My name is Joseph - my story from anarchism to mystic

[jstrodel]

Hi everyone. My name is Joseph. I was, like most anarchists, an anarchist from about age 16 to age 18, and still a leftist radical into my 20s (again, typical of most in the left - not many serious anarchists over the age of 30). Anarchists told me that I could do whatever I want, that I didn't have to obey any rules, that capitalism and the state was evil, etc.

I have spent a good deal of time thinking about politics and reflecting on my youth. I was urged to rebel against everything in order to full-fill some greater revolutionary cause. Religion, of course was evil. It didn't matter that anarchism offered no answers to how to be a good person and that the anarchists had no authority of their own. Anarchism exploited the youthful passions of rebellion to draw the young away from the church to be a part of the left. Of course this is a despicable and extremely evil, but that gets away from my main point.

My main point is this. I write out of sincere concern and love for you all. What exactly is the political vision of anarchism. Did you know that 1/5th of the world is now controlled by the left? In China, in Vietnam, across the world, yes, the left has been successful. The new left Marxists will say "the Soviet Union was not truly Marxist, it was revisionist, psuedo-Marxism". The anarchists will be split, some will condemn the statism and authoritarianism of the successes of the left around the world but try to balance their criticisms against the evils of capitalism, as they understand from their political definition of what "evil' is (you need God to really know what evil is, evil is not a political propaganda device). Other anarchists will be much more critical of the left, and deny that anarchism should have anything in common with revolutionary Marxism.

This brings me to the clincher. What is the goal of anarchism? It is impossible to defend against state power without a military. The Spanish anarchists didn't last long. There is absolute no chance of a country that is anarchist will survive militarily.

That means, there is no point of anarchism. There has never been and never will be a nation that does not have a military. As soon as you have a military, you advocating a powerful state. It is inevitable. Anyone who denies this is intellectually dishonest. No military, no state.

I am not a militaristic person, and consider myself to be somewhat anti-war. That said, you need to have a military, and once you have a military, you have state.

This is what I think the goal of anarchism is. Anarchism is a way of packaging authoritarian, left wing philosophy in a package that allows it to make criticisms of state violence without offering any sort of real solution. The real leader of anarchism is not Bakunin of Proudhon it is Lenin. The lack of a real solution is intentional - the goal is to provide a platform in which political propaganda can arrest the conscience and provide a pie in the sky standard that actually is not even designed to work. Then, after people grow older and reflect more on the REAL NATURE of politics, which always involves power and force, they can be redirected into more authoritarian forms of leftism, like Marxism, which have some possibility of real results.

Yes, its true, communists throughout the world have proved that the left can have political power. They have killed perhaps 100 million people throughout the world as the cowardly, inconsistent idealism of the anarchists makes it more difficult for free societies like the US to deal with its enemies.

I love you all, and care for you deeply. I hope that you will reflect on my words - if what I am saying is true, your idealism does real harm - 1. by leading people into authoritarian politics 2. by preventing a greater popular concern for authoritarianism in other countries.

Do you really believe anarchism is possible? If yes - WHY? WHAT EVIDENCE? DO YOU REALLY THE EFFECT YOUR WORDS HAVE ON PEOPLE? I LOVE YEARS OF MY LIFE TO LEFT WING PHILOSOPHY. THE CONSEQUENCES ARE HIGH.

If no - what do you really believe? Do you think communist societies are more free than democratic societies?

Search your hearts, as anarchists, haters of authoritarianism and tyranny. I do not repudiate everything I believed as a leftist, I would die for some of my convictions, I still hate imperialism, I am anti-racists, I am still skeptical of some parts of capitalism in many ways.

But I love America. I recognize the privileged that I have living here. With tears in my eyes, I support the efforts of all the cold war presidents to suppress communism. I do not believe I have comprised my leftist values in doing this.

I consider myself to be a Republican and look up to people who have managed to live outside the capitalist system (e.g. the monks of the Catholic church). I am not an apologist for corporate greed. But I think politics have to exist in the real world and not become a kind of psuedo-religion.

I see my politics as being so much different now. Before, I was an atheistic moralistic. My world was black and white, the evil American empire, etc. Now I am skeptical of the politicians, but I know I live in a good society.

I guess I see the biggest difference in my politics before was that I was ready to put up with idiots like the Marxists, enemies of the values of true anarchism. I was ready to compromise my belief system out of youthful rebellion, and fail to see that hatred of state violence and imperialism and hunger for righteousness are not values to be paraded as if they make me better than anyone else, but values to practically live for.

I believe now, as a pro-American (but non-nationalistic, non-militaristic) Republican, I am much more consistent with anarchist values than when I was willing to act as an apologist for Stalinism and downplay the horrors of the left.


And what I more - I am a born again Christian. I have seen miracles, seen the power of God. I don't use drugs any more. I am not really part of the counterculture at all. I don't think it is revolutionary, I think it is despicable.

But I believe I am much truer to its values now than I was when I was a de facto apologist for the Soviet Union.

[Q]

Moved to Opposing Ideologies.
Ok, apparently I can't do that. Waiting for a global mod or admin I guess.

Welcome nonetheless.

[Sasha]

i can, op restricted, thread moved to OI, welcome i guess

[Q]

Did what I couldn't. This will be a pain the next six months, asking globals/admins for these actions all the time :closedeyes:

[Tim Cornelis]

Well welcome I suppose as well. Though I wonder how convicted of an anarchist you were. You certainly don't seem to grasp anarchism strongly, or Marxism for that matter. Perhaps you just googled anarchism a few afternoons and then articulated this story to bring us amoral anarchist atheists to God.

1) About 35-40% of the Dutch anarchist movement (in terms of members I know personally) is over 30, and far more approaching it (over 25).
2) There is no such thing as a "Marxist state" as Marxism is an analytical tool, not an ideology
3) An "anarchist nation" is indeed not possible, hence anarchists are proletarian internationalists. We seek a global communist society.
4) Anarchism is not opposed to rules as you imply in your first paragraph.
5) A military does not equal a state or else the Los Zetas are a state, which wouldn't make sense. Centralised power and a monopoly on coercive violence are defining characteristics of a state, not mere armed power.
6) I love the Netherlands to fair degree, not as a nation-state, but as a place where I'm not imprisoned for speaking my mind, for beautiful architecture of city centres, and the combination of peanutbutter and loafs of bread you can't find elsewhere. Whenever I hear of oppression, massacres, or other injustices I rejoice the privilege of living here. I'm not a whiny little angsty rebellious teenager that thinks the Netherlands is a police state akin to China, as you seem to think of anarchists.
7) I don't need anarchism to be a good person, I'm an anarchist because I'm a good person (at least I hope so). "It didn't matter that anarchism offered no answers to how to be a good person," though not oppressing or exploiting people is a rather good start wouldn't you say?
8) Marxism isn't authoritarian (i.e. top-down minority rule).


Do you really believe anarchism is possible? If yes - WHY? WHAT EVIDENCE? DO YOU REALLY THE EFFECT YOUR WORDS HAVE ON PEOPLE? I LOVE YEARS OF MY LIFE TO LEFT WING PHILOSOPHY. THE CONSEQUENCES ARE HIGH.

What is anarchism, an equal distribution of decision-making power. We find this amongst the Councils of Good Government where the Mayan peasants govern equally through participatory democracy, we find it in the FaSinPat (Factory without bosses) in Argentina, and in the assemblies of the Abahlali baseMjondolo. Anarchism wasn't the product of an idealist philosopher, it was taken directly from working class practice. Of course, then, it works. If praxis isn't evidence, I don't know what is.


If no - what do you really believe? Do you think communist societies are more free than democratic societies?

"democratic" societies are coercive, centralised, and inhibit personal autonomy, communist society is a free association of equals. Of course communism is more free than liberal democracies and capitalist society.

I search my heart and find love for community, solidarity, freedom, and justice -- nothing sums this up more than the word anarchism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

My name is Joseph too! :D
EDIT: You believe North Korea, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, China, etc. are leftist governments. Why? They aren't.

[Leftsolidarity]

Lol us Marxists are so badass that we created a huge false tendency that we pretend to disagree with to draw naive youth into our evil authoritarian ways MAUHAHAHAHAH

[jstrodel]

Tim Cornelis - thanks for your reply. I always enjoy a spirited debate. :)

1) About 35-40% of the Dutch anarchist movement (in terms of members I know personally) is over 30, and far more approaching it (over 25).

1. 35-40% of the Dutch anarchist is over 30. That means that 60% percent of the movement is under 30. I do not intend to make the impossible claim that all anarchists are young, only the claim which you confirmed, that the anarchist political base is under 30. You made my point for me.


2. This is the world that anarchists live in. What do you think the Chinese call themselves? What about the Soviet Union? You use books to prove points that contradicted by reality. This is why most of the anarchists (60% you claim) are under thirty - younger people have less developed critical thinking skills. You seriously want me to believe that your definition of Marxism trumps the only way that Marxism has been applied in history?

2) There is no such thing as a "Marxist state" as Marxism is an analytical tool, not an ideology
3. A global communist society - how would you organize this? How would you govern it. A global society that organizes itself without any military power, without the ability to inflict violence. To lie is a very evil thing, the person who says this is possible is a liar, probably simply trying to lead people into a more authoritarian, global communist society such as the one that exists now, that is FAR LESS FREE than the Western liberal democracy that it seeks to replace. To sell someone a false and impossible vision is a very serious and very evil thing and this is what you are doing. How would this work? Explain to me, in detail, where in history has there been a global communist society that is consistent with anti-authoritarian principles.

4) Anarchism is not opposed to rules as you imply in your first paragraph.
4. This is so typical of the dishonest, academic leftist who ignores how left wing theory functions in practice, and offers some hogwash justification made up in a University library. He makes himself intentionally unware of the suffering of the people underneath him. I was at many counter-cultural events in my life. I know what happens there, binge drinking, sexual promiscuity, drug use, etc. You can close your eyes and say you have the moral high ground because of what your textbook says, but if you cling to your textbook more than people you are no better than a CEO who clings to his financial spreadsheets more than his workers. In fact, that is exactly what you are. Anarchism is ALL ABOUT breaking rules, if you look at the culture. How does the anarchist base get recruits? In America, it is primarily through the music and rebellion fueled counterculture. The punk rock movement is probably a main driving force for anarchist and communist recruits. It functions by selling people a lifestyle of rule breaking, drinking and drug use and rebellion. It is probably the same in the Netherlands. They have a big drug culture there. In the USA, the drug culture and the left are the same. Anarchists don't have any moral authority, they are a bunch of cynical radical organizers. They don't care if people die of drug overdoses after listening to anarchist music that praises excess. They care about building their movement.
5) A military does not equal a state or else the Los Zetas are a state, which wouldn't make sense. Centralised power and a monopoly on coercive violence are defining characteristics of a state, not mere armed power.
5. You are splitting hairs, this is the way that people under the age of 30 argue, they split hairs. I am being patronizing because I care about the culture that has almost taken my life. Are you seriously advocating that the problem with the state is that it monopolizes violence? What are you advocating, constant civil war? When, when in history has anything like you suggest worked on more of a level than a minor social experiment. Look at what really happens when the collectivistic impulse of man become law, it isn't peace, it is Stalinism, Maoism, etc. If you are going to point to some extremely small unknown movement as evidence for your claims, that shows you are intellectually dishonest, a very serious thing. You are just leading people into the communist party.
6) I love the Netherlands to fair degree, not as a nation-state, but as a place where I'm not imprisoned for speaking my mind, for beautiful architecture of city centres, and the combination of peanutbutter and loafs of bread you can't find elsewhere. Whenever I hear of oppression, massacres, or other injustices I rejoice the privilege of living here. I'm not a whiny little angsty rebellious teenager that thinks the Netherlands is a police state akin to China, as you seem to think of anarchists.
6. I feel the same way about America. I love my country and my heart is torn as I witness policies that I disagree with. You may not be a little whiney, angsty teenager, you may be an adult who exploits teen angst to lead people into exactly the opposite of what they seem to be getting into. It is a despicable, horrible, evil thing to exploit a young person to try and build a questionable political movement.
7) I don't need anarchism to be a good person, I'm an anarchist because I'm a good person (at least I hope so). "It didn't matter that anarchism offered no answers to how to be a good person," though not oppressing or exploiting people is a rather good start wouldn't you say?
7. How do you define being a good person? What does it mean to oppress and exploit people. Is giving someone a job for $12/a hour exploiting them? In the US, this is what the capitalist system looks like, to a large degree. Yes, there are cases where people do get exploited. I would said that what you suggest is a horrible starting point. You are trying to take one of the most difficult problems in human history - the problem of economic scarcity, and build some absolute set of morals around this. This is a horrible, and ridiculous way to build a philosophy.
8) Marxism isn't authoritarian (i.e. top-down minority rule).
8. This proves my point, that the average Marxist is an angsty, uneducated, teenager full of foolish idealism. You believe everything people tell you. don't you? You tell people to see through the lies of the mainstream media, ok, true, the mainstream media lies. But you eat up that Marxist propaganda. There was no top-down minority rule in the Soviet Union? What about China? What about North Korea. Ok, all bad examples. Lets here the good examples. If the good example is a book of theoretical Marxism, that proves that if you aren't actually 17 years old in real life, you have the intellectual and emotional maturity level of a 17 year old. Marxism calls for a dictatorship of the proletariat. If you are stupid enough to believe that a dictatorship of the proletariat will ever be more than some sort of vangaurd party, and that a country of millions of people actually has the ability to organize their working class people into a democratic movement, you are nuts. When has this happened? Of course people will come in and declare they have the interests of the Proletariat at heart and they will simply rule, claiming their support.

What is anarchism, an equal distribution of decision-making power. We find this amongst the Councils of Good Government where the Mayan peasants govern equally through participatory democracy, we find it in the FaSinPat (Factory without bosses) in Argentina, and in the assemblies of the Abahlali baseMjondolo. Anarchism wasn't the product of an idealist philosopher, it was taken directly from working class practice. Of course, then, it works. If praxis isn't evidence, I don't know what is.

Where are these people. I think it may be possible to run some parts of the economic democratically. But this is syndicalism, it isn't anarchism. That doesn't explain how the state maintains its property rights. What you are saying about philosophers is wrong - anarchism is absolutely a product of the idealistic academic excesses of the 19th and 20th centuries. Your obscure examples pale in the face of 1/5th of the world crying in pain because they are chained under authoritarian rule from the communists. If you think that you are a good person because when you think, you find obscure examples to support your beliefs and turn your face away from the counterexamples, you are sadly mistaken. How long did these societies last? What if someone wants to conquer them? Of course praxis is evidence, THE EVIDENCE FROM HISTORY IS THAT ALL SOCIETIES REQUIRE POWER AND COERCION TO FUNCTION. Even the Spanish anarchists had a military force. If you deny this, you are dishonest. You are a tool of the authoritarian left, a prostitute of communism. You will believe what you want, you can be a prostitute if you want, or you can stand up and face hard realities of power. I do not completely accept capitalism, I think that it is possible to have labor unions or some other force own the corporations. I do not think it has to be the way it is now for so many. But it has gotten better. At one time, slavery was legal all over the world. I am not opposed to social change, I am opposed to fools who manipulate the truth to increase your power. Either you are a fool, or a cynical, manipulative, evil person.

"democratic" societies are coercive, centralised, and inhibit personal autonomy, communist society is a free association of equals. Of course communism is more free than liberal democracies and capitalist society.
I search my heart and find love for community, solidarity, freedom, and justice -- nothing sums this up more than the word anarchism.

When you say communism, you can't possibly mean the Soviet Union. If you claim it was better to live in the Soviet Union than in the Western countries, why did all the people flee and do everything they could to escape the Soviet Union? Why did they rejoice when the Berlin wall fell down. Why did the Soviet Union have to suppress dissent with such brutality?

When have you ever find a society that meets the criteria. You will probably reply "of course I don't support the Soviet Union". Who do you support. You havn't given any credible examples, it is the tactic of the lying left to give the most obscure and inconsequential examples. That is what you have done.

I love you very much and would die if I could get you to realize what I have seen. I have seen God. I saw images of my entire life flash before my eyes, all the events of my life. God showed me all the times I had spread lies and deceit to other people.

I would give my life up, I would die if by my death I could make you see what I see. I am not better than you or anyone else. I still am sympathic, to some degree, to labor unions, to working class people, to anti-imperialists. But I will never bow my head and serve

I put my post in introductions, rather than opposing idealogies, because I am, at heart, an anarchist and a leftist. That is why I write the way I do, I know that when I was an anarchist and I read Bakunin and Chomsky and ZNet and The Nation and everything else, I did have something good inside of me, I did have a spark of life and love that I feel for the poor, for those oppressed, I did feel hatred and anger inside myself for the imperialist, for the greed and wickedness of the West.

So I do not write as an opposing ideology, I write because I see myself, as someone who voted Republican (the conservative party in the US), as being more of a leftist than I ever have been in the past (honestly). I feel a sense of freedom, and inner zeal and hunger in my heart to see a better world.

[jstrodel]

Lol us Marxists are so badass that we created a huge false tendency that we pretend to disagree with to draw naive youth into our evil authoritarian ways MAUHAHAHAHAH

But you do do this. I was at the Young Democratic Socialists convention in New York City and they had advertised there a drinking party. People were getting really really drunk. I have done environmental organizing that afterwards, people would binge drink.

The left exploits youth tendencies towards excessive behavior. This is just a fact, if you think that you deal with with a serious issue with just a little bit of causal sarcasm, that proves you don't care anymore about the people in your movement than the capitalists care about their workers. If you don't have the moral integrity inside yourself to analyze things using real logic, not just sarcasm, you will never be able to create any positive social change. You are just a joker. You don't care about all the people who die because of binge drinking. You don't care about all the punk rock drummers strung out on heroin. Just a little bit of sarcasm. That is enough.


I ALMOST DIED OF A DRUG OVERDOSE BECAUSE OF ANARCHISM AND PUNK ROCK. WE HAVE READ THE SAME BOOKS, BEEN TO THE SAME KINDS OF PARTIES, TRUST ME. WHY DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT WHAT I HAVE TO SAY?

[jstrodel]

My name is Joseph too! :D
EDIT: You believe North Korea, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, China, etc. are leftist governments. Why? They aren't.

Hey User Name. Good to meet you. I recognize the difference between democratic socialist movements and authoritarian leftist movements. Your profile quoted Einstein, he was a democratic leftist.

The existence of a democratic left, it is true, in Europe and America. But this existence BECAUSE of the state, because of state subsidized and because of redistribution of wealth. It is impossible to have any left wing vision without the state.

It is still authoritarian for the state to seize massive amount of peoples wealth, which is why I don't think it is consistent with radical values.

But User Name, the fact of the matter remains, HISTORY HAS NOT GIVEN US THE THEORETICAL COMMUNISM OF THE ACADEMICS, IT HAS GIVEN US THE TOTALITARIAN NIGHTMARE OF THE SOVIET UNION.

100 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED BY COMMUNISM

Don't you care? Don't you care that this is the legacy of revolutionary left wing movements? WHERE has there been a successful anarchist society? Where has there been a revolution that lead to liberty and prosperity. In Cuba? You have got to be kidding me.


If you are a moral person, and not a proud, haughty, Marxist academic, you will care about RADICALISM IN PRACTICE, and consider the real historical record. It isn't friendly to revolutionary politics.

[Goblin]

How many people have died in the name of Judaism/Christianity/Islam?

[jstrodel]

How many people have died in the name of Judaism/Christianity/Islam?


How typical of the left, to show absolutely no respect for the millions of people who have died because of their foolish experiments and change the subject. There is a danger to being blinding so much by ideology that one only sees the things that he wants to.

There is no pain in your heart over the suffering of your Leninist and Maoist brothers. You just want to change the subject.



I cannot speak for Islam. As a Christian, my heart is troubled over the large numbers of people who have been killed needlessly because of mans misuse of religion. I do not know the number.

But Christianity, when you read history according to the honest historian, is responsible for creating some of the most stable, prosperous and democratic societies on earth. It is through Christianity that the era of modernity has come, through the Christian civilizations of Rome and Europe and America. Of course Christianity was not the only part in this, but it was wise enough to get out of the way and let other forces work. Communism has no such tolerance, it knows only its own ideology.

It is absolutely ridiculous to compare the totalitarian Communist nations with Christian countries. Communism has produced next to nothing other than misery and oppression. In 100 years it has cause far, far more pain and suffering than probably any other movement in history. Christianity has produced its fair share of despots in the mix of many fruitful, productive, democratic years.

[Tim Cornelis]

Jstrodel, you are essentially saying: 'Anarchism is stupid and you're lying to yourself if you think it can work, because I'm too ignorant to understand it.' You are projecting your ignorance of anarchism and communism unto us, as you strut away declaring yourself victorious.




1. 35-40% of the Dutch anarchist is over 30. That means that 60% percent of the movement is under 30. I do not intend to make the impossible claim that all anarchists are young, only the claim which you confirmed, that the anarchist political base is under 30. You made my point for me.

You said there isn't many serious anarchists over thirty, 40% is many. This is based on the collective I'm a member (where ca. 10% is over 30) and an impression of the 'federal assembly' attendance of my organisation (where 80-90% is over 30). Keep in mind as well that this is about activists, who tend to be youthful because they have yet to experience the lack of interest amongst the population for revolution. Older anarchists tend to cease their activism, not their anarchism.


2. This is the world that anarchists live in. What do you think the Chinese call themselves? What about the Soviet Union? You use books to prove points that contradicted by reality. This is why most of the anarchists (60% you claim) are under thirty - younger people have less developed critical thinking skills. You seriously want me to believe that your definition of Marxism trumps the only way that Marxism has been applied in history?

There is not a single argument in here. Marxism is an analytical framework, it analyses society. It is not an ideology. Socialism is, communism is, Marxism-Leninism is (both), Marxism is not.



3. A global communist society - how would you organize this? How would you govern it. A global society that organizes itself without any military power, without the ability to inflict violence. To lie is a very evil thing, the person who says this is possible is a liar, probably simply trying to lead people into a more authoritarian, global communist society such as the one that exists now, that is FAR LESS FREE than the Western liberal democracy that it seeks to replace. To sell someone a false and impossible vision is a very serious and very evil thing and this is what you are doing. How would this work?

Your ignorance means I'm lying. If lying is evil (which it's not) then admit that you were never an anarchist, because you ask too many fundamental questions to have been an anarchist. Federalism, core concept of anarchism, is the answer to your question.


Explain to me, in detail, where in history has there been a global communist society that is consistent with anti-authoritarian principles.

You in 1500 "Explain to me, in detail, where in history has there been a global capitalist society? I'm telling you it can't be done."



4. This is so typical of the dishonest, academic leftist who ignores how left wing theory functions in practice, and offers some hogwash justification made up in a University library. He makes himself intentionally unware of the suffering of the people underneath him. I was at many counter-cultural events in my life. I know what happens there, binge drinking, sexual promiscuity, drug use, etc. You can close your eyes and say you have the moral high ground because of what your textbook says, but if you cling to your textbook more than people you are no better than a CEO who clings to his financial spreadsheets more than his workers. In fact, that is exactly what you are. Anarchism is ALL ABOUT breaking rules, if you look at the culture. How does the anarchist base get recruits? In America, it is primarily through the music and rebellion fueled counterculture. The punk rock movement is probably a main driving force for anarchist and communist recruits. It functions by selling people a lifestyle of rule breaking, drinking and drug use and rebellion. It is probably the same in the Netherlands. They have a big drug culture there. In the USA, the drug culture and the left are the same. Anarchists don't have any moral authority, they are a bunch of cynical radical organizers. They don't care if people die of drug overdoses after listening to anarchist music that praises excess. They care about building their movement.

Don't mean to offend you but your incoherence makes me doubt your mental prowess, because what the hell are you talking about? Anarchism, as a form of social organisation, is not opposed to rules.


5. You are splitting hairs, this is the way that people under the age of 30 argue, they split hairs.

The way you argue is reminiscent of a 80 year old suffering dementia. Try to be coherent for once.


I am being patronizing because I care about the culture that has almost taken my life.

You are being patronised because you come here arrogantly claiming how stupid anarchists and communists are, how they are all liars, then throw your ignorane around proudly, claiming to have been an anarchist yet not knowing its funadmentals, and then instead of using arguments you make incoherent suggestions about age, and following textbooks, which makes no sense whatsoever. Then you ramble on about how, because you are too ignorant to understand our position, that we exploit teens, which has no basis whatsoever. Exploit teen angst? I'm not even involved in organising teenagers, but somehow you can make such a bold statement. You front as some righteous bloke guarding over us misguided folk, but in reality you're an arrogant jack-ass that patrionises us.

Get back to us when you know what communism is, what anarchism entails, and until you remorised all fallacies so you stop spewing them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies



100 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED BY COMMUNISM

10 million children die each year due to poverty in capitalist countries. That's 200 million since 1992.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Hey User Name. Good to meet you. I recognize the difference between democratic socialist movements and authoritarian leftist movements. Your profile quoted Einstein, he was a democratic leftist. I, personally, don't believe that an actual leftist movement can be authoritarian. While a government can be authoritarian and claim to be leftist, that does not make it leftist. For example, The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is claims to be both leftist (People's) and democratic (Democratic), however, I view it as neither leftist nor democratic, nor do I think leftism and democracy don't work because of this.


The existence of a democratic left, it is true, in Europe and America. But this existence BECAUSE of the state, because of state subsidized and because of redistribution of wealth. It is impossible to have any left wing vision without the state.I am a Marxist, so I do believe a state (the workers' state aka the dictatorship of the proletariat and not the capitalist state) is required to achieve communism.


It is still authoritarian for the state to seize massive amount of peoples wealth, which is why I don't think it is consistent with radical values.
What the dictatorship of the proletariat plans to seize is the means of production from the 1%, not the personal belongings of the 99%.


But User Name, the fact of the matter remains, HISTORY HAS NOT GIVEN US THE THEORETICAL COMMUNISM OF THE ACADEMICS, IT HAS GIVEN US THE TOTALITARIAN NIGHTMARE OF THE SOVIET UNION. I agree 100% with you here.


100 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED BY COMMUNISMMurdered by people who called themselves communists, not actual communists. Those murderers also claimed to be democratic, yet know one would ever claim democracy murdered those people, so why would you blame communism but not both?


Don't you care? Don't you care that this is the legacy of revolutionary left wing movements? I do care. I am greatly saddened that people have done what they have done in the name of communism.


WHERE has there been a successful anarchist society?I do not believe anarchism can work because I am a Marxist.


Where has there been a revolution that lead to liberty and prosperity.There hasn't been a (real) communist revolution yet. Just because change hasn't come doesn't mean it can't. Abolitionism didn't come quickly, democracy didn't, and communism won't either.



In Cuba? You have got to be kidding me.I feel the same way about the Cuban government in the same way I do North Korea's government or China's government, which you hopefully know by now.


If you are a moral person, and not a proud, haughty, Marxist academic, you will care about RADICALISM IN PRACTICE, Luckily, I'm a moral person.


and consider the real historical record.I will.


It isn't friendly to revolutionary politics.It's saddening and highly misrepresentative of actual revolutionary leftist politics.

[jstrodel]

federalism

Your answer to the main argument that I made, which was that an anarchist society has never been and will never be able to resist the pressures of military was with a single word - federalism. That is it, one word, I am ignorant of the details of anarchist theory. Your standard is so low. That would not fly in a poly sci class - simply invoke the authority of an obscure theory.

How does this work? How can there possibly be an anarchist society that has a military but no state?







10 million children die each year under capitalism



How would an anarchist society deal with the power structures (e.g. capitalistic dictators that create poverty. How would you remove the dictators from power? How would you prevent dictators from taking power? This is indeed a painful and shocking statistic. How can anarchism deal with this?




It is not evil to lie


We come from different worlds. Why should I care about anything you say. You don't have any integrity at all.

[jstrodel]

I, personally, don't believe that an actual leftist movement can be authoritarian. While a government can be authoritarian and claim to be leftist, that does not make it leftist. For example, The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is claims to be both leftist (People's) and democratic (Democratic), however, I view it as neither leftist nor democratic, nor do I think leftism and democracy don't work because of this.

I am a Marxist, so I do believe a state (the workers' state aka the dictatorship of the proletariat and not the capitalist state) is required to achieve communism.

What the dictatorship of the proletariat plans to seize is the means of production from the 1%, not the personal belongings of the 99%.

I agree 100% with you here.

Murdered by people who called themselves communists, not actual communists. Those murderers also claimed to be democratic, yet know one would ever claim democracy murdered those people, so why would you blame communism but not both?

I do care. I am greatly saddened that people have done what they have done in the name of communism.

I do not believe anarchism can work because I am a Marxist.

There hasn't been a (real) communist revolution yet. Just because change hasn't come doesn't mean it can't. Abolitionism didn't come quickly, democracy didn't, and communism won't either.

I feel the same way about the Cuban government in the same way I do North Korea's government or China's government, which you hopefully know by now.

Luckily, I'm a moral person.

I will.

It's saddening and highly misrepresentative of actual revolutionary leftist politics.


I think that you are an honest person. It is honest to accept the need for a state. People that are radicals and want to increase the states power should argue for that, not lie and say they want something else.

It is not honorable to advocate for politics that are impossible.

I disagree with your politics, but what you are advocating is something that has some relationship with reality.

I do not believe that all Marxists are same same as Mao or Stalin, but I believe that the culture and philosophy of the atheistic left will create more authoritarian leaders. I have close friends who are Democratic Socialists and Marxists. I think that this is an authoritarian worldview. I also don't think that the 1% can really sustain the state, although I do support taxing the rich at higher rates.

In America, ownership of businesses and private property is spread out pretty widely.

[Leftsolidarity]

But you do do this. I was at the Young Democratic Socialists convention in New York City and they had advertised there a drinking party. People were getting really really drunk. I have done environmental organizing that afterwards, people would binge drink.

The left exploits youth tendencies towards excessive behavior. This is just a fact, if you think that you deal with with a serious issue with just a little bit of causal sarcasm, that proves you don't care anymore about the people in your movement than the capitalists care about their workers. If you don't have the moral integrity inside yourself to analyze things using real logic, not just sarcasm, you will never be able to create any positive social change. You are just a joker. You don't care about all the people who die because of binge drinking. You don't care about all the punk rock drummers strung out on heroin. Just a little bit of sarcasm. That is enough.


I ALMOST DIED OF A DRUG OVERDOSE BECAUSE OF ANARCHISM AND PUNK ROCK. WE HAVE READ THE SAME BOOKS, BEEN TO THE SAME KINDS OF PARTIES, TRUST ME. WHY DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT WHAT I HAVE TO SAY?

I'm the one who doesn't care about logic? Sorry Mr. Born Again Christian why don't you apologize to your invisible friend for me?

I didn't know that being a revolutionary leftist entailed being a punk rocker or binge drinker.

Funny thing is that I AM a drummer in a fairly well known local punk band and I'm not a heroin junkie. Don't touch the shit and don't plan too. I do enjoy drinking, though. Matter o' fact I got myself 10 pretty Milwaukee's Bests in front of me that are calling my name.

Sorry if you almost died. Don't do that?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

Not all leftists are drug-addled nihilists. In fact, liberalism (which I do not consider left wing) correlates more with nihilism than actual socialism (Marxism, anarchism, etc.). Socialists believe that human beings matter and that we shouldn't drift into moral relativism and forget about the poor, that we should fight for justice and for freedom and not just live comfortable, sedated lives. It's true that anarchists tend to associate themselves with youth subculture in America, but that's not universally true by any means (talk to some IWW folks) and especially not abroad.

[MarxSchmarx]

Joseph/OP:

The anarchist vision is quite simple. Each person should be able to determine what their goals in life are and how to attain it. It derives from individual autonomy, and simple compassion that extends these principles to others.

As to the issue of a military, I do not know why you think this is necessary. The working class may not own the means of production, but they control whether it would operate. The capitalists are powerless without us. Some posters here have criticized the general strike as being insufficient (e.g., DNZ). I agree with this critique, but the question for you is not whether the general strike is sufficient, but whether militarism is either necessary or sufficient. Here the judgement of history is that militarism is hardly sufficient. As to whether it is necessary, I suspect the judgement of history is again that it is not.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I ALMOST DIED OF A DRUG OVERDOSE BECAUSE OF ANARCHISM AND PUNK ROCK.

A cautionary tale! :lol:


WHY DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT WHAT I HAVE TO SAY?

But yet you follow this up with:


We come from different worlds. Why should I care about anything you say. You don't have any integrity at all.

[jstrodel]

Not all leftists are drug-addled nihilists. In fact, liberalism (which I do not consider left wing) correlates more with nihilism than actual socialism (Marxism, anarchism, etc.). Socialists believe that human beings matter and that we shouldn't drift into moral relativism and forget about the poor, that we should fight for justice and for freedom and not just live comfortable, sedated lives. It's true that anarchists tend to associate themselves with youth subculture in America, but that's not universally true by any means (talk to some IWW folks) and especially not abroad.

That's true. There are many great Christian thinkers and activists who have been socialists and a few anarchists (Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King, Reinhold Neighbor, the Berrigan Brothers I know one of them personally, Karl Barth)

I am not against activism, but I think that people who are activists have to be responsible for those around them. They are like spiritual teachers.

[jstrodel]

Joseph/OP:

The anarchist vision is quite simple. Each person should be able to determine what their goals in life are and how to attain it. It derives from individual autonomy, and simple compassion that extends these principles to others.

As to the issue of a military, I do not know why you think this is necessary. The working class may not own the means of production, but they control whether it would operate. The capitalists are powerless without us. Some posters here have criticized the general strike as being insufficient (e.g., DNZ). I agree with this critique, but the question for you is not whether the general strike is sufficient, but whether militarism is either necessary or sufficient. Here the judgement of history is that militarism is hardly sufficient. As to whether it is necessary, I suspect the judgement of history is again that it is not.

I agree with you that militarism is a painful truth. But idealism is not a substitute for reality.

You are arguing that the military is not necessary? How old are you? Have you ever had a job that paid more than $10/hour?

Nothing that you said even remotely touched the issue of how an anarchist state would exist, surrounded by hostile neighbors. What does that have to do with unions. I am a supporter of the union movement, but a union is not going to keep a country safe.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I think that you are an honest person. It is honest to accept the need for a state. People that are radicals and want to increase the states power should argue for that, not lie and say they want something else.

No one (here) wants to increase the state's power, but to overthrow it, and create a new democratic proletariat state until global communism is achieved.


but I believe that the culture and philosophy of the atheistic left will create more authoritarian leaders.

I thought you believed atheism was empty, so how can it be authoritarian? And how does leftism (Marxism specifically) advocate authoritarianism?


I have close friends who are Democratic Socialists and Marxists. I think that this is an authoritarian worldview.
Why?


I also don't think that the 1% can really sustain the state
The proletariat sustains the state, the bourgeoisie just use them.


In America, ownership of businesses and private property is spread out pretty widely.
Small businesses? Agreed mostly. Corporations? Nope. Political influence? Nope. Wealth? Nope.

[jstrodel]

No one (here) wants to increase the state's power, but to overthrow it, and create a new democratic proletariat state until global communism is achieved.


User Name this has never happened, it will never happen, what has happened is that Communism has killed 100 million people worldwide. To want revolution is to want war. The Civil War was even more bloody than World War 2. Why do you want to start a Civil War? So they people that are making $12 an hour can make $18 (if that is even true, suppose it is). User Name why would you want to kill hundreds of thousands of people for this. That is evil.



I thought you believed atheism was empty, so how can it be authoritarian? And how does leftism (Marxism specifically) advocate authoritarianism?


It is EMPTY. Atheism gives the atheist absolutely no set of moral absolutes. The Marxist atheists then take this fact, of a lack of absolutes and have the audacity to think they can create a state which will abolish every competing ideaology.

Actually, it probably IS authoritarian, because Marxism is such a flimsy, 2nd record rate philosophy, that you NEED to have authoritarianism. Because Marxism lacks any ethical or epistemological grounding that is higher than the political segment of Good Morning America, it must resort to violence in order to keep people stuck in its grip.





The proletariat sustains the state, the bourgeoisie just use them.


User Name, you have been decieved. There is no bourgeoisie or proletarian in America. America is a middle class country. The proletariat, the industrial workers and laborers often times end up owning their own construction companies, welding firms, etc. What you are saying is factually inaccurate.

User Name, if you read left wing newspapers, you will read lies. Because leftists lie. They are known for it. They will use antiquated Marxist theory to explain things that has no relationship to the theory. They are liars. You can't trust a word they say.

User Name, if you want to know what is going on in the world, read a real Newspaper. Don't read a Marxist propaganda magazine. America is a middle class nation. Most people over the age of 40 make $20,000 or more. No one starves to death.

[Brutus]

Does Christianity give us morals? I think not!
The god who loves us infinitely will drown us all bar one family, because we disobey. It is evident from your posts that you are against totalitarianism, as is everyone here, yet you worship a higher power, that knows all, sees all, and can do anything. Is your god not totalitarian? We are communists because we care about mankind, we see this exploitation around us and want to end it. So I ask you, why does one require a religion to have morals?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Hey Joseph. I was in the middle of PMing you with our discussion when you got banned. If you're still on RevLeft (as a guest) reading this, here's my response (click on spoiler button)



The problem is, atheism gives you no answers. Atheism will not tell you how to relate to women. Atheism will not tell you how to plan your life out.Exactly. Atheism gives you the freedom to be who you are, not what your priest or pastor says who you are.


Atheism leads many, many people into drugs.No it doesn't. Neither theism nor atheism lead people to drug abuse.


Lots of people die young because they have no God, no guide to them,Lots of people die young for a lot of reasons. No one thing can be blamed for it. People need to be mentally secure. Religion covers that for many people, however, some people who give up all their mental security (thus their religion) do so for many reasons. Getting rid of your religion does not cause it, getting rid of your mental security and not having anyone else to help you, even if it's only a belief inside your head, does.


it is all nihilism and punk rock (are you into all that stuff?).I don't know what Nihilism is, and I hate punk rock.


Look at the people on the internet who are atheists. They are angry, proud, empty people. That is what atheism does to people, it is poison.I see that claim all the time in online debates between theists and atheists. Atheism is merely a non-belief in gods or goddesses. Nothing more, nothing less. Trying to blame something more on it just isn't logical.


They are angry, proud, empty people.Everyone gets angry sometimes. I am proud of myself, as all mentally healthy people should be. I am not empty. And please don't group people together. People are individuals, not groups. (this is an argument that I use against white supremacists who do what you're doing, except, of course, about different types of people)


Read the sermon on the mount. Jesus gives a picture of what an ideal society looks like that is so much deeper than any of the left.I went to Catholic school until 8th grade (last year). I am very familiar with the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount. They are beautiful, yes, but they teach that the world, basically, sucks and because you are a victim of it, you'll be rewarded for it in Heaven. Religious teachings, like this, well, I think Marx would explain it better...

"...This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality.
...
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." - Karl Marx


What about the Bible bothers you?Too much to list here. I think http://www.evilbible.com/ has all the parts of the Bible I disagree with.


I know that the miracles that I have seen are from God because God has told me his nature.Many people of many religions claim the exact same thing as you. Why would you say your visions real, but theirs are not?

--

Sorry if I sound mean or aggressive at all. I tried to edit all the parts where I believed I sounded so.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

It is EMPTY. Atheism gives the atheist absolutely no set of moral absolutes. The Marxist atheists then take this fact, of a lack of absolutes and have the audacity to think they can create a state which will abolish every competing ideaology.

Why does one need "moral absolutes?" I think we would agree that killing and violence is bad but you advocate the need for a strong military. A military is simply a form of organized violence.While Marxists generally avoid moralism, which is seen as superficial and counter productive, Marxism itself is based or fueled by deep moral outrage. We live in a world of 7 billion. 1 billion people live on $1 a day while 2 billion live on $2 a say. We are now living on what Mike Davis calls a "Planet of Slums", where vast numbers of people live in horrific wretched conditions. This is a direct result of basic dynamics of capitalism. Socialists say the world does not have to be this way.

There is also the ecological imperative. There is a very strong probability that the capacity of our planet to maintain life will be seriously degraded within the next several decades. This cannot be brought under control within capitalist relations but only under a democratically planned economy.

So while Marxism works on moral principles, it analyzes the world in a hard headed materialist approach.


Actually, it probably IS authoritarian, because Marxism is such a flimsy, 2nd record rate philosophy, that you NEED to have authoritarianism. Because Marxism lacks any ethical or epistemological grounding that is higher than the political segment of Good Morning America, it must resort to violence in order to keep people stuck in its grip.



Simply not true. Read this

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm

Marxism is not meant to be a dogma or an ideology but rather a set of tools for analyzing the inner workings of class based and especially capitalist societies.


Quote:
The proletariat sustains the state, the bourgeoisie just use them.
User Name, you have been decieved. There is no bourgeoisie or proletarian in America. America is a middle class country. The proletariat, the industrial workers and laborers often times end up owning their own construction companies, welding firms, etc. What you are saying is factually inaccurate.

User Name, if you read left wing newspapers, you will read lies. Because leftists lie. They are known for it. They will use antiquated Marxist theory to explain things that has no relationship to the theory. They are liars. You can't trust a word they say.

User Name, if you want to know what is going on in the world, read a real Newspaper. Don't read a Marxist propaganda magazine. America is a middle class nation. Most people over the age of 40 make $20,000 or more. No one starves to death.

Read The Manufacture of Consent by Noam Chomsky. Its glaringly apparent that the corporate media is full of lies and half truths.Despite their drawbacks I'd much rather rely on the small underfunded left media such as Democracy Now!, The Real News Network, Truthdig, the World Socialist Website than the bilge on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc

The working class are those people who do not own the means of production, which would be the vast majority of people. There is a middle class layer of managers, beauracrats, etc whose job it is to help the bourgoise, the owners of capital to exploit more surplus value from the working class. The famous US "middle class" is very much under siege and is literally disappearing before our eyes.

Ever struggle to pay off student loans? Ever struggle to find a half way decent job to pay the bills?

As far as religion goes, one is free to believe what they like. A historical materialist approach, showing how religions are products of human society instead of the other way around tends to diminish strong religious faith, but there is nothing saying a Christian can't be a good Marxist and vice versa.

You might want to read Ernst Bloch and Slavoj Zizek's take on Christianity, it might surprise you.

[Fourth Internationalist]

It is EMPTY. Atheism gives the atheist absolutely no set of moral absolutes. The Marxist atheists then take this fact, of a lack of absolutes and have the audacity to think they can create a state which will abolish every competing ideaology.No one is only atheist. An atheist is only a very small part of a person. It does not make up a person. It is simply the lack of a belief in deities. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop painting it as something more.


Actually, it probably IS authoritarian, because Marxism is such a flimsy, 2nd record rate philosophy, that you NEED to have authoritarianism. Because Marxism lacks any ethical or epistemological grounding that is higher than the political segment of Good Morning America, it must resort to violence in order to keep people stuck in its grip.Marxism does not need authoritarianism. Marxism is only possible if it is supported by the masses, thus it does not need violence to keep people a part of it.


User Name, you have been decieved. There is no bourgeoisie or proletarian in America.Yes there is. Look at those homeless people. Look at those children going to bed hungry at night. Look at those billionaire corrupt corporations and politicians. All of this in America. You, not I, have been deceived.



No one starves to death. In the USA, mostly not to death, but there are millions of people who go hungry at night. In the other parts of the world where American corporations and businesses use slave labor? Yes, people are dying because of what American corporations and businesses are doing.

A site worth visiting, for you: http://feedingamerica.org/

[Mackenzie_Blanc]

But I love America. I recognize the privileged that I have living here. With tears in my eyes, I support the efforts of all the cold war presidents to suppress communism. I do not believe I have comprised my leftist values in doing this.

Yes, the Vietnam war was certainly a war to contain the "evils" of communism! :glare:


Search your hearts, as anarchists, haters of authoritarianism and tyranny. I do not repudiate everything I believed as a leftist, I would die for some of my convictions, I still hate imperialism, I am anti-racists, I am still skeptical of some parts of capitalism in many ways.

If you really hated "imperialism", you wouldn't worship the tyrant known as the U.S.


HiAnd what I more - I am a born again Christian. I have seen miracles, seen the power of God. I don't use drugs any more. I am not really part of the counterculture at all. I don't think it is revolutionary, I think it is despicable.

So, because you gave up on Anarchism, you lost your rationality and became a christian too? Makes sense... :confused:

[Sam_b]

Oh you guys got trolled really bad here!

[Fourth Internationalist]

Oh you guys got trolled really bad here!

I think he was serious. He sounds just like other devout Christians. In our PM discussion, he told me to give him a call so I could "hear him out" and gave me his #. He wanted to save my soul because I'm so young. I should check if it's a real #...

[o well this is ok I guess]

Then delete your post and sound real honest about it.
Then, after a bit of fun has been had, post the whole convo!

[Yuppie Grinder]

Hi everyone. My name is Joseph. I was, like most anarchists, an anarchist from about age 16 to age 18, and still a leftist radical into my 20s (again, typical of most in the left - not many serious anarchists over the age of 30). Anarchists told me that I could do whatever I want, that I didn't have to obey any rules, that capitalism and the state was evil, etc.

I have spent a good deal of time thinking about politics and reflecting on my youth. I was urged to rebel against everything in order to full-fill some greater revolutionary cause. Religion, of course was evil. It didn't matter that anarchism offered no answers to how to be a good person and that the anarchists had no authority of their own. Anarchism exploited the youthful passions of rebellion to draw the young away from the church to be a part of the left. Of course this is a despicable and extremely evil, but that gets away from my main point.

My main point is this. I write out of sincere concern and love for you all. What exactly is the political vision of anarchism. Did you know that 1/5th of the world is now controlled by the left? In China, in Vietnam, across the world, yes, the left has been successful. The new left Marxists will say "the Soviet Union was not truly Marxist, it was revisionist, psuedo-Marxism". The anarchists will be split, some will condemn the statism and authoritarianism of the successes of the left around the world but try to balance their criticisms against the evils of capitalism, as they understand from their political definition of what "evil' is (you need God to really know what evil is, evil is not a political propaganda device). Other anarchists will be much more critical of the left, and deny that anarchism should have anything in common with revolutionary Marxism.

This brings me to the clincher. What is the goal of anarchism? It is impossible to defend against state power without a military. The Spanish anarchists didn't last long. There is absolute no chance of a country that is anarchist will survive militarily.

That means, there is no point of anarchism. There has never been and never will be a nation that does not have a military. As soon as you have a military, you advocating a powerful state. It is inevitable. Anyone who denies this is intellectually dishonest. No military, no state.

I am not a militaristic person, and consider myself to be somewhat anti-war. That said, you need to have a military, and once you have a military, you have state.

This is what I think the goal of anarchism is. Anarchism is a way of packaging authoritarian, left wing philosophy in a package that allows it to make criticisms of state violence without offering any sort of real solution. The real leader of anarchism is not Bakunin of Proudhon it is Lenin. The lack of a real solution is intentional - the goal is to provide a platform in which political propaganda can arrest the conscience and provide a pie in the sky standard that actually is not even designed to work. Then, after people grow older and reflect more on the REAL NATURE of politics, which always involves power and force, they can be redirected into more authoritarian forms of leftism, like Marxism, which have some possibility of real results.

Yes, its true, communists throughout the world have proved that the left can have political power. They have killed perhaps 100 million people throughout the world as the cowardly, inconsistent idealism of the anarchists makes it more difficult for free societies like the US to deal with its enemies.

I love you all, and care for you deeply. I hope that you will reflect on my words - if what I am saying is true, your idealism does real harm - 1. by leading people into authoritarian politics 2. by preventing a greater popular concern for authoritarianism in other countries.

Do you really believe anarchism is possible? If yes - WHY? WHAT EVIDENCE? DO YOU REALLY THE EFFECT YOUR WORDS HAVE ON PEOPLE? I LOVE YEARS OF MY LIFE TO LEFT WING PHILOSOPHY. THE CONSEQUENCES ARE HIGH.

If no - what do you really believe? Do you think communist societies are more free than democratic societies?

Search your hearts, as anarchists, haters of authoritarianism and tyranny. I do not repudiate everything I believed as a leftist, I would die for some of my convictions, I still hate imperialism, I am anti-racists, I am still skeptical of some parts of capitalism in many ways.

But I love America. I recognize the privileged that I have living here. With tears in my eyes, I support the efforts of all the cold war presidents to suppress communism. I do not believe I have comprised my leftist values in doing this.

I consider myself to be a Republican and look up to people who have managed to live outside the capitalist system (e.g. the monks of the Catholic church). I am not an apologist for corporate greed. But I think politics have to exist in the real world and not become a kind of psuedo-religion.

I see my politics as being so much different now. Before, I was an atheistic moralistic. My world was black and white, the evil American empire, etc. Now I am skeptical of the politicians, but I know I live in a good society.

I guess I see the biggest difference in my politics before was that I was ready to put up with idiots like the Marxists, enemies of the values of true anarchism. I was ready to compromise my belief system out of youthful rebellion, and fail to see that hatred of state violence and imperialism and hunger for righteousness are not values to be paraded as if they make me better than anyone else, but values to practically live for.

I believe now, as a pro-American (but non-nationalistic, non-militaristic) Republican, I am much more consistent with anarchist values than when I was willing to act as an apologist for Stalinism and downplay the horrors of the left.


And what I more - I am a born again Christian. I have seen miracles, seen the power of God. I don't use drugs any more. I am not really part of the counterculture at all. I don't think it is revolutionary, I think it is despicable.

But I believe I am much truer to its values now than I was when I was a de facto apologist for the Soviet Union.
You're hella stupid brubru.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Wait, let's go back there a minute.
Did you seriously blame punk rock and anarchism for your drug problem?
I'm an anarchist who has been playing in punk bands for a decade, and I've never come anywhere close to a drug overdose (and, for that matter, I haven't even had a drink in three years). I'm not going to pretend that there isn't punk culture / drug culture overlap, but, let's face it, there's a Western culture / drug culture overlap, and "punk" is hardly a definitive risk factor for ODing. If anything the popularity of straight edge means there's a more of a critique of drug culture among punks than in society generally (where nobody bats an eye at giving kids ritalin - you ever tried ritalin? NOT A KIDS' DRUG).
So, on one hand, while I think there's some serious critique to be made . . . take some responsibility for yourself. Or did you miss that (crucial) part of anarchist politics?

[LiveOnYourFeet]

It's kind of weird because I was actually a right-wing extremist in my early teenage years, and I became a radical leftist later on (i.e, now.)

[Brutus]

Anarchist, and an unapologetic SU supporter.
Something here doesn't quite add up...

[GPDP]

Anarchist, and an unapologetic SU supporter.
Something here doesn't quite add up...

Reading through this guy's post, I think it's been made fairly clear the guy did not know jack shit about revolutionary leftist politics beyond the stereotypical crap peddled by the mainstream, and he did not come here for a dialogue, but to "save" us from the evils of Marxism/anarchism.

[Brutus]

We're all filthy commies who will go to hell

[ВАЛТЕР]

You are either a troll, or quite possibly one of the most ignorant people to wander onto our fair site. I for one doubt you are serious...

So, to quote a certain Mr. Ghostface Killah:

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/42447455/Ghostface+Killah+cmon+son.jpg

[prashranger]

Well not being a soviet apologist anymore is a good thing I suppose.

"The Spanish anarchists didn't last long. There is absolute no chance of a country that is anarchist will survive militarily." Then why furiously critique this society that, according to you, has not and will never exist? What about the very real and very threatening problems with existing society? If you really want to find delusional utopians running society into the ground, look no further than the Wall Street and the US Congress.

[#FF0000]

Can we sticky this or something. What a legend

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I was actually really looking forward to getting to grips with this guy, but then he had to come out with the homophobic shit and get himself banned. Arse.

[Orange Juche]

And what I more - I am a born again Christian.

Are you aware of Tolstoy?

[Q]

Are you aware of Tolstoy?

He was banned over two weeks ago. Don't expect a reply.