that existed thousands of years, like the &#33;kung. See the book Stone Age Economics by Marshall Sahlins.

Ha, if you think that primitive civilisation is an example of anarchism, then fione you go back and live without any form of basic aminities, and see how many people follow you. I do hope you fully realise what a primitivist society is.

No, it shows that anarchists have put too much faith in the statist left - they are the ones who have repeatedly stabbed us in the back. We need to be less trusting of them.

Yeah Nievaty.


Everyone would enforce it. If everyone is the authority then no one is the authority, and there is no hierarchy.

What so everyone becomes a prison guard, or everyone becomes an executioner? LOL try again.


Most of human history has been lived in anarchy.

Not true, most of Human history has been primitive despotism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Engima


My point was not that their are no nice people in the world, but that a lot of people aren&#39;t,

My point was that those people who aren&#39;t have the ability to change. In order for any revolution to occur there has to be a level of consciousness among the workers. Those people who arent "nice" now will, indeed must change their oppinions if society is ever going to be changed fundamentally. I managed to gain my consciousness. There is no reason why other people can not gain theirs. With hard work, patience and commitment a mass conscious movement can be created, in fact many have throughout history.

One problem that faces the workers is they have no time or patience to understand theory. They are too busy trying to suvive. So the work that is needed may need to be different this time round. Tactics have to change to fit into the current situations.


All it takes is one criminal to create a serious problem in a truly anarchist society.

The nature of crime will have changed dramatically in a post revolutionary society. Exploitation and greed will be crimes and these things can easily be stopped without having to use force or authority.

The Anarchist Tension Basic Principles of Anarchism Thread

It would be very difficult for this guy to do anything of the sort. These people will be almost none existent and will live within collectives of workers. In order to try and amass these things he has to try and manipulate the collective he lives in which would be extremly difficult to do. If you live and work in a factory collective with 1000 other hardend workers who have just finished fighting for this society I doubt very much they are going to allow this person to get away with what they are doing. If indeed they did live and work in a collective. Most of these people will probably have either fled the country, gone into hiding or died trying to fight the workers.

There is no authority needed in the sense that you are implying ie police authority, because these people will be few and the actual ability to do something like this will be so difficult that it wouldnt be worth the effort. Especially when you can have everything provided to you in return for a certain amount of time contributed to socially necessary work. The authority that would be needed is for them to be in a minority. Which will be the case after a revolution. If there were many of them and were armed then of course it may be necessary to defend ourselves through violence if they attempted to force people into helping them amass this wealth or attempted to steal resources.

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


Take for example the Harold Shipman&#39;s, Ian Brady&#39;s, Ian Huntley&#39;s of the world, without forcing some for of hierarchy which forces them to be locked up, or even executed if your like Redstar?

Not to be *****y but if it is possible can we refrain from referring to other members opinions when talking to each other. It sounds as if you are trying to get a dig in here and what ever problem you have with redstars opinions is something you and him should discuss. I dont think it is relevant what Redstar things right now. :)

The problem with this kind of crime is we do not have enough understanding of why people feel the need to commit such disgusting crimes. Is it a chemical imbalance? or is it social conditioning which create psychological problems? If it is the former then they are people who must be helped through treatment if it is possible. If it is the latter then it could be argued that when society is changed so fundamentally the conditions for these psychological problems would not exist anymore.


How do you do that without exerting some form of authority over these people?

Chomsky argues that some authority, although should be challenged, can sometimes justify itself. Chomsky uses this example "I&#39;m walking in the streets with my granddaughter, she runs out into traffic, and I grab her and pull her back. That&#39;s a structure of authority*. I think I can justify it." If someone is commiting mass murder or crimes such as the ones with Huntley then to stop that person is justifiable. If this person holds a risk to the freedoms of other people then I think you can justify securing this person somewhere. You do not need hierarchy to do this. It may be necessary to have psychological institutions which deal with treating people like this and which are not prisons but are secure to stop this person from harming other people.

Authority such as the state and hierarchy are not justifiable authorities. When you examine them closly they can not justify themselves at any time and therefore must be dismantled on principle.

* He used the word domination but I think in this context it has the same meaning.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 03:38 PM
if you think that primitive civilisation is an example of anarchism, then fione you go back and live without any form of basic aminities, and see how many people follow you. I do hope you fully realise what a primitivist society is.
Ha, you don&#39;t know what your&#39;e talking about. First of all, "civilization" did not exist at this point. And pretty much all of them have been wiped out by people like you. And primitivist societies were not the hobbesian hellholes they are usually made out to be, see the book I referred to earlier.


What so everyone becomes a prison guard, or everyone becomes an executioner? LOL try again.

Prisons should be abolished. But yes, everyone is executioner and everyone is enforcer. "LOL" is not a refutation of an idea.


Not true, most of Human history has been primitive despotism.

Once again, you prove what a poor grasp of history you have. You have presented absolutely no evidence to support this position. The first states came around about 7,000 years ago in ancient Sumeria and later in Egypt, China, India & the Zapotecs. Homo sapiens have been around for over 100,000 years. It&#39;s rather difficult to have a despotism without a state. See the book I referenced earlier.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Morpheus+Dec 19 2003, 08:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Morpheus @ Dec 19 2003, 08:24 PM)
[email protected] 18 2003, 03:38 PM
if you think that primitive civilisation is an example of anarchism, then fione you go back and live without any form of basic aminities, and see how many people follow you. I do hope you fully realise what a primitivist society is.
Ha, you don&#39;t know what your&#39;e talking about. First of all, "civilization" did not exist at this point. And pretty much all of them have been wiped out by people like you. And primitivist societies were not the hobbesian hellholes they are usually made out to be, see the book I referred to earlier.


What so everyone becomes a prison guard, or everyone becomes an executioner? LOL try again.

Prisons should be abolished. But yes, everyone is executioner and everyone is enforcer. "LOL" is not a refutation of an idea.


Not true, most of Human history has been primitive despotism.

Once again, you prove what a poor grasp of history you have. You have presented absolutely no evidence to support this position. The first states came around about 7,000 years ago in ancient Sumeria and later in Egypt, China, India & the Zapotecs. Homo sapiens have been around for over 100,000 years. It&#39;s rather difficult to have a despotism without a state. See the book I referenced earlier. [/b]
Ha, you don&#39;t know what your&#39;e talking about.

No, its clear that you dont understand the concept of civilization.

First of all, "civilization" did not exist at this point.

Again you show a misunderstanding of basic principals behind the idea of "civilisation". Civilization is mearly the concept of a human society having a high level of intellectual, cultural, and material development, it is not exclusive to any particular time in Human existance.

And pretty much all of them have been wiped out by people like you.

Really people like me? Well I would have thought that they were wiped out by economic degredation or just being wiped out by a larger group.

And primitivist societies were not the hobbesian hellholes they are usually made out to be,

No i&#39;m sure they were all magnificent examples of paradise on earth, where the grass was green and the sun always shone... :rolleyes:

Prisons should be abolished. But yes, everyone is executioner and everyone is enforcer.

No maybe you are a "would be" executioner and enforcer, but count me out, I can imagine executing decentors appeals to you. Just another example of anarchist hypocracy, its wrong for individuals to execute and kill but if not wrong if you have a mob to back you up.

I would also like to know what you would do with the Ian Bradys and Dr Shipmans of the world if you refuse to imprison people. Kill them? Well I would imagine that if you&#39;ve just killed 200 people, your insane, and you would execute the insane?

"LOL" is not a refutation of an idea.

No its a mockery of an idea, as the idea is so asinine that it fails to warrent an argument. You can not seriously suggest that everyone is an executioner, how would that work? Would we all press the button to operate the electric chair at the same time?

Once again, you prove what a poor grasp of history you have.

Well for a start its not "history", history refers to all events post 900 AD or so, before that point its called "prehistory", hense the reason you get the term "prehistoric". So I may have a poor grasp of "history" but you clearly have no grasp what so ever.

You have presented absolutely no evidence to support this position.

and where is your evidence, or is inane rhetoric now considered evidence?

The first states came around about 7,000 years ago in ancient Sumeria and later in Egypt, China, India & the Zapotecs. Homo sapiens have been around for over 100,000 years. It&#39;s rather difficult to have a despotism without a state.

Despotism is the state or position of absolute power or authority, it does not specifically refer to the rule of actual know states.

See the book I referenced earlier.

Well it doesn&#39;t appear to have done much for you, so please dont take it badly if I dont.

[redstar2000]

Well for a start it&#39;s not "history", history refers to all events post 900 AD or so, before that point it&#39;s called "prehistory", hence the reason you get the term "prehistoric". So I may have a poor grasp of "history" but you clearly have no grasp whatsoever.

I know I&#39;m repeating myself here...but this is what a "serious" discussion with Enema always brings forth: one or more statements--made with an aura of absolute certainty--of such breath-taking ignorance that one&#39;s first response is to consult the Guinness Book of World Records.

You find yourself asking how this poor sod ever learned how to turn on his computer&#33;

Listen carefully, squire. The term "pre-historic" is generally applied to "events" that took place prior to the emergence of literate societies. Anything that happened for which we have a contemporary written account is history.

The invention of agriculture is "pre-historic". The sale of a field by one guy to another guy, recorded on a clay tablet and reliably dated to 2950BCE, is history.

*shakes head, wondering if explanation was too complicated for him to grasp*

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

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

[SonofRage]

Well for a start it&#39;s not "history", history refers to all events post 900 AD or so, before that point it&#39;s called "prehistory", hence the reason you get the term "prehistoric". So I may have a poor grasp of "history" but you clearly have no grasp whatsoever.

Wow. I can&#39;t I believe what I just read. That is just a mind-boggling statement.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 12:27 AM

Well for a start it&#39;s not "history", history refers to all events post 900 AD or so, before that point it&#39;s called "prehistory", hence the reason you get the term "prehistoric". So I may have a poor grasp of "history" but you clearly have no grasp whatsoever.

I know I&#39;m repeating myself here...but this is what a "serious" discussion with Enema always brings forth: one or more statements--made with an aura of absolute certainty--of such breath-taking ignorance that one&#39;s first response is to consult the Guinness Book of World Records.

You find yourself asking how this poor sod ever learned how to turn on his computer&#33;

Listen carefully, squire. The term "pre-historic" is generally applied to "events" that took place prior to the emergence of literate societies. Anything that happened for which we have a contemporary written account is history.

The invention of agriculture is "pre-historic". The sale of a field by one guy to another guy, recorded on a clay tablet and reliably dated to 2950BCE, is history.

*shakes head, wondering if explanation was too complicated for him to grasp*

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

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
No redstar thats what we call ancient history, not specifically history. History refers to the end of the dark ages, which ended with the fall of the Roman Empire, and the beginning of the medival era. Anything before that is not considered specifically history, but a seperate era each with there own specific name, IE, ancient history.

You can split what is known as History into many different ages, Renaissance, Enlightenment, Romanticism, Modern Age being a few of them.

Well thats what my history text book says, if you dont like it take it up with the AQA, Edexcel, OCR examining boards, who published the book. Which is the Revise A Level History, Volume 1.


You find yourself asking how this poor sod ever learned how to turn on his computer&#33;

Yeah whats even better I can take it to bits put it back together and it still works... fancy that.

[SonofRage]

Perhaps your definition of history is correct but it certainly is not the definition generally accepted.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 08:06 PM
Perhaps your definition of history is correct but it certainly is not the definition generally accepted.
perhaps...