Anarchy [Archive]

beta-guy

31st December 2003, 00:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 12:44 AM
Trouble with anarchy is that to your average non-political worker, it means no law, therefore lots of crime. Punks didn't do anarchism any favours by hijacking the symbol and singing things like "I am an anarch-IST, and I am an anti-CHRIST...I wanna destroy passers by etc. But anarchism to me does not mean lawlessness, it means the laws are set at a local level not by a government. Anarchism is the purest form of communism IMHO. Only thing is, I dont know how it would work in practice...maybe we could have found out if not for the Bolsheviks.
ok your not the first person to compare Anarchy with Communism/Socialism, I don't see the connection, I think think COmmunism I think USSR, that was far from Anarchy, I think Anarchy is about the lack of laws, however I think that with the lack of laws the people now have a responcibility to society as a whole, if people instituted laws, who'd enforce it? at that point there would be a governing body that to my understand destroys Anarchy.

redstar2000

31st December 2003, 00:46

Try these...

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=&)

There is also an active thread in the Theory forum right now with more discussion of demarchy...

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...&f=6&t=20450&s= (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=20450&s=)

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

31st December 2003, 00:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 05:48 PM
Whats the best/quickest way to acheive that?

I'll tell you! ever watched fight club? project mayhem style is the best way.
I would like to ask you this, did you watch the movie? How is having an organization, a top down organization, anything like anarchy? That is just 'archy' in a different form.

ComradeRobertRiley

31st December 2003, 00:50

you have to filter out the junk and add a little bit but the basics are all there

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

31st December 2003, 00:51

Yeah! Anarchy! Killing! Death! Chaos! Yeeeeeeah! We don't need no stinkin' government to tell us what to do! We don't want your laws and taxs! We want to do whatever we damn well please! Screw the law! I want to go out and join a REAL biker gang that doesn't take any crap from anyone! Come on folks, anarchy is just a punk fashion statement. Grow your mohawks, peirce as you please, take as many drugs as you can get your hands on, drink till you drop, and screw everyone in sight, but whatever you do, don't talk politics, k?

Blackberry

31st December 2003, 01:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 09:41 AM
I was told by a friend that I could talk to some anarchists on this board, and I want hoping to learn more about Anarchy in general.

I'm not of of those people who like Anarchy for the chaos, but rather to be free of a centralized authority, and to allow absolute freedom.

anyone else feel this way?
I recommend, for some beginning reading, to read 'What is Communist Anarchism?' (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html), which is put in a very simple fashion in order for everyone to understand it.

If you want something a little shorter, I suggest my thread titled 'Making Sense of Anarchism - Anarchism for Dummies' (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6421), which should contain enough to give you a base to work on.

Of course, after that, the Anarchist FAQ (http://www.anarchistfaq.org) is a superb source for a comprehensive answer to almost every question you can think of, in relation to anarchism.

Bradyman

31st December 2003, 01:07

Personally, you shouldn't connect communism with the USSR. The fact that there are more than one class in the USSR proves that it wasn't communism. You should connect Stalinism with the USSR, which is far different.

Keep in mind that communism is not totalitarianism, it is not fascism. There is a major connection between anarchy and communism: communism is based on association, anarchy is based on mutualism. In my opinion, anarchy is communism without government.

Blackberry

31st December 2003, 01:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 12:51 PM
Yeah! Anarchy! Killing! Death! Chaos! Yeeeeeeah! We don't need no stinkin' government to tell us what to do! We don't want your laws and taxs! We want to do whatever we damn well please! Screw the law! I want to go out and join a REAL biker gang that doesn't take any crap from anyone! Come on folks, anarchy is just a punk fashion statement. Grow your mohawks, peirce as you please, take as many drugs as you can get your hands on, drink till you drop, and screw everyone in sight, but whatever you do, don't talk politics, k?

I'm an anarchist, damn it, so I'm going to grab a pizza and smash the State! :rolleyes:

redstar2000

31st December 2003, 01:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 08:51 PM
Yeah! Anarchy! Killing! Death! Chaos! Yeeeeeeah! We don't need no stinkin' government to tell us what to do! We don't want your laws and taxs! We want to do whatever we damn well please! Screw the law! I want to go out and join a REAL biker gang that doesn't take any crap from anyone! Come on folks, anarchy is just a punk fashion statement. Grow your mohawks, peirce as you please, take as many drugs as you can get your hands on, drink till you drop, and screw everyone in sight, but whatever you do, don't talk politics, k?
Well, that's certainly the most definitive critique of "anarchism" that I've ever read!!!

Clearly, I expect all the anarchists on this board to "shape up" immediately--get regular haircuts, tatoos and piercings removed, purchase suits and ties, get regular jobs...and join a Leninist Party forthwith.

How could they possibly resist such an eloquent appeal to reason?

Pretty easily. :lol:

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

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

Hate Is Art

31st December 2003, 10:53

lol thats some good stereo typing there for all you know i could be a middle aged balding lawyer :o I'm not though don't worry.

I'm pretty damn sure most people aren't attracted to anarchism because they want to spend the night chucking chairs through shop windows and taking copiously large ammounts of drugs and giving the state the middle finger <_<

ComradeRobertRiley

31st December 2003, 13:43

To destroy corperations though liek in project mayhem would be a good thing, destroy banks, credit card companies etc etc

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

31st December 2003, 18:49

Yeah! Then we can have a system just like Africa! No laws! No taxes! Everyone do whatever the hell they want! Drugs! Parties! Killing! I'm going to be warlord of all of Tampa Bay! Wooooohooooo!!!

Pete

31st December 2003, 19:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 02:49 PM
Yeah! Then we can have a system just like Africa! No laws! No taxes! Everyone do whatever the hell they want! Drugs! Parties! Killing! I'm going to be warlord of all of Tampa Bay! Wooooohooooo!!!
Why don't you read the links Provided by Comrade James and do some critical thinking instead of posting your nonsense? You have no idea what the hell you are talking about, go educate yourself.

That, or shut the hell up. :angry:

-Pete

Adamore

31st December 2003, 20:37

peet i belive he is being sarcastic

ComradeRobertRiley

31st December 2003, 23:10

he is being an arsehole and sarcastic

Mike Fakelastname

1st January 2004, 00:57

Hey beta-guy!!! This is John Fakelastname from the ABS boards! Great to see you man! Yeah, told you you'd find some anarchists here. Have a good day, see you later!

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

1st January 2004, 01:20

...and you look REAL hard, you might find some communists here amongst some angsty teenagers. :rolleyes:

ComradeRobertRiley

1st January 2004, 01:23

I think these forums are a good place for recruitment into armed revolutionary groups

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

1st January 2004, 03:48

I don't see any recruiters around :P

Hate Is Art

1st January 2004, 13:48

Have you got some kind of deep down mental issues that need sorting out mate?

Have you actually done any reading into anarchy at all or even know what it is? Because you are acting like a right arse.

ComradeRobertRiley

1st January 2004, 15:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 06:48 AM
I don't see any recruiters around :P
recriuters come to those who post things that they see as what they want, obviously the dribble you post shows you have no potential as an armed revolutionary.

But what do I know right. Just a posibility of what these forums COULD be used for.

The Feral Underclass

1st January 2004, 16:52

Some people, such as MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr, just like to reaffirm the hatred of their glorious (dead) leaders and have absolutly no intention of learning about anarchism. If Lenin says it's bad, it must be.

Beta-Guy

I don't see the connection, I think think Communism I think USSR, that was far from Anarchy,

No, the USSR was far from Communism. Communism is anarchism. The difference is how you achieve it.

I think Anarchy is about the lack of laws,

It is about a lack of laws that force people into certain conditions. Laws that are created by a ruling elite and implimented by a hierarchy and enforced by a mechanicm ie the police and army, controlled by this ruling elite should be destroyed.

however I think that with the lack of laws the people now have a responcibility to society as a whole, if people instituted laws, who'd enforce it?

To answer this question you have to look at how anarchism is achieved. Your taking human nature as a finite thing that can not be changed. People are selfish etc and would destroy an anarchist society through their actions now, because capitalist dictates thats how people should be, however to achieve anarchism you first have to change human nature and understanding. Once it has changed people will demand society be ultered and go onto the streets to do it. Then the police etc will come to suppress us and we fight them.

By you logic people could not even get this far let alone maintain the system afterwards. But people can change. I can changed, you are becoming interested and have the ability to accept anarchism as a theory to fight for, just as the entire working class have the ability.

Once they have changed society it is stupid to think that they would suddenly, without any explination, revert back to capitalism.

at that point there would be a governing body that to my understand destroys Anarchy.

With this new consciousness and human nature people will enter into common agreements and a code of conduct will be created through choice of actions and association. People will choose to live in this society and will desperatly want to make it work. No governeing body will be needed. Just human ability.

Demarchy is a superb practical theory which will allow society to achieve a fair, equal and functioning society.

ComradeRobertRiley

1st January 2004, 17:14

Tension - I was looking at the link in your signature, do you think that armed revolution is the only way to acheive anarchism in the UK?

I was wondering what you actually do towards achieving this?

P.S. feel free to MSN me anytime.

Hate Is Art

1st January 2004, 18:22

I think to create anarchy there would have to be more than one branch of the same movement, if you follow me so far.

So movement X is spilt into:

1: A Guerilla Section fighting a war against the army and gaining interest in the cause,
2: A peaceful branch organising strikes and demo's etc to cause the government stress and hopefully giving them a bad rep by striking back against strikers if not hopefully the strikers will cause enough chaos by stopping work or clogging up streets of major citys.
3: A sabotage branch sabotaging government buildings, assasinating government officials and destroying government buildings with hopefully a [B]minimum[/B ]ammount of civilian casulties.

Eventually the Guerilla Movement would declare anarchy in the provinces it has so far liberated and eventually take the capital and cause the government to leave the country.

The Feral Underclass

1st January 2004, 18:24

do you think that armed revolution is the only way to acheive anarchism in the UK?

I think armed strugle is necessary everywhere. Once an anarchist movement has grown so big it is inevitable that the workers are going to get angry. Consciousness will bring understanding of exploitation etc and people will want to change it. Just like we do. People will demand change and as the movement grows these demnads will get bigger and bigger. Sooner or later the workers will go onto the streets, demonstrations, riots etc etc, just like in argentina, just like in Seattle and in genoa, only this time people will want fundamental change to the way society is run. The ruling class will know this and they will come with force. Look at what happened in Genoia, a demonstration afgainst capitalism, not to change it, and a 20 ear old anarchist was shot dead by police. The will come with force to destroy us. Soldiers, tanks etc etc and that is when we have to defend ourselves.

We have a choice. We either turn around and give up, or we fight. Once concsiousness has spread among the masses they certainly are not going to want to turn around and go home so we will organize ourselves and we will fight.

A revolution is not some armed insurrection of a minority, it is the self defence of a conscious mass of people.

beta-guy

1st January 2004, 19:38

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 1 2004, 07:22 PM
I think to create anarchy there would have to be more than one branch of the same movement, if you follow me so far.

So movement X is spilt into:

1: A Guerilla Section fighting a war against the army and gaining interest in the cause,
2: A peaceful branch organising strikes and demo's etc to cause the government stress and hopefully giving them a bad rep by striking back against strikers if not hopefully the strikers will cause enough chaos by stopping work or clogging up streets of major citys.
3: A sabotage branch sabotaging government buildings, assasinating government officials and destroying government buildings with hopefully a [B]minimum[/B ]ammount of civilian casulties.

Eventually the Guerilla Movement would declare anarchy in the provinces it has so far liberated and eventually take the capital and cause the government to leave the country.
what wuold happen to the guerilla sectioan once Anchary has been achieved, I did somethinking about this, and if we keep the army as it were, yes we could defend our borders, and prevent people who would try to destroy the anarchist society, however that army, could be used to form a militeristic state, and destroy Anarchy even faster.

but if we remove the army of the anarchists society, our borders would be open to attack, and anyone power hungery could claim power for himself, and Anarchy would be lost, how does anarchy deal with this possibility?

Adamore

1st January 2004, 20:01

we deal with it with extream hostility twords our new operessors :angry: the same way we delt with it the tyme before

ComradeRobertRiley

1st January 2004, 20:15

We have to have groups of anarchist all over the country, working seperate and together at the same time.

armed revolution is the only way, we must unite and actually do something, fight against the system we are all slaves to.

The Feral Underclass

1st January 2004, 20:45

Digital Nirvana

I think to create anarchy there would have to be more than one branch of the same movement, if you follow me so far.

But at what point? The struggle has to be in context of the class struggle at that time. YOu have to build a movement and gain some sympathy within the working class. You have to try and build consciousness within the working class so that they can organize themselves.

Also revolution will be an inevitability as long as the movement is being built.

1: A Guerilla Section fighting a war against the army and gaining interest in the cause,

Not in the current situation. Any organization that had some form of guerilla section would be automotaically destroyed. We do not have any support base. The media will protray us as evil terrorists and the ruling class ahs to much power at present.

2: A peaceful branch organising strikes and demo's etc to cause the government stress and hopefully giving them a bad rep by striking back against strikers if not hopefully the strikers will cause enough chaos by stopping work or clogging up streets of major citys.

This will be the first step but will come only when there is a level of class consciousness. The ruling class will strike back only when they feel absolutly threatened that fundamental change is going to happen, that is when you organize other "sections" to defend yourselves.

3: A sabotage branch sabotaging government buildings, assasinating government officials and destroying government buildings with hopefully a [B]minimum[/B ]ammount of civilian casulties.

You absolutly can not use terrorist tactics to win support. Imagine blowing up the Ministry of Defence or the home office. We would be protrayed as terrorists and evil doers. how could we take our cause to the people with that on our conscience. Assasinating government officials etc will come at a time of revolution when the working class are cosncious of our struggle. Not before.

The Feral Underclass

1st January 2004, 20:52

beta-guy

Once a revolution had happened we would organize ourselves into local militias who would defend the revolution based on co-operation and co-oridination. There will be no hierarchy and a lot of understanding so there will be no way an indevidual could abuse any kind of power.

Hopefully the revolution will not be isolated to one country. It should happen at a time of international disdain for capitalism so the revolution could be global, or at least in western countries. The defence would then only be internaly.

Once the revolution had finished the armed militias would be disbanded and if needs be would be called upon in times of need. These militias would be made up of volunteers from anywhere and would be guided by ex profesional soliders or police officers.

beta-guy

1st January 2004, 22:10

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 1 2004, 09:52 PM
beta-guy

Once a revolution had happened we would organize ourselves into local militias who would defend the revolution based on co-operation and co-oridination. There will be no hierarchy and a lot of understanding so there will be no way an indevidual could abuse any kind of power.

Hopefully the revolution will not be isolated to one country. It should happen at a time of international disdain for capitalism so the revolution could be global, or at least in western countries. The defence would then only be internaly.

Once the revolution had finished the armed militias would be disbanded and if needs be would be called upon in times of need. These militias would be made up of volunteers from anywhere and would be guided by ex profesional soliders or police officers.
ok, good, glad to see this issue has been thought out :) as to the guy trying to suggest that armed confilct is the only way to create anarchy, that may be true, but what would happen if the people elected an anarchist into power? the anarchist would dismantle the governement that he has been elected to run and anarchy has been established without loss of life.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

1st January 2004, 22:34

When you are trying to acheive socialism, you must ensure that everyone has access to jobs, food, housing, education, and a way to defend it all. A government is needed to regulate it and keep everything running smoothly. Destroying corporations is all fine and dandy, but you need something to fill the vacuum. People need to be fed and provided for, and an industrialized economy completely owned and run by the government is the perfect way to do that. So it would be great to try and leave as much intact as possible because retooling the economy in such a matter is no cheap venture...
Furthermore, people cannot just be allowed to do say and do as they please. Many people, possibly the majority even, are out to destroy our very way of life. Thus a proletarian dictatorship is needed. Though I don't advocate a one man dictator to govern the state to his/her own personal agenda, I don't think anyone not in the communist party ought to have a position in the government, to allow that puts the entire revolution in jeopardy. A far cry from "demarchy".

Rob

1st January 2004, 23:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 11:34 PM
Furthermore, people cannot just be allowed to do say and do as they please. Many people, possibly the majority even, are out to destroy our very way of life. Thus a proletarian dictatorship is needed. Though I don't advocate a one man dictator to govern the state to his/her own personal agenda, I don't think anyone not in the communist party ought to have a position in the government, to allow that puts the entire revolution in jeopardy. A far cry from "demarchy".
What's the point of trying to defend a revolution that the majority is hostile to. To me, the only reason change is necessary is because it works against the majority. If what replaces the old order is working against the majority just as badly as the old order was, why replace the old order? Because the party or the vanguard or whatever you call it says so?

Pete

2nd January 2004, 00:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 06:34 PM
When you are trying to acheive socialism, you must ensure that everyone has access to jobs, food, housing, education, and a way to defend it all. A government is needed to regulate it and keep everything running smoothly. Destroying corporations is all fine and dandy, but you need something to fill the vacuum. People need to be fed and provided for, and an industrialized economy completely owned and run by the government is the perfect way to do that. So it would be great to try and leave as much intact as possible because retooling the economy in such a matter is no cheap venture...
Furthermore, people cannot just be allowed to do say and do as they please. Many people, possibly the majority even, are out to destroy our very way of life. Thus a proletarian dictatorship is needed. Though I don't advocate a one man dictator to govern the state to his/her own personal agenda, I don't think anyone not in the communist party ought to have a position in the government, to allow that puts the entire revolution in jeopardy. A far cry from "demarchy".
In translation this says: I want to replace the capitalist system with one where me and my pals are at the top telling those below us what to do because we can't expect those who actually fought to know what to do. I mean sure we want them to have freedom, but they will have to wait until we say they can have freedom, and any one who says otherwise needs to leave now.

The vangaurd is only necassary when the people are not ready for the revolution, and that is the flaw of the vangaurd. It doesn't have the patience necassary, even in theory, to see a revolution through. The people need to see that one leader/government is the same as anyothers and use that knowledge to their advantage. It is, IMO, hypocrisy and tratiorious to lead people to believe that that government was bad but yours will be much better. History shows otherwise.

-Pete

Rasta Sapian

2nd January 2004, 08:43

if u desire rebellion and anarchy, you must be smart in the modern society. keep it professional, disguise yourself as a conserned citizen, choose your targets to outline capitalist and impirialist symbols.

This we de-value what is most valued, and will entice others to follow! :P

The Feral Underclass

2nd January 2004, 11:18

beta-guy

but what would happen if the people elected an anarchist into power?

An anarchist would never stand for government.

anarchist would dismantle the governement that he has been elected to run

Capitalism can not be dismanteled using current legislative systems. The government and the state has been created in order to keep the ruling class in power so that these indeviduals can create personal wealth and power. That is the nature of capitalism. The police, army, judicial system are all desgined to perpetrate the existance of capitalism. You can not simply be elected into power and then try and change it within. The entire system is flawed and corrupt. Capitalism creates exploitation and must be destroyed out right.

Even if an anarchist was elected as the leader of the government, which is so far fetched it really isnt worth thinking about, those people with the real power, military, big business etc would not allow this person to dismantle what is there to protect their interests. As soon as a radical person is elected into power they are dispossed off. Allende in Chilie is a prime example. He was a marxist and as soon as he won power he was ousted by a CIA backed coup. Capitalists, politicians and military and security force officials would never allow someone to "dismantel the government."

You are putting faith in the system. You can not believe that parlimentry democracy is a way to achieve fundamental change within society because the system isnt designed to allow that sort of change. The system existance in order to allow the ruling class to exist.

and anarchy has been established without loss of life.

It's a noble thought but it is unrealistic. You can not change the entire fabric of society by becoming a president or a prime minister. We do not want to have anything to do with this system. A system which allows millions of people to die of starvation. A system which creates wars and exploitation. A system which allows indeviduals to amass huge amounts of wealth from labouring people who spend all their lifes in a factory and earn nothing. These people are parasites and as soon as they are challenged, whether it be on the streets or in a parliment building they will resort to unrestricted violence to protect their wealth.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

2nd January 2004, 13:30

Communism must be established BY FORCE even if the majority don't want it. The majority of people have been brainwashed by capitalist media, and have gross misconceptions of what communism really is. Communism works for the working class, so in time, their opinions about Communism will change. A revolution is not something where you run around asking nicely if they would please stop oppressing the working class and if they would please vote for the Communist party. As nice as it would be, it's not going to happen. The oppressors must be thrown out by force if necessary, and there should be no more elections that would allow any reactionary individuals into power.

ComradeRobertRiley

2nd January 2004, 13:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 04:30 PM
Communism must be established BY FORCE even if the majority don't want it. The majority of people have been brainwashed by capitalist media, and have gross misconceptions of what communism really is. Communism works for the working class, so in time, their opinions about Communism will change. A revolution is not something where you run around asking nicely if they would please stop oppressing the working class and if they would please vote for the Communist party. As nice as it would be, it's not going to happen. The oppressors must be thrown out by force if necessary, and there should be no more elections that would allow any reactionary individuals into power.
I agree with you.

The Feral Underclass

2nd January 2004, 15:05

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

Communism must be established BY FORCE even if the majority don't want it.

Then how will you control the working class once you have taken power. Create a new ruling class? A new minority to force the majority to accept your oppinions or die? If the working class hate communism so much how do you expect to retain power without oppressing the working class.

You can not force communism on the working class it has to be something they want and something the want to fight for. Your way of achieving communism will only create a new oppressive state and alienate the workers even more.

The majority of people have been brainwashed by capitalist media, and have gross misconceptions of what communism really is.

Then educate people.

Communism works for the working class, so in time, their opinions about Communism will change.

What? You mean after you have repressed them and indoctrinated them. Once you have forced them to accept the laws of their new leaders, then they will change their minds. In order to achieve communism over a majority who are hotstile to it you will have to use force to stop them from over throwing you. They will create new workers organizations to oppose you and you will have to use all the might of your new "communist" state to destroy them. What will you do if they start to demonstrate and two or three million people take to the streets to demand that you give bak power to the liberal democracy. Use force to smash them? Shoot them? Arrest them?...Who are you liberating here?

The oppressors must be thrown out by force if necessary,

You mean we have to throw out one set of oppressors and put a whole new bunch in power. What you are describing is no better than capitalism. No better than fascism mind you. Take heed of your words 'Big Brother,' they will come back and haunt you!!!

Rob

2nd January 2004, 15:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 02:30 PM
Communism must be established BY FORCE even if the majority don't want it.
Why should it if the majority don't want it?

DEPAVER

2nd January 2004, 18:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 02:30 PM
Communism must be established BY FORCE even if the majority don't want it....The oppressors must be thrown out by force if necessary, and there should be no more elections that would allow any reactionary individuals into power.
So, once you've used violence and coercion to achieve power, how do you propose to retain power without further coercion and violence?

Violence simply brings more violence and is antithetical to a free society.

We cannot cut off the head of the state and expect the body to mend its ways and follow the head that we put in its place. In order to build a new society, we must build a body that needs no head, that grows from itself, that self-generates and therefore needs no direction from a centralized authority. When all citizens are functioning members of a true democracy, the need for a centralized state and its concentrate of wealth and power, disappears.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

2nd January 2004, 19:53

In the 1860s Confederacy, the majority wanted to own slaves, in the south in the 1960's, the majority of the people still wanted segregation. Sometimes people need to stand up and take action for what is right, no matter what everyone thinks. The government should be led and controlled by the people in the Communist party, the organization representing all the Communist working class of the world. The only "ruling class" will be Marxist proletarians, as for the reactionary groups who fight against the revolution, they can be reeduccated, or they can rot in a labor camp for the rest of their lives for all I care, oppressed just like they have oppressed the working class for thousands of years past. Establish a Communist state by anymeans necessary. If it requires civil war and/or a police state system, then so be it. Although I would rather society be more relaxed and free, if the counter-revolutionaries want to play dirty, I feel it is out job to show them that we will take whatever measures are necessary to defend our revolution.

The Feral Underclass

2nd January 2004, 20:53

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

For a start you can not have a communist state. The two things negate each other.

Sometimes people need to stand up and take action for what is right, no matter what everyone thinks.

We are not talking about whether slavery is good or bad. Extreme racism like that has to be stood up against but this is a completly different thing to class struggle. We are not talking about some bourgois revolution we are talking about the fundamental changing of the entire fabric of society.

The essence of communism is founded in the notion that the working class liberate themselves from the ruling class. The point to communism is that the working class create a stateless, non governmental society based on equal contributions to it. How can they achieve this world that they can be proud of if they are being told what to do, or even forced to do it.

This is not about standing up for what is right as an indevidual or a small group of indeviduals, it is far greater than you or I. It is about the working class, as one giant unit collectivly and consciouslly standing up to capitalism, confronting the ruling class and taking control for themselves.

The government should be led and controlled by the people in the Communist party

If your group, or vanguard has taken power through a coup without the understanding or even want of the working class how can the people lead and control this government? This new government will be controlled by this vanguard, who will concentrate every aspect of control within society into their hands and use it to coerce the working class into accepting your, the vangaurds, ideals. You have admitted that people should be forced to accept communism. It is not about the working class right now. It is about the vanguard, asserting control over the masses, who do not even know or even want what you are offering them.

What happens if the people stand up and say they do not want it? Do you have a right, just because you believe it to be just, to force the working class to accept it? You are no greater than the working class as a whole. You are a speck in the cog. You are a worker, nothing more.

What happens if the working class decide to create a resistance to your one party state? I am not talking about the police or the army. I am talking about a mass working class resistance. Because this is bound to happen if you attempt to force people to accept something they do not want to accept. Do you smash them? Do you arrest them? Do you let them all rot in labour camps? At this point you have lost any notion of class struggle and have turned into nothing more than despots, desperatly trying to retain personal control over a country who does not want you.

only "ruling class" will be Marxist proletarians

It is absurd to believe that you can involve everyone into this national process, much less if they do not want communism. This ruling class, which you idealisticly assume will, without any explination, encompass every working class person and be free from corruption, in reality is a vanguard who seized power in the first place and who monopolice the power of the army, police force, security services, economy and propoganda into their hands and who control it all, centrally with a rigid hierarchical structure. The working class end up being told what to do and if they dont do it then they are accused of subversion arrested, shot or sent to rot in a labour camps.

The proof lies in history.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

2nd January 2004, 23:57

Not all of the working class are Marxist revolutionaries that strive for equality and socialism. Many are reactionaries, many are scabs. Any anti-communist movement is bound to be run by them. They are the only people oppressed by communism. The communist party won't be forcing any thing on the worker, any more then a democracy forces things on anyone else. Naturally everyone can never agree on everything. Things have to be managed to ensure the best for everyone. If the global communist movement only consists of a handful of people, and they are all who can govern, then so be it, but that isn't the reality, at least everywhere but America. A revolution in a capitalist "democracy" liberates workers from the chains that they have forged themselves, and with every Republican vote, they forge a new link in that chain. The working class, particularly in the US, will be in no hurry to embrase Communism. It is our duty as Communists to help them understand the fundamental truth of Marxism, with love if possible, with force if necessary. Public opinion is nothing more then a measure of the effectiveness of propaganda.

SonofRage

3rd January 2004, 00:07

The dirty little secret of the vanguardists is that they do not believe the proletariat can emancipate themselves. We see it time and time again.

Blackberry

3rd January 2004, 00:09

And there's this...

The communist party won't be forcing any thing on the worker, any more then a democracy forces things on anyone else.

Translation: We will be doing exactly the same thing as the capitalists do now, except that we're going to force a different ideology down the throats of the working class.

In other words, 'replacing old bosses with new bosses'.

It has been done before by 'communists'...and failed.

And here's another gem...

Communism must be established BY FORCE even if the majority don't want it....The oppressors must be thrown out by force if necessary, and there should be no more elections that would allow any reactionary individuals into power.

'The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself.'

I believe one Karl Marx said this...you may have heard of him.

Don't Change Your Name

3rd January 2004, 00:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 11:10 PM
ok, good, glad to see this issue has been thought out :) as to the guy trying to suggest that armed confilct is the only way to create anarchy, that may be true, but what would happen if the people elected an anarchist into power? the anarchist would dismantle the governement that he has been elected to run and anarchy has been established without loss of life.
I would like to be a candidate for an anarchist party some day in an election...however, there is no peacful choice. Even if I would get the money to get myself shown on media, even if they dsitribute my propaganda and people wants me for president, even if i win, how can i dissolve the state?? How can i ensure that this new order will be peaceful, especially considering that people is so ignorant that they will think: "anarchy...cool...i can go and rape 200 girls and steal my neighbour's car!!". That's the problem. A conscience has to be developed in people, and the typical leninist style hasnt worked. There needs to be an alternative. If a socialist government woult let anarchist educate the people to really be free then anarchy is possible, however the damn leninists treat us like "counter-revolutionaries", "scapegoats", "capitalists", etc...

Blackberry

3rd January 2004, 01:17

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Jan 3 2004, 12:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Infiltr(A)do @ Jan 3 2004, 12:50 PM)
[email protected] 1 2004, 11:10 PM
ok, good, glad to see this issue has been thought out :) as to the guy trying to suggest that armed confilct is the only way to create anarchy, that may be true, but what would happen if the people elected an anarchist into power? the anarchist would dismantle the governement that he has been elected to run and anarchy has been established without loss of life.
I would like to be a candidate for an anarchist party some day in an election...however, there is no peacful choice. Even if I would get the money to get myself shown on media, even if they dsitribute my propaganda and people wants me for president, even if i win, how can i dissolve the state?? How can i ensure that this new order will be peaceful, especially considering that people is so ignorant that they will think: "anarchy...cool...i can go and rape 200 girls and steal my neighbour's car!!". That's the problem. A conscience has to be developed in people, and the typical leninist style hasnt worked. There needs to be an alternative. If a socialist government woult let anarchist educate the people to really be free then anarchy is possible, however the damn leninists treat us like "counter-revolutionaries", "scapegoats", "capitalists", etc... [/b]
*Rips hair out*

Participating in bourgeois elections is completely against anarchist principles.

Do you know of any anarchist, never mind a party running for bourgeois to win? No? I certainly would think so!

The only way that anarchism can be implemented is through popular revolution. There is no place for reformism or the participation in a position of power among anarchists. Full stop.

Join a vanguardist party instead, if you think a stateless world can be achieved via bourgeois elections.

Just don't attempt to re-write an ideology.

Pete

3rd January 2004, 01:17

Not all of the working class are Marxist revolutionaries

Not all 'Marxist revolutionaries' are working class either. That may be a problem if the bourgeoisie 'Marxist revolutionaries' want to be in the seat of power to keep the 'flock' in line, because as it is said above, "not all of the working class are Marxist revolutionaries."

I've been doing a little theorizing and piecing things together myself, and if anyone remembers when in March and April and May and June (horrible grammar, and thank you for that) I was posting parts of my epic poem.. that, and my current project together are the basis of my ideology. Perhaps I will get to posting more of it in the weeks to come. It tries to answer as many questions through a story (one is a 106 page Epic poem, the other is currently a 60 page piece of prose-novel).

-Pete

SonofRage

3rd January 2004, 01:25

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 2 2004, 08:50 PM
I would like to be a candidate for an anarchist party some day in an election...
Is that like being a soldier for peace? :D

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

3rd January 2004, 01:40

If you don't want people to think anarchy is about chaos and death, then just give it a name change. Maybe socialist libertarians.

Pete

3rd January 2004, 01:42

We do not do that, because we are not socialist libertarians. You see the theory is anarchy because it calls for an-archy, not socialist libertarianism. Socialist implies a government, and libertarianism a freemarket system. Obviously that name, or anyother you could think of, cannot apply.

SonofRage

3rd January 2004, 01:46

Libertarian Socialism is a term synonymous with Anarchism.

Blackberry

3rd January 2004, 01:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 01:40 PM
If you don't want people to think anarchy is about chaos and death, then just give it a name change. Maybe socialist libertarians.
Because anarchism is the name that has been used for centuries now. Why bother changing it, when it has already had successes before?

Plus a word change doesn't change an ideology; never mind the opposition such a name change would receive.

The Feral Underclass

3rd January 2004, 10:31

El Infiltr(A)do

I would like to be a candidate for an anarchist party some day in an election

An anarchist party? Candidates? Anarchism can not, ever, under any circumstances subscribe to bouregois politics. To do this would completely betray everything we stood for. The bouregois system can never work, ever! It is designed to perpetrate the authority and control of the ruling class.

I understand that it is hard for some people to accept the inevitable, especially when it seems so awful. But one day, you are going to have to accept the inevitable. Capitalism will not stop the exploitation and oppression of the working class until it is destroyed, in all its forms, out right with with no exceptions. Unfortunatly comrade, the ruling class are not going to role over and hand over their power, whether you did entertain the notion of parlimentry democracy and won, and some point their interests are going to be threatened and they wont stand for it. They will come with guns and tanks and try and smash us. It is inevitable. At this point, we have to fight back, or give up.

In order for you to organize succesfully for class struggle, you will have to accept this. Unfortunatly there is no other way.

The Feral Underclass

3rd January 2004, 10:44

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

Not all of the working class are Marxist revolutionaries that strive for equality and socialism.

But they are no less able of change. Regardless of that, I think if you spent half a day with these "scabs" you will see that they desperatly want change. They desperatly realise that something is not right with the system. However they have no political perspective or understanding, or at worst they have no sense of empowerment.

Our mission is not to lead the working class because they are too stupid, but to educate them so that they can make the choice for themselves.

The communist party won't be forcing any thing on the worker, any more then a democracy forces things on anyone else.

You can not force people to live in a stateless, non governmental society. You can not force people to work together as a unit for society. You can not force people to respect each other and care for humanity. These are tenets of communism and you can not force them onto people, people have to subscribe to them on their own free will, if not, it will never work. Infact, it wouldnt be communism.

Things have to be managed to ensure the best for everyone.

And what if the best for everyone is to not have this vangaurd government.

The working class, particularly in the US, will be in no hurry to embrase Communism.

And even more so if it is being forced on them. This revolution can not last. It can not sustain itself. It will end up like Stalinist Russia or Mao's China. The vangaurd will have assert absolute control in order to stay in power and look what happens when they do this.

It is our duty as Communists to help them understand the fundamental truth of Marxism

I agree...

with force if necessary.

This makes you know better than a capitalist. You are a course of the problem. You are why the working class despise revolutionary politics. I dare you to take this attitude to the working class and see what they have to say. If you force the workers to accept anything, you will nothing more those you ousted. An enemy to the working class.

Public opinion is nothing more then a measure of the effectiveness of propaganda.

If you're trying to sell Doritos, we are trying to change consciousness. Something I think you could do a little work on...

ComradeRobertRiley

3rd January 2004, 13:23

Not all communists are marxists.

Kez

3rd January 2004, 14:21

all communists are marxists, as marx himself was a communist, and distanced himself away from the "socialists" like social democrats, however, "communists" are not marxists

ComradeRobertRiley

3rd January 2004, 14:32

What?

Marx was a communist yes, marx was a communist yes

K.Marx = Marxist-communist

This does not mean all communists are marxists

DEPAVER

3rd January 2004, 14:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 08:53 PM
The government should be led and controlled by the people in the Communist party, the organization representing all the Communist working class of the world....Establish a Communist state by anymeans necessary. If it requires civil war and/or a police state system, then so be it. Although I would rather society be more relaxed and free, if the counter-revolutionaries want to play dirty, I feel it is out job to show them that we will take whatever measures are necessary to defend our revolution.
Wow! I'm shocked there are still people in this world that think this way. That you can establish freedom and equality through coercion and violence.

Police state? Hell, how many failed examples throughout history do you need to prove this DOESN'T WORK?

DEPAVER

3rd January 2004, 15:00

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 3 2004, 02:17 AM
*Rips hair out*

Participating in bourgeois elections is completely against anarchist principles.

Thank god someone understands this.

DEPAVER

3rd January 2004, 15:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 02:40 AM
If you don't want people to think anarchy is about chaos and death, then just give it a name change. Maybe socialist libertarians.
Once again, let's do away with this word that seems to cause so much apoplexy among
its percipients. Let's substitute democracy for anarchism. Democracy in its
ultimate form is indistinguishable from anarchy.

Democracy is government of the people, by the people and, for the
people.

The United States government is not a democracy and has never been. It
is a representative republic in which representatives to the central
government are chosen in a winner-take-all popular vote and have no
responsibility to follow the will of the people once elected into office.
Elections are funded by corporate and individual bribery, trading political
contributions for political favor.

Democracy, on the other hand, is a form of government in which each
individual citizen takes personal responsibility for his or her own
well-being and for the well-being of the community in which he or she lives.
Each individual takes part in the decision-making process, individually, in
the family, in the neighborhood, in the community, in the region, in the
state, in the nation, in the world.

Decision-making means deciding on each aspect of the society, from
paving the roads to dealing with crime, to protecting wilderness, to
responding to external threats of violence. Power is not concentrated at the
top but flows from the citizens. Power is not assigned to centralized
systems, it is retained at the individual level.

Democracy cannot exist in tandem with a capitalist economic system,
which is centralized, hierarchical, coercive and inegalitarian. In the
United States, democracy was discarded long ago in favor of capitalism.

ComradeRobertRiley

3rd January 2004, 16:17

Depaver - Communism will never be acheived through non violent means.

Don't Change Your Name

3rd January 2004, 17:38

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 3 2004, 11:31 AM
An anarchist party? Candidates? Anarchism can not, ever, under any circumstances subscribe to bouregois politics. To do this would completely betray everything we stood for. The bouregois system can never work, ever! It is designed to perpetrate the authority and control of the ruling class.

I understand that it is hard for some people to accept the inevitable, especially when it seems so awful. But one day, you are going to have to accept the inevitable. Capitalism will not stop the exploitation and oppression of the working class until it is destroyed, in all its forms, out right with with no exceptions. Unfortunatly comrade, the ruling class are not going to role over and hand over their power, whether you did entertain the notion of parlimentry democracy and won, and some point their interests are going to be threatened and they wont stand for it. They will come with guns and tanks and try and smash us. It is inevitable. At this point, we have to fight back, or give up.

In order for you to organize succesfully for class struggle, you will have to accept this. Unfortunatly there is no other way.
Ok, Im sorry, I'm a sinner, I have become a bourgueois, I can't do anything right, I have to leave the poor masses be exploited without an alternative. I even have to leave all the anarchist comrades have no choice to vote on the elections to show how much they hate the good-looking bastard who pays millions for his propaganda to gain the stupidized masses to vote him for his "honest", "democratic", "realistic" project.
The truth is that the only way a revolution can be made is by freeing the masses minds and fighting by any necessary means, even if that includes taking part on a anti-democratic "democratic" system. This includes workers strikes, guerrilla movements, personal rebellion against the establishment and private corporations, spreading our cause by any means,

However, I have NEVER said that we need to fight only thay way, and that anarchism can be reached that way. In fact the point of my post was to show that such a thing would be useless because of the current political systems, who cant just be abolished by a president, unless of course we gain most of the government, something that I doubt that can be reached without a way to open the opressed people's minds to the real world. An anarchist running for presidency won't win because of this:
1. He doesn't have propaganda in the media, so about 0.25% of the population will vote him, which will be mostly anarchists and stupid punk kids that think "without rules I can do anything i want...cool!" (people who wont really help the cause, they will in fact bring us back to the capitalist order)
2. Anarchists will think the same way you do, that he has sold-out to the exploiter's "democracy"
3. To destroy the government by taking its power you need: to gain the masses, make them understand what anarchism is all about, have a majority on any Senate thing that may exist on that specific country, have the rest of the government support the cause, and many anarchists helping.
4. The bourgeois bastards will not even allow an anarchist party take part in elections, especially if there is a revolution inside the people. Then they will bring out their tanks and put a fascist paranoid bastard into power.

However, I would like there to be an anarchist party running for government. At least I would have someone who thinks like me to vote and change percentages to the democratic side. I personally see the "democratic" elections more like a survey, after all as we know they hardly ever change things.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

3rd January 2004, 18:18

Everyone here knows who and what is popular. If the US were Venezuela, I would say go ahead with multiparty democracy, but it isn't. In '04 both you and I know exactly who is going to win. Any "liberation" movement will be one that takes a shift to the far right. I feel we should fight for the socialist system by any means necessary, and we need to be responsible about it. If the majority of the people are looking very Republican, it would be foolish for us to have an multiparty election. People in the US have been too brainwashed, Communism must be established with or without the support of the people. The workers will liberate themselves, we are workers, so lets get liberating! A revolution is not a tea party in which we go up to the bourgiouse and ask them nicely if they would please stop exploiting their workers, and ask for a show of hands who thinks the boss should own everything. Because we all know that the hands won't be where they need to be.

ComradeRobertRiley

3rd January 2004, 19:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 09:18 PM
Everyone here knows who and what is popular. If the US were Venezuela, I would say go ahead with multiparty democracy, but it isn't. In '04 both you and I know exactly who is going to win. Any "liberation" movement will be one that takes a shift to the far right. I feel we should fight for the socialist system by any means necessary, and we need to be responsible about it. If the majority of the people are looking very Republican, it would be foolish for us to have an multiparty election. People in the US have been too brainwashed, Communism must be established with or without the support of the people. The workers will liberate themselves, we are workers, so lets get liberating! A revolution is not a tea party in which we go up to the bourgiouse and ask them nicely if they would please stop exploiting their workers, and ask for a show of hands who thinks the boss should own everything. Because we all know that the hands won't be where they need to be.
I agree and also when we have taken power, it is then that we should educate people about communism/socialism. It will be easier then because you wont have the capitalist government and media propaganda to contradict us.

Pete

3rd January 2004, 20:56

also when we have taken power, it is then that we should educate people about communism/socialism

If you follow this route you will be no better than those in power now. If you want to lead ignorance by the neck, then so be it, do that, but that does not get you followers, or, which you should really be looking for, comrades. To effectively fight the system you have to have its antithesis in your hand as your weapon, and anything that leaves the most important parts of a revolution to after you are snug in the mansion set aside for the ruler of the state you just toppled is going about things in the wrong way. Then you will have to worry about forgien armies, interventionists, oppression, human rights, civil rights, and all those other things I doubt you hardly think about. It is foolery to suggest that you would subjacated a hostile 'brainwashed' population and then expect to beable to 're-educate' them to your liking.

Do you not think it would be more effective to fight a war against the media and its lies and draw over the bulk of the population, many who already have the seeds of dissnet planted by unknowing politicians who continually break promises, lie, and lead nations to war with lies and broken promises. Take advantage of that, instead of waiting until after you have called in your crack soldier to kill anyone who resists. If you educate everyone into accepting freedom, equality, ect before it comes to blows, then your vangaurd/elitist theory will have no place or need in the world that is to come, not from you, but from all.

-Pete

ComradeRobertRiley

3rd January 2004, 21:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 11:56 PM

also when we have taken power, it is then that we should educate people about communism/socialism

If you follow this route you will be no better than those in power now. If you want to lead ignorance by the neck, then so be it, do that, but that does not get you followers, or, which you should really be looking for, comrades. To effectively fight the system you have to have its antithesis in your hand as your weapon, and anything that leaves the most important parts of a revolution to after you are snug in the mansion set aside for the ruler of the state you just toppled is going about things in the wrong way. Then you will have to worry about forgien armies, interventionists, oppression, human rights, civil rights, and all those other things I doubt you hardly think about. It is foolery to suggest that you would subjacated a hostile 'brainwashed' population and then expect to beable to 're-educate' them to your liking.

Do you not think it would be more effective to fight a war against the media and its lies and draw over the bulk of the population, many who already have the seeds of dissnet planted by unknowing politicians who continually break promises, lie, and lead nations to war with lies and broken promises. Take advantage of that, instead of waiting until after you have called in your crack soldier to kill anyone who resists. If you educate everyone into accepting freedom, equality, ect before it comes to blows, then your vangaurd/elitist theory will have no place or need in the world that is to come, not from you, but from all.

-Pete
hostile 'brainwashed' population and then expect to beable to 're-educate' them to your liking.

LOL, if thats true then as I have said before i would definately be impossible with the capitalists in power.

Pete

3rd January 2004, 22:29

I think forcing yourself into a position of power is what will make most people hostile to you and your ideas. "Free peoples movement" remember, as your link says, not you dictating what is right and wrong after coming to power in a vicious power struggle, or smoothly run coup. Either way you will need mass support for either to work out in your favour in the end. Especially in the 1st world. Can't skip steps.

Rob

3rd January 2004, 23:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 07:18 PM
Everyone here knows who and what is popular. If the US were Venezuela, I would say go ahead with multiparty democracy, but it isn't.
So basically you only want democracy if you win. Greeaat.

ComradeRobertRiley

3rd January 2004, 23:11

we'll get support of the masses afterwards

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

3rd January 2004, 23:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 08:02 PM
So basically you only want democracy if you win. Greeaat.
It's called being responsible. I feel we must do anything necessary to keep the capitalists out of power. If that means abolishing multiparty democracy in favor for the single party socialist state, then so be it.

Rob

3rd January 2004, 23:33

So it's your responsibility to make sure that only people who agree with you are in power. Who gave you this quest? Lenin's ghost?

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

4th January 2004, 00:26

It's not MY responsibility, it is OUR responsiblity. Responsibility being that thing that most children haven't learned yet.

Xprewatik RED

4th January 2004, 01:18

Yes.. it is OUR responsibility to preserve THE PARTY..... :ph34r:

Blackberry

4th January 2004, 01:33

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 4 2004, 05:38 AM
The truth is that the only way a revolution can be made is by freeing the masses minds and fighting by any necessary means, even if that includes taking part on a anti-democratic "democratic" system. This includes workers strikes, guerrilla movements, personal rebellion against the establishment and private corporations, spreading our cause by any means,

Good for you. Just don't call yourself an anarchist.

However, I have NEVER said that we need to fight only thay way, and that anarchism can be reached that way.

You cease to be an anarchist by participating in reformism, even if you think that 'anarchism' 'can' be reached this way. Like I said before; don't re-write an already established ideology!

In fact the point of my post was to show that such a thing would be useless because of the current political systems, who cant just be abolished by a president, unless of course we gain most of the government, something that I doubt that can be reached without a way to open the opressed people's minds to the real world.

Ever heard of working class revolution? You may have heard of it. You know, workers rising up to smash the State. Paris Commune, Ukraine, Spain, etc. There are some nice examples.

An anarchist running for presidency won't win because of this:

An anarchist will never run for Presidency. Full stop.

Rob

4th January 2004, 02:22

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 4 2004, 02:33 AM
Ever heard of working class revolution? You may have heard of it. You know, workers rising up to smash the State. Paris Commune, Ukraine, Spain, etc. There are some nice examples.
Oh, another one might be Hungary in '56...and can someone remind me who put that one down?

Pete

4th January 2004, 03:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 08:26 PM
It's not MY responsibility, it is OUR responsiblity. Responsibility being that thing that most children haven't learned yet.
So it is our responsibility to get the party into power so it can indoctrinate the masses? Hell, then sign me up cause I sure as hell believe that to control the masses you don't ned their support until after you are already controlling them. And damnit controlling them is the only way to go, cause their not as smart as us anyways.

Your ideology, that which is presented here atleast, is a joke.

-Pete

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

4th January 2004, 14:39

If most people had the sence not to vote Republican, then this wouldn't be a problem, unfortuately that isn't the case. The idea is to get the masses to be able to control themselves, something which they are clearly incapable of right now. Most people have been indoctrinated with a form a right-wing ideology, and to fight that, you have to re-indoctrinate people. If you are expecting the majority of the people to support anarchy, or anything left-wing, it's not going to happen here anytime in the near future. If the numbers were a little more in our favor, then why not have a movement of the masses? Unfortunately, the masses here only move one way, to the RIGHT! In such a situation, it is the party's responsibilty to lead, manage, and teach them, at very least until they are in a situation to do so themselves. Does anyone know the approval ratings for communist/socialist groups in America? Whatever it is, I'm sure its not too encouraging. What I am saying, is we shouldn't don't have elections unless we know we are going to win them. It's just a matter of playing the cards you are dealt. We should take any measures necessary to prevent capitalists from getting into power.

Don't Change Your Name

4th January 2004, 20:03

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 4 2004, 02:33 AM
Good for you. Just don't call yourself an anarchist
Now this sounds familiar to me...this is the type of things the leninists, especially the stalinist ones do!!! You are being a sectarian!

We need to get to the people. People depends a lot on what the media, the parents and the state tells them. Now we anarchists aren't usually very rich, we can't spread our words through the media, we can't take part on the state. We can't make people realise things without reaching them. We are a minority, we would need to be about 5 times more to be able to reach the people. We are not brainwashing, we are showing them another point of view concerning the world that surrounds all of us. Getting to the people's minds will clear their doubts about anarchism, make them understand how it works, and showing them our point of view without brainwashing them, showing how they have been exploited economically, politically, socially and (the most important thing) that they have been brainwashed!!! People wont get we support democracy because the system put on their heads that "democracy are elections", even if we know they are wrong. We arent promising them the world but we are trying to make them have an open mind and a different attitude.

You cease to be an anarchist by participating in reformism, even if you think that 'anarchism' 'can' be reached this way. Like I said before; don't re-write an already established ideology!

Once again I have never said that anarchism will be reached that way, in fact i gave reasons of why it wouldnt.

Ever heard of working class revolution? You may have heard of it. You know, workers rising up to smash the State. Paris Commune, Ukraine, Spain, etc. There are some nice examples.

Excuse me, but the world has changed. Things arent the same way they were decades ago. The situation is very different: by those times anarchist syndicates had thousands of workers, nowadays they dont even have power. People ate the lie of "progress" through capitalism, so this organizations dissapeared. Argentina is an example of this, here there was once a big organization, the FORA (Federación Obrera Regional Argentina), which had thousands of memeber (about 250000, I'm not sure). It was an a anarchist organization. But then the oligarchy took different actions against pro-worker organizations, and later when Peron appeared, people ate once again a lie: the "peronist social justice". The people here became some poor sheeps that just wanted to give their kids a slightly better life. They thought neo-liberalism and keynesanism were the best alternatives for that. We once were in a good situation, workers were rebelling against fascism and capitalism!!! But look at the world now: Bush is the modern Hitler, the USSR is dead, most people vote and support centrist parties and their ideology is based on "nobody gifts me anything". Saying you're an anarchist is taken this way:
- your a angry punk rebel teen
- you love chaos and disorder
- you want to try a utopia, it won't work
- you are a violent bastard who wants a barbarian society where people kills and eats each other
- you want to rules to rape girls
- you are liar and a totalitarian communist
- you want to steal "me what i earned working hard"
We know all this is crap. The problem is, this people doesn't. So which is the way to show them the truth??? Internet seems a good place, but I really think it's useless. We need more face to face contact and we need to become an important group. Running for government would give us a chance to gain attention, but as i said it's useless.

An anarchist will never run for Presidency. Full stop.

It's true. But it's also true that we need a new way to fight.

SonofRage

4th January 2004, 20:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:39 AM
If most people had the sence not to vote Republican, then this wouldn't be a problem, unfortuately that isn't the case. The idea is to get the masses to be able to control themselves, something which they are clearly incapable of right now. Most people have been indoctrinated with a form a right-wing ideology, and to fight that, you have to re-indoctrinate people. If you are expecting the majority of the people to support anarchy, or anything left-wing, it's not going to happen here anytime in the near future. If the numbers were a little more in our favor, then why not have a movement of the masses? Unfortunately, the masses here only move one way, to the RIGHT! In such a situation, it is the party's responsibilty to lead, manage, and teach them, at very least until they are in a situation to do so themselves. Does anyone know the approval ratings for communist/socialist groups in America? Whatever it is, I'm sure its not too encouraging. What I am saying, is we shouldn't don't have elections unless we know we are going to win them. It's just a matter of playing the cards you are dealt. We should take any measures necessary to prevent capitalists from getting into power.
So, you are basically justifying creating a new ruling party elite. Sounds like a "Father knows best" State. No thanks. It's been tried before and has been miserable failure every time. What every happened to the workers emancipating themselves? Why do vanguardists have so little faith in the proletariat?

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

5th January 2004, 00:23

I wouldnt exactly call the dictatorship of the proletarian a "ruling class". <_<

Blackberry

5th January 2004, 03:10

El Infiltr(A)do:

D'oh. You are not communicating what you mean very well at all. Thus a gigantic misunderstanding has sprung up.

Read all of this (http://home.vicnet.net.au/~anarch/votewelc.htm) and tell me if that is what you really mean.

As for me being 'sectarian': yes, I refuse to promote the causes of vanguardist parties and organisations for their gain. If that is being sectarian, then bad luck. I refuse to help people who would do an even better job at keeping anarchists under control than current capitalist governments (!). They've done so in the past.

I don't see things on a left to right scale, and as you can see in this thread, there are vanguardists who advocate the 'father knows best state', as SonosRage put it. I see most of them as polar opposites.

But I fail how I can be 'sectarian' when what I saw you advocate prompted me to call you a 'non-anarchist' which was my judgement at the time. That has nothing to do with sectarianism. That was just stating what I thought.

But it seems that you were trying to get onto something, but you were communicating it poorly, since you had not decided on some necessary detail, which the above link could cover. You left 'too many gaps', so to speak.

However, I do advocate working with some vanguardists, on certain conditions, (http://www.anarchist-action.org/opinion.php?article=527) as can be found in that link.

But such an example of the above is very rare, and seems to be a recent innovation -- at least in my city.

The Feral Underclass

5th January 2004, 09:21

I do not think there is anything sectarian about refusing to participate in bouregois politics.

Pete

5th January 2004, 14:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 08:23 PM
I wouldnt exactly call the dictatorship of the proletarian a "ruling class". <_<
I added the emphasis.

Perhaps you should decide what you would call it then. A ruling class is a class that rules, and if you have an elitist vangaurd telling the people what is right and what is wrong (creating a 'Them and Us" scenario is probaly the best way to do this) you are no better than the newscasters today that talk about 'evil doers' with a straight face. It doesn't matter what you call, all that matters is what it is.

Don't Change Your Name

7th January 2004, 23:01

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 5 2004, 04:10 AM
El Infiltr(A)do:

D'oh. You are not communicating what you mean very well at all. Thus a gigantic misunderstanding has sprung up.

Read all of this (http://home.vicnet.net.au/~anarch/votewelc.htm) and tell me if that is what you really mean.
Well, I found that link very insteresting. What I meant was doing a simmilar thing, however this should happen in a certain situation, maybe in a capitalist crisis, people is unhappy, they will start thinking about how things have to change. People should be in a revolutionary situation, but the biggest problem is that the fascist bourgeois will attemp to send the military to kill any protest, to stop strikes, to destroy our places, to threaten us, etc.

However the idea of doing such a party would be great if it attracts the media. But as most of it is controlled by you know who, it might get some attention by the few "progressist" radios/tv stations/newspapers.

So, such a movement, even if it is supported by a huge mass of people that are asking for a change, needs to fight in every single way, but those who should influde most of the revolution should be anarchists.

So, my conclussion is that idea of the "Anarchist Party" is good while it is just a part of a massive struggle against the exploitation and it follows the anarchist principles. But a party on itself wont change things really, unless its a big organization with enough funds to "get to the people". I hope you get what I mean.

Blackberry

9th January 2004, 09:29

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Jan 8 2004, 11:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Infiltr(A)do @ Jan 8 2004, 11:01 AM)
Comrade [email protected] 5 2004, 04:10 AM
El Infiltr(A)do:

D'oh. You are not communicating what you mean very well at all. Thus a gigantic misunderstanding has sprung up.

Read all of this (http://home.vicnet.net.au/~anarch/votewelc.htm) and tell me if that is what you really mean.
Well, I found that link very insteresting. What I meant was doing a simmilar thing, however this should happen in a certain situation, maybe in a capitalist crisis, people is unhappy, they will start thinking about how things have to change. People should be in a revolutionary situation, but the biggest problem is that the fascist bourgeois will attemp to send the military to kill any protest, to stop strikes, to destroy our places, to threaten us, etc.

However the idea of doing such a party would be great if it attracts the media. But as most of it is controlled by you know who, it might get some attention by the few "progressist" radios/tv stations/newspapers.

So, such a movement, even if it is supported by a huge mass of people that are asking for a change, needs to fight in every single way, but those who should influde most of the revolution should be anarchists.

So, my conclussion is that idea of the "Anarchist Party" is good while it is just a part of a massive struggle against the exploitation and it follows the anarchist principles. But a party on itself wont change things really, unless its a big organization with enough funds to "get to the people". I hope you get what I mean. [/b]
Such a 'movement' must tell people to vote informal or not vote at all. That's something that has to be stressed. Those that promote themselves in this group are kicked out.

You have stated you want to do 'something similar', but you haven't noted any differences, nor even what your aim and strategy would be. All you have stated is that you want to 'run for government' to 'clear misconceptions of anarchism'...and that's it. What will you do? How will this be done? What will you say?

Such a campaign as the one carried out in Australia in 2001 will unlikely to be effective in a nation such as the USA , since voting is voluntary. Those who don't want to vote, don't vote already, and ignore the fireworks show. Those who actually bother to waste energy voting are unlikely to be wooed the other way.

In Australia, voting is compulsory for everyone over 18, otherwise you receive a fine, or have to go to court, stating your reasons. So such a campaign 'pays off'. It 'matters' more if a voter does not vote or casts an informal ballot.

In the last federal election in Australia, in 2001, 7.08% of people (with 20% of counting still to go) voted informal in the Victorian Senate election, up 100% from the last election. Two anarchists 'stood' for Senate, actively telling voters to either vote informal or don't vote at all.

This is in stark contrast to other states where there were no anarchist 'candidates': This figure is 70% greater than the figure in any other State. N.S.W 4.41%, QLD 3.81%, WA 4.29%, SA 3.9%, TAS 4.43%, ACT 2.7%, NT 3.64% (Senate elections).

Source: http://www.takver.com/history/elections/el...tm#informalvote (http://www.takver.com/history/elections/election2001.htm#informalvote)

But like I said above, with voluntary voting and those who don't want to vote already ignoring the fireworks show, who is going to listen?

It is also interesting to note that the 'Vote Informal Today, Direct Democracy Tomorrow' campaign was totally ignored by the corporate media, despite having a relatively large influence on results.

ComradeRed

10th January 2004, 05:52

If u wanna learn a lot about anarchy read anarcho syndaclism (http://membres.lycos.fr/anarchives/site/rocker/asindex.htm) (its a kick ass link)

Versive

10th January 2004, 21:47

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 1 2004, 07:22 PM
I think to create anarchy there would have to be more than one branch of the same movement, if you follow me so far.
It is already, and we/they have some serious disagreements on how it ties together.

So movement X is spilt into:

1: A Guerilla Section fighting a war against the army and gaining interest in the cause,Would be both doomed and dooming: It centralizes (and centralization is generally a very good way of making hierarchies, need I remind?) all "militant" action into one official, ontologically "true" force that brings the word "vanguard" to mind;
It creates an obvious target that can be easily wiped out, but not before doing enough damage to warrant crushing the rest of this orchestrated insurrection;
depends on the liberal media (and I use liberal in the original sense here) to get the "truth" out to "the masses"; and
creates a concentrated spectacle of opposition which will, without targeting the same media that perpetuates reification (which it can't do), will have a hegemonic effect on anybody who might be inspired to join.

2: A peaceful branch organising strikes and demo's etc...which are both by and large extremely ineffective ways to accomplish anything...

...to cause the government stress and hopefully giving them a bad rep by striking back against strikersPolarizing issues is good. Polarizing them by making situations worse is not.

Moreover, you don't really think that the liberal media would portray antiliberal activists any better than it does now, do you?

...if not hopefully the strikers will cause enough chaos by stopping work or clogging up streets of major citys.*cranks David Rovics's "Vanguard" even as he shudders in revulsion to protest folk*

3: A sabotage branch sabotaging government buildings, assasinating [sic] government officials and destroying government buildings with hopefully a minimum ammount [sic] of civilian casulties.You're completely overlooking the destruction of capitalism.

Moreover, what's the need for a formal division of these three tasks (never mind the serious task, specifically the actual creation of a new society - a task that could be underway right now, without any kind of the formalized confrontations you imagine - which isn't touched on at all)?

Eventually the Guerilla Movement would declare anarchy in the provinces it has so far liberated and eventually take the capital and cause the government to leave the country.And then we've achieved... "anarchism in one country." What about the rest of the world? What about the hegemonic spectacle of resistance that this new regional "anarchy" would create?

The revolutionary movement has better things to do than emulate the models of the last century. Especially the unworkable ones.