World Government

[Michelangelo]

I did a search and couldn't find this topic or anything similar to it in the OI forums; apologies if I missed it.

Occasionally I encounter someone who insists that we need a world government and I always get very troubled. What troubles me even more is when I'm told that I shouldn't worried since they mean a libertarian world government. This troubles me though since I don't want to enforce a form of political organization onto those who don't want it. If someone wants to live in a socialist society or even a theocracy, I don't think I have the right to force them to live in a libertarian one. I may think you are wrong to choose that lifestyle but that's it. Ideally I hope the day will come when space exploration becomes the norm and those of us with differing views on political organization can simply live in different planets.

My question is if anyone on the other side shares a similar opinion on the issue as well. Would you guys try to enforce a world socialist government given the chance, or would you be willing to accept that some people want to live in a capitalist society and let them do so? You may consider them barbaric for subjecting themselves to wage slavery but you'll let them do it.

[evermilion]

Occasionally I encounter someone who insists that we need a world government and I always get very troubled. What troubles me even more is when I'm told that I shouldn't worried since they mean a libertarian world government. This troubles me though since I don't want to enforce a form of political organization onto those who don't want it. If someone wants to live in a socialist society or even a theocracy, I don't think I have the right to force them to live in a libertarian one. I may think you are wrong to choose that lifestyle but that's it. Ideally I hope the day will come when space exploration becomes the norm and those of us with differing views on political organization can simply live in different planets.

Friend, if you want to talk about being troubled, I'm certainly quite troubled by the above paragraph, especially the bold portion. I don't even know where to begin with that part. First of all, political power is coercive power; that's all a state is. Marxists see different ways of achieving this, and most acknowledge that the state will persist for some time into the endeavor, but the ultimate goal of Marxist political action is a stateless epoch of human civilization. In that way, no one can be coerced, even if coercive measures got us there. And to say that, say, the coercive expropriation of the bourgeoisie is inherently incapable of getting us to a point of no coercion ignores the precedence of slavery: slavery is obviously evil, but nobody will willingly hand over his slaves if he profits from their exploitation. He has to be coerced into forfeiting his "right," as he sees it, to own human beings. Given the exploitative nature of capitalism, this precedent demonstrates that the coercive dictatorship of the proletariat, in expropriating the bourgeoisie and suppressing counter-revolution, can bring us into the communist epoch of statelessness, as there will be no more class and no more "property" left to protect through violence. Considering this and the question of coercion and exploitation, what planet do you live on where people actually have the free agency to consent to systemic exploitation and oppression? And, also, it's more than a little disturbing that, when confronted with political disagreement, your instinct is to blast everyone off to other planets so that they don't have to deal with each other.


My question is if anyone on the other side shares a similar opinion on the issue as well. Would you guys try to enforce a world socialist government given the chance, or would you be willing to accept that some people want to live in a capitalist society and let them do so? You may consider them barbaric for subjecting themselves to wage slavery but you'll let them do it.

A global dictatorship of the proletariat, a worldwide state meant to expropriate the global bourgeoisie and suppress counter-revolution would not be necessary for very long. Having served this purpose, the state as a method of administrating people through coercion becomes obsolete, while administration of production through democratic (perhaps even consent-democratic or "sociocratic") measures becomes the sole function of anything that could be described as "government" in the communist epoch.

[Tim Cornelis]

I did a search and couldn't find this topic or anything similar to it in the OI forums; apologies if I missed it.

Occasionally I encounter someone who insists that we need a world government and I always get very troubled. What troubles me even more is when I'm told that I shouldn't worried since they mean a libertarian world government. This troubles me though since I don't want to enforce a form of political organization onto those who don't want it. If someone wants to live in a socialist society or even a theocracy, I don't think I have the right to force them to live in a libertarian one. I may think you are wrong to choose that lifestyle but that's it. Ideally I hope the day will come when space exploration becomes the norm and those of us with differing views on political organization can simply live in different planets.

My question is if anyone on the other side shares a similar opinion on the issue as well. Would you guys try to enforce a world socialist government given the chance, or would you be willing to accept that some people want to live in a capitalist society and let them do so? You may consider them barbaric for subjecting themselves to wage slavery but you'll let them do it.

To be honest, I don't think anyone claims they want a libertarian world government. I suspect you made this up to make the question about world socialist government seem unbiased. Now, communism is a classless society, it has no state, and no world government would exist. Communism is based on free association of equal producers and individuals and no coercive power would exist. Thus, you'd be free to start capitalist communities, but such would be impossible has it has been made obsolete. Most here subscribe to historical materialism, meaning we see socialism as the system that will supersede capitalism, and the social dynamics under socialism would not allow for the emergence of capitalism.

[#FF0000]

My question is if anyone on the other side shares a similar opinion on the issue as well. Would you guys try to enforce a world socialist government given the chance, or would you be willing to accept that some people want to live in a capitalist society and let them do so? You may consider them barbaric for subjecting themselves to wage slavery but you'll let them do it.

I don't know about "world government". Communism is a classless and stateless society, after all (not to mention a good deal of us are anarchists, here). But either way, I don't think capitalism and communism can co-exist anyway because of capitalism's need for perpetual growth and new markets.

[Michelangelo]

1) There is a reason I avoided the use of 'state' and went with political organization. I believe there are ways for voluntary order to exist.

2) I don't want to throw anyone off planet. I would more than willingly move to a capitalist planet. The whole reason I can't stand the idea of world government is because I don't want war. We may disagree, but I don't hate any of you enough to ever justify violence outside self defense. If its about who can have Earth, I'm willing to concede it to the left as a sign of goodwill.

3) Unfortunately I'm not making up hearing others propose a libertarian world government. Those who advocate it exist and scare the jibby jillies out of me.

4) The universe is for practical purposes infinite. Even if capitalism needs continual growth it needn't do so by attacking a 'leftist' planet. There are countless other uninhabited planets to go to instead.

I'll reply in full when I get on a pc.

[Blake's Baby]

It would be impossible for capitalism and communism to co-exist. Communism is predicated on the end of capitalism, because communist society requires the end of property. If capitalism survives, communism hasn't 'started'.

[Hexen]

I don't know about "world government". Communism is a classless and stateless society, after all (not to mention a good deal of us are anarchists, here). But either way, I don't think capitalism and communism can co-exist anyway because of capitalism's need for perpetual growth and new markets.

Well that attempt for coexistence was already 'tried' which resulted the 'Cold War' or interimperialist conflicts which the USSR only became capitalist after all.

[#FF0000]

4) The universe is for practical purposes infinite. Even if capitalism needs continual growth it needn't do so by attacking a 'leftist' planet. There are countless other uninhabited planets to go to instead.

"For practical purposes" for us the universe is literally just the planet Earth. We don't have any presence beyond Earth and it's orbit.

[Michelangelo]

"For practical purposes" for us the universe is literally just the planet Earth. We don't have any presence beyond Earth and it's orbit.

It's extremely unlikely that we'll remain contained on Earth for very long. Within our lifetime it is likely that we'll start seeing the mining of nearby asteroids and colonies on the moon.


Well that attempt for coexistence was already 'tried' which resulted the 'Cold War' or interimperialist conflicts which the USSR only became capitalist after all.

I don't consider either the USSR or USA to be examples of either socialism or capitalism. It was two feuding states using ideological rhetoric to oppress their respective populations under the guise of protecting them from 'the enemy'.


It would be impossible for capitalism and communism to co-exist. Communism is predicated on the end of capitalism, because communist society requires the end of property. If capitalism survives, communism hasn't 'started'.

Does communism need to occur throughout the whole species though? If for example a communist society happened on Earth but colonies on the moon were capitalist, is the former communist society not truly communist?

[Blake's Baby]

...

Does communism need to occur throughout the whole species though? If for example a communist society happened on Earth but colonies on the moon were capitalist, is the former communist society not truly communist?

If the Moon is entirely self-sufficient (not linked to the economy of Earth) and no military threat to the Earth, there's no reason for the Moon to be communist too. But there's no reason for it not to be, depends in that case what the Moonians want to do I guess.

But if the 'Communist' Earth has to trade with the still-capitalist Moon and also protect itself against Moonian invasion and if the working class on the Moon is also struggling against the capitalists on the Moon, then... yeah, the revolution is still going on and communist society has not yet been achieved. It's got nothing to do with the 'species' it's got to do with the economy.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Why are moon colonies so frequently brought up as a challenge to communism? Is Newt Gingrich trolling revleft?

[Theophys]

I did a search and couldn't find this topic or anything similar to it in the OI forums; apologies if I missed it.

Occasionally I encounter someone who insists that we need a world government and I always get very troubled. What troubles me even more is when I'm told that I shouldn't worried since they mean a libertarian world government. This troubles me though since I don't want to enforce a form of political organization onto those who don't want it. If someone wants to live in a socialist society or even a theocracy, I don't think I have the right to force them to live in a libertarian one. I may think you are wrong to choose that lifestyle but that's it. Ideally I hope the day will come when space exploration becomes the norm and those of us with differing views on political organization can simply live in different planets.

My question is if anyone on the other side shares a similar opinion on the issue as well. Would you guys try to enforce a world socialist government given the chance, or would you be willing to accept that some people want to live in a capitalist society and let them do so? You may consider them barbaric for subjecting themselves to wage slavery but you'll let them do it.

And what's wrong with a world socialist government? That it is coercive? Coercion is inevitable and unavoidable when contradictory, antagonistic, and irreconcilable classes, beliefs, and ideologies exist. Conflict, in all forms, arises from these contradictions. The only way to do away with the contradictions is to do away with free speech and its anarchy and instead funnel it into a Party. Base the Party on positive constructive debate and discussion for the advancement of humanity and do away with the destructive and negative criticism that arises naturally from the anarchy of free speech. Classes are the main contradiction, the main obstacle, that need to be done away with. Capitalism follows directly with the abolishment of classes as the two are mutually inclusive. The only means by which the human race can effectively reach a spacefaring level is not by having millions of contradictions, conflicts, and divisions up to the level of the individual, but by uniting the human race. Differences will always exist, but the can be minimized and left to the Party rather than the open public where they will inevitably end up in civil war. Contradictions can never be reconciled, one has to become victor over all others.

Society and the state need to force individuals and coerce them in order to ensure their continued existence. It is society and the state that minimize violence and limit aggression with the threat of the law. If someone wants to be a libertarian, let him be a libertarian, but if that individual calls for a political rally against a Socialist state then he will be imprisoned.

Your false liberal views of peace and love despite irreconcilable and antagonistic contradictions is ridiculous. As long as those contradictions exist, there can never be peace and love without violence, conflict, and war.

Oh and by the way, "freedom" and "democracy" are not always desirable. Freedom only allows differences to come to light leading to divisions and conflict. Democracy is not always beneficial because the most popular decision is not always the best decision. Remember that Hitler came to power because of free speech and democracy. He came to power because of people like you.

[#FF0000]

It's extremely unlikely that we'll remain contained on Earth for very long. Within our lifetime it is likely that we'll start seeing the mining of nearby asteroids and colonies on the moon.

I am saying that it is pretty ridiculous to say "Oh no there wouldn't be a clash between communist and capitalist societies on this planet -- we could go to space!"

There are no societies in space. There are no markets in space. War is expensive, but compared to space colonization and asteroid mining...

[liberlict]

This is an interesting paper

Why a World State is Inevitable - ALEXANDER WENDT (http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/WendtWhyaWorldStateisInevitable.pdf)

[Michelangelo]

Why are moon colonies so frequently brought up as a challenge to communism? Is Newt Gingrich trolling revleft?

I'm not arguing against communism. I'm only asking for co-existence. I disagree with it, but I have no desire to force my vision of the ideal political organization on you.


And what's wrong with a world socialist government? That it is coercive? Coercion is inevitable and unavoidable when contradictory, antagonistic, and irreconcilable classes, beliefs, and ideologies exist. Conflict, in all forms, arises from these contradictions. The only way to do away with the contradictions is to do away with free speech and its anarchy and instead funnel it into a Party. Base the Party on positive constructive debate and discussion for the advancement of humanity and do away with the destructive and negative criticism that arises naturally from the anarchy of free speech. Classes are the main contradiction, the main obstacle, that need to be done away with. Capitalism follows directly with the abolishment of classes as the two are mutually inclusive. The only means by which the human race can effectively reach a spacefaring level is not by having millions of contradictions, conflicts, and divisions up to the level of the individual, but by uniting the human race. Differences will always exist, but the can be minimized and left to the Party rather than the open public where they will inevitably end up in civil war. Contradictions can never be reconciled, one has to become victor over all others.

Society and the state need to force individuals and coerce them in order to ensure their continued existence. It is society and the state that minimize violence and limit aggression with the threat of the law. If someone wants to be a libertarian, let him be a libertarian, but if that individual calls for a political rally against a Socialist state then he will be imprisoned.

Your false liberal views of peace and love despite irreconcilable and antagonistic contradictions is ridiculous. As long as those contradictions exist, there can never be peace and love without violence, conflict, and war.

Oh and by the way, "freedom" and "democracy" are not always desirable. Freedom only allows differences to come to light leading to divisions and conflict. Democracy is not always beneficial because the most popular decision is not always the best decision. Remember that Hitler came to power because of free speech and democracy. He came to power because of people like you.

Eww. I'm not defending democracy. I'm a libertarian. The two are by no means mutually inclusive.


I am saying that it is pretty ridiculous to say "Oh no there wouldn't be a clash between communist and capitalist societies on this planet -- we could go to space!"

There are no societies in space. There are no markets in space. War is expensive, but compared to space colonization and asteroid mining...

Asteroid mining looks to be very profitable actually. It sounds ridiculous right now, but the cost of space travel is continuing to drop. In real terms the cost of space travel is now lower than the cost for a trans-Atlantic voyage a few centuries ago.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I know these are not to me, but I still feel these need to be addressed.


Remember that Hitler came to power because of free speech and democracy. He came to power because of people like you.

At what point do rulers have the right to stop free speech? Fascists? Communists? Liberals? Anarchists? Anyways, there were reasons Hitler came to power, none of which have to do with freedom and democracy ie German loss of World War 1, etc.


Eww. I'm not defending democracy. I'm a libertarian. The two are by no means mutually inclusive.

How are you a libertarian but don't defend democracy?

[#FF0000]

At what point do rulers have the right to stop free speech? Fascists? Communists? Liberals? Anarchists? Anyways, there were reasons Hitler came to power, none of which have to do with freedom and democracy ie German loss of World War 1, etc.

(I didn't post that)

[Fourth Internationalist]

(I didn't post that)

Oh sorry I copied wrong name. Your post was right next to his/hers. I'll fix that.

[#FF0000]

Asteroid mining looks to be very profitable actually. It sounds ridiculous right now, but the cost of space travel is continuing to drop. In real terms the cost of space travel is now lower than the cost for a trans-Atlantic voyage a few centuries ago.

The technology for asteroid mining doesn't exist yet and it's pretty silly, I think, to try and discuss the dynamics between a capitalist and communist society in a science fiction world.

[evermilion]

The technology for asteroid mining doesn't exist yet and it's pretty silly, I think, to try and discuss the dynamics between a capitalist and communist society in a science fiction world.

As much as I'm interested in futuristic hypothetical scenarios, I agree with Hexadecimal Red here: we have more pressing matters to consider than the construction of additional pylons.

[Michelangelo]

How are you a libertarian but don't defend democracy?

Libertarianism is about maximizing liberty.

Democracy is a method of political organization which relies on majority rule.

Some libertarians believe democracy, in the sense of a representative democracy, is the means by which to maximize liberty. You could disagree. You could believe that a monarchy does a better job. I wouldn't be surprised if there existed those who thought a theocratic government did it best.

I myself am not particularly tied to any one solution. Both democracy and monarchy can be totalitarian. Which is another reason why I'm terrified of a world government. Suppose everyone was a libertarian. Would this mean there would be no disagreements on how to achieve maximum liberty? No there would be, and is, much dispute on how to achieve it. A world government approach would mean other forms wouldn't be experimented with.

I'm sure many of you here have a similar problem on how to achieve a communist world. You may agree on the principles, but disagree on how to actually reach them. Why put all your eggs in one basket, so to speak? Why not allow Trotkysist (sp?) and Leninist polities co-exist? Surely you'll reach your goal faster that way than if you opted for a world government.

[Theophys]

Eww. I'm not defending democracy. I'm a libertarian. The two are by no means mutually inclusive.
You do realize that I also spoke of your "freedom" as well? My post does not apply to you only, but to others who may be reading it.



At what point do rulers have the right to stop free speech? Fascists? Communists? Liberals? Anarchists?

Free speech would be stopped when it proves to be destructive, counter-productive, and divisive. Communists would be in power and ergo Fascists, Liberals, and Anarchist would be prevented from rallying in public and organizing in public. Should any of these elements insist on doing so, they would be arrested. The Party would be reserved to the discussion of these ideas and subjects by educated and dedicated individuals as opposed to the mass anarchy of a public democratic process.


Anyways, there were reasons Hitler came to power, none of which have to do with freedom and democracy ie German loss of World War 1, etc.

You need to learn a lot. The German loss of World War 1 was merely a catalyst, fuel, what truly allowed Hitler to come to power was not the loss in World War 1, but the ability to express his opposition and discontent. Without the ability to express his public opposition, discontent, and the attempt at starting a reactionary revolutionary Hitler would not have came to power but actually imprisoned or even shot. Hitler came to power in a society that based itself on freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and all the ripe conditions that allowed the opposition of that form of society to exist, thrive, and come to power. Now, had the Weimar Republic completely banned freedom of speech, political organizations, freedom of assembly, etc. then Hitler would be caught and imprisoned on day one. Hitler took advantage of those conditions and ascended to power, when he did so he repealed all of them and asserted a victory for the Nazis.

"The passage of the Enabling Act of 1933 is widely considered to mark the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of the Third Reich. It empowered the cabinet to legislate without the approval of Reichstag or the President, and to enact laws that were contrary to the constitution. Before the March 1933 elections Hitler had persuaded Hindenburg to promulgate the Reichstag Fire Decree using Article 48, which empowered the government to restrict "the rights of habeas corpus [...] freedom of the press, the freedom to organise and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications" and legalised search warrants and confiscation "beyond legal limits otherwise prescribed". This was intended to forestall any action against the government by the Communists. Hitler used the provisions of the Enabling Act to pre-empt possible opposition to his dictatorship from other sources, in which he was mostly successful."

If only the Communists had done the same, we would be in a very different world right now.

Oh and before you even bother to reply, remember the Bolsheviks', specifically Trotsky and Co., arguments against freedom of the press and free speech. The best book on the subject is Trotsky's reply to Kautsky in "Terrorism and Communism" where he discusses the nonsense of free speech and its suicidal end.

An entire section of the book is titled "Freedom of the Press":


“Freedom of the Press”

One point particularly worries Kautsky, the author of a great many books and articles – the freedom of the Press. Is it permissible to suppress newspapers?

During war all institutions and organs of the State and of public opinion become, directly or indirectly, weapons of warfare. This is particularly true of the Press. No government carrying on a serious war will allow publications to exist on its territory which, openly or indirectly, support the enemy. Still more so in a civil war. The nature of the latter is such that each of the struggling sides has in the rear of its armies considerable circles of the population on the side of the enemy. In war, where both success and failure are repaid by death, hostile agents who penetrate into the rear are subject to execution. This is inhumane, but no one ever considered war a school of humanity – still less civil war. Can it be seriously demanded that, during a civil war with the White Guards of Denikin, the publications of parties supporting Denikin should come out unhindered in Moscow and Petrograd? To propose this in the name of the “freedom” of the press is just the same as, in the name of open dealing, to demand the publication of military secrets. “A besieged city,” wrote a Communard, Arthur Arnould of Paris, “cannot permit within its midst that hopes for its fall should openly be expressed, that the fighters defending it should be incited to treason, that the movements of its troops should be communicated to the enemy. Such was the position of Paris under the Commune.” Such is the position of the Soviet Republic during the two years of its existence.

Let us, however, listen to what Kautsky has to say in this connection.

“The justification of this system (i.e., repressions in connection with the Press) is reduced to the naive idea that an absolute truth (!) exists, and that only the Communists posses it (!). Similarly,” continues Kautsky, “it reduces itself to another point of view, that all writers are by nature liars (!) and that only Communists are fanatics for truth (!). In reality, liars and fanatics for what they consider truth are to be found in all camps.” And so on, and so on, and so on. (Page 176)

In this way, in Kautsky’s eyes, the revolution, in its most acute phase, when it is a question of the life and death of classes, continues as hitherto to be a literary discussion with the object of establishing ... the truth. What profundity! ... Our “truth,” of course, is not absolute. But as in its name we are, at the present moment, shedding our blood, we have neither cause nor possibility to carry on a literary discussion as to the relativity of truth with those who “criticize” us with the help of all forms of arms. Similarly, our problem is not to punish liars and to encourage just men amongst journalists of all shades of opinion, but to throttle the class lie of the bourgeoisie and to achieve the class truth of the proletariat, irrespective of the fact that in both camps there are fanatics and liars.

“The Soviet Government,” Kautsky thunders, “has destroyed the sole remedy that might militate against corruption: the freedom of the Press. Control by means of unlimited freedom of the press alone could have restrained those bandits and adventurers who will inevitably cling like leeches to every unlimited, uncontrolled power.” (Page 188) And so on.

The press as a trusty weapon of the struggle with corruption! This liberal recipe sounds particularly pitiful when one remembers the two countries with the greatest “freedom” of the press – North America and France – which, at the same time, are countries of the most highly developed stage of capitalist corruption.

Feeding on the old scandal of the political ante-rooms of the Russian revolution, Kautsky imagines that without Cadet and Menshevik freedom the Soviet apparatus is honeycombed with “bandits” and “adventurers.” Such was the voice of the Mensheviks a year or eighteen months ago. Now even they will not dare to repeat this. With the help of Soviet control and party selection, the Soviet Government, in the intense atmosphere of the struggle, has dealt with the bandits and adventurers who appeared on the surface at the moment of the revolution incomparably better than any government whatsoever, at any time whatsoever.

We are fighting. We are fighting a life-and-death struggle. The press is a weapon not of an abstract society, but of two irreconcilable, armed and contending sides. We are destroying the press of the counter-revolution, just as we destroyed its fortified positions, its stores, its communication, and its intelligence system. Are we depriving ourselves of Cadet and Menshevik criticisms of the corruption of the working class? In return we are victoriously destroying the very foundations of capitalist corruption.

But Kautsky goes further to develop his theme. He complains that we suppress the newspapers of the SRs and the Mensheviks, and even – such things have been known – arrest their leaders. Are we not dealing here with “shades of opinion” in the proletarian or the Socialist movement? The scholastic pedant does not see facts beyond his accustomed words. The Mensheviks and SRs for him are simply tendencies in Socialism, whereas, in the course of the revolution, they have been transformed into an organization which works in active co-operation with the counter-revolution and carries on against us an open war. The army of Kolchak was organized by Socialist Revolutionaries (how that name savours to-day of the charlatan!), and was supported by Mensheviks. Both carried on – and carry on – against us, for a year and a half, a war on the Northern front. The Mensheviks who rule the Caucasus, formerly the allies of Hohenzollern, and to-day the allies of Lloyd George, arrested and shot Bolsheviks hand in hand with German and British officers. The Mensheviks and S.R.s of the Kuban Rada organized the army of Denikin. The Esthonian Mensheviks who participate in their government were directly concerned in the last advance of Yudenich against Petrograd. Such are these “tendencies” in the Socialist movement. Kautsky considers that one can be in a state of open and civil war with the Mensheviks and SRs, who, with the help of the troops they themselves have organized for Yudenich, Kolchak and Denikin, are fighting for their “shade of opinions” in Socialism, and at the same time to allow those innocent “shades of opinion” freedom of the press in our rear. If the dispute with the SRs and the Mensheviks could be settled by means of persuasion and voting – that is, if there were not behind their backs the Russian and foreign imperialists – there would be no civil war.

Kautsky, of course, is ready to “condemn” – an extra drop of ink – the blockade, and the Entente support of Denikin, and the White Terror. But in his high impartiality he cannot refuse the latter certain extenuating circumstances. The White Terror, you see, does not infringe their own principles, while the Bolsheviks, making use of the Red Terror, betray the principle of “the sacredness of human life which they themselves proclaimed.” (Page 210)

What is the meaning of the principle of the sacredness of human life in practice, and in what does it differ from the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” Kautsky does not explain. When a murderer raises his knife over a child, may one kill the murderer to save the child? Will not thereby the principle of the “sacredness of human life” be infringed? May one kill the murderer to save oneself? Is an insurrection of oppressed slaves against their masters permissible? Is it permissible to purchase one’s freedom at the cost of the life of one’s jailers? If human life in general is sacred and inviolable, we must deny ourselves not only the use of terror, not only war, but also revolution itself. Kautsky simply does not realize the counter-revolutionary meaning of the “principle” which he attempts to force upon us. Elsewhere we shall see that Kautsky accuses us of concluding the Brest-Litovsk peace: in his opinion we ought to have continued war. But what then becomes of the sacredness of human life? Does life cease to be sacred when it is a question of people talking another language, or does Kautsky consider that mass murders organized on principles of strategy and tactics are not murders at all? Truly it is difficult to put forward in our age a principle more hypocritical and more stupid. As long as human labor power, and, consequently, life itself, remain articles of sale and purchase, of exploitation and robbery, the principle of the “sacredness of human life” remains a shameful lie, uttered with the object of keeping the oppressed slaves in their chains.

We used to fight against the death penalty introduced by Kerensky, because that penalty was inflicted by the courts-martial of the old army on soldiers who refused to continue the imperialist war. We tore this weapon out of the hands of the old courts-martial, destroyed the courts-martial themselves, and demobilized the old army which had brought them forth. Destroying in the Red Army, and generally throughout the country, counter-revolutionary conspirators who strive by means of insurrections, murders, and disorganization, to restore the old regime, we are acting in accordance with the iron laws of a war in which we desire to guarantee our victory.

If it is a question of seeking formal contradictions, then obviously we must do so on the side of the White Terror, which is the weapon of classes which consider themselves “Christian,” patronize idealist philosophy, and are firmly convinced that the individuality (their own) is an end-in-itself. As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the “sacredness of human life.” We were revolutionaries in opposition, and have remained revolutionaries in power. To make the individual sacred we must destroy the social order which crucifies him. And this problem can only be solved by blood and iron.

There is another difference between the White Terror and the Red, which Kautsky to-day ignores, but which in the eyes of a Marxist is of decisive significance. The White Terror is the weapon of the historically reactionary class. When we exposed the futility of the repressions of the bourgeois State against the proletariat, we never denied that by arrests and executions the ruling class, under certain conditions, might temporarily retard the development of the social revolution. But we were convinced that they would not be able to bring it to a halt. We relied on the fact that the proletariat is the historically rising class, and that bourgeois society could not develop without increasing the forces of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie to-day is a falling class. It not only no longer plays an essential part in production, but by its imperialist methods of appropriation is destroying the economic structure of the world and human culture generally. Nevertheless, the historical persistence of the bourgeoisie is colossal. It holds to power, and does not wish to abandon it. Thereby it threatens to drag after it into the abyss the whole of society. We are forced to tear it off, to chop it away. The Red Terror is a weapon utilized against a class, doomed to destruction, which does not wish to perish. If the White Terror can only retard the historical rise of the proletariat, the Red Terror hastens the destruction of the bourgeoisie. This hastening – a pure question of acceleration – is at certain periods of decisive importance. Without the Red Terror, the Russian bourgeoisie, together with the world bourgeoisie, would throttle us long before the coming of the revolution in Europe. One must be blind not to see this, or a swindler to deny it.

The man who recognizes the revolutionary historic importance of the very fact of the existence of the Soviet system must also sanction the Red Terror. Kautsky, who, during the last two years, has covered mountains of paper with polemics against Communism and Terrorism, is obliged, at the end of his pamphlet, to recognize the facts, and unexpectedly to admit that the Russian Soviet Government is to-day the most important factor in the world revolution. “However one regards the Bolshevik methods,” he writes, “the fact that a proletarian government in a large country has not only reached power, but has retained it for two years up to the present time, amidst great difficulties, extraordinarily increases the sense of power amongst the proletariat of all countries. For the actual revolution the Bolsheviks have thereby accomplished a great work – grosses geleistet. (Page 233)

This announcement stuns us as a completely unexpected recognition of historical truth from a quarter whence we had long since ceased to await it. The Bolsheviks have accomplished a great historical task by existing for two years against the united capitalist world. But the Bolsheviks held out not only by ideas, but by the sword. Kautsky’s admission is an involuntary sanctioning of the methods of the Red Terror, and at the same time the most effective condemnation of his own critical concoction.

[BIXX]

Free speech would be stopped when it proves to be destructive, counter-productive, and divisive. Communists would be in power and ergo Fascists, Liberals, and Anarchist would be prevented from rallying in public and organizing in public. Should any of these elements insist on doing so, they would be arrested. The Party would be reserved to the discussion of these ideas and subjects by educated and dedicated individuals as opposed to the mass anarchy of a public democratic process.

Where did you get that idea? What you are describing here is just the idea that communists repress all other ideologies or difference, which IS NOT true. Then they aren't communists. I would reply to the rest of your post but I am on a phone right now and have little time and much homework, but seriously, I have no clue where the hell you got that idea of communists.

I understand repressing fascists (to an extent but I have arguments against it) but seriously? Anarchists? Most of whom are communists? No.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Free speech would be stopped when it proves to be destructive, counter-productive, and divisive.

And why should "The Party" get to decide what they view as "destructive" speech?


Communists would be in power and ergo Fascists, Liberals, and Anarchist would be prevented from rallying in public and organizing in public. Anarchists are communists.



Should any of these elements insist on doing so, they would be arrested. The Party would be reserved to the discussion of these ideas and subjects by educated and dedicated individuals as opposed to the mass anarchy of a public democratic process.Censorship is counter-productive, in both getting people to stop thinking "bad ideas" and convincing others your ideology is correct. Telling people to shut up and threaten them if they don't will only fuel opposition.


The German loss of World War 1 was merely a catalyst, fuel, what truly allowed Hitler to come to power was not the loss in World War 1, but the ability to express his opposition and discontent. Without the ability to express his public opposition, discontent, and the attempt at starting a reactionary revolutionary Hitler would not have came to power but actually imprisoned or even shot. Censorship doesn't prevent action or thoughts, which is what caused his rise to power, and when it does, it leads to something just as bad as if the opposing side had gained power. A lot of the German people were already frustrated with conditions in Germany, filled with nationalism. I would see nothing wrong with preventing Hitler from gaining power, but merely speaking? Most fascists today and in the future are not a threat to us, and arresting them would bring them sympathy. A government that arrests its enemies for speaking only brings sympathies for those arrested, causing more harm than good.

Now, had the Weimar Republic completely banned freedom of speech, political organizations, freedom of assembly, etc. then Hitler would be caught and imprisoned on day one. And the same would have happened to a new German communist leader if one had been in the making.

If only the Communists had done the same, we would be in a very different world right now. I think the supposed "communists" already did, and look what happened.

remember the Bolsheviks', specifically Trotsky and Co., arguments against freedom of the press and free speech. The best book on the subject is Trotsky's reply to Kautsky in "Terrorism and Communism" where he discusses the nonsense of free speech and its suicidal end. And that's why the Bolsheviks committed something known as the "Red Terror" and their rule lead to Stalin.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

Yeah, we should let fascists speak their minds freely, censorship is bad, etc.

Liberal much?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Yeah, we should let fascists speak their minds freely, censorship is bad, etc.

Yes, because censorship will get them sympathy from others. After a socialist revolution, are you guys really that afraid of fascism which is a much smaller threat than it ever used to be (in most parts of the world)? The only people who will be "arrested and shot" as some of you people want are ignorant teenagers who were brainwashed by their parents or are going thru a rebel phase. And if they don't eventually give up fascism? Fine, let them whine about Jews. If you're confident in socialism after the majority of people have just supported a revolution that establishes, why bother wasting time arresting and shooting those types of people? By supporting censorship, you are also reinforcing untrue stereotypes about communism that we are fighting against.

[Theophys]

Where did you get that idea?

I got that idea from real life revolutions, namely the October Revolution, a bit of theory like from Lenin, Trotsky, and other such "minor" things that are of no relevance to you. Hey, have you ever heard of something called a "revolution" and how it tends to go? Maybe you've heard about something called "opposition" which tends to stand in the way of a revolution? How about the small note that the opposition to a Communist/Socialist revolution is usually Rightists, Monarchists, Capitalists, Fascists, Nazis, and other such counter-revolutionaries that need to be disposed of? No? Sad.


What you are describing here is just the idea that communists repress all other ideologies or difference, which IS NOT true.

Actually it's quite true. The Communists split and split until they reached a "purified" form leaving out the bourgeois influenced garbage at the door. If anyone, be them Anarchists or Communists, stands in the way of a revolution then they are acting against the revolution.


Then they aren't communists.

No True Scotsman logical fallacy. Google it.


I would reply to the rest of your post but I am on a phone right now and have little time and much homework, but seriously, I have no clue where the hell you got that idea of communists.
I'll wait for you and I'll respond when you come back with any "arguments" of your own. Don't worry.


I understand repressing fascists (to an extent but I have arguments against it) but seriously? Anarchists? Most of whom are communists? No.

Yes, Anarchists, all of whom oppose a state, all of whom oppose hierarchy, most of whom oppose a vanguard party, most of whom support decentralization, most of whom oppose authoritarianism, most of whom support federalism, many of whom support direct democracy, etc. etc. If any Anarchist attempts to "abolish da state" or "blow da banks" and that other shit they do, they'll get bashed as they are acting against a Socialist state. The will not be hunted down for their beliefs or what they said in private and all that nonsense, but they will be stopped if they attempt to take action against the achievement of the proletariat, peasants, etc.


And why should "The Party" get to decide what they view as "destructive" speech?
Because "The Party" only includes the most dedicated, educated, knowledgeable, and revolutionary elements of society. They invariably know what is destructive, i.e. negative criticism or attacks against the advancement of society, and what is constructive, i.e. constructive criticism calling on improvement here and there with ideas as how to do so.


Anarchists are communists.

Nice one. Only Anarcho-Communists are Communists, but even then they're not Marxists nor Marxist-Leninists (not Stalinists, mind you). As explained above, these Anarchists "all of whom oppose a state, all of whom oppose hierarchy, most of whom oppose a vanguard party, most of whom support decentralization, most of whom oppose authoritarianism, most of whom support federalism, many of whom support direct democracy, etc. etc. If any Anarchist attempts to "abolish da state" or "blow da banks" and that other shit they do, they'll get bashed as they are acting against a Socialist state."


Censorship is counter-productive, in both getting people to stop thinking "bad ideas" and convincing others your ideology is correct. Telling people to shut up and threaten them if they don't will only fuel opposition.

Nonsense. People can think of the "bad ideas" all they want, it is when they attempt to act upon those "bad ideas" that they get repressed and suppressed. We cannot stop them from thinking nor must we do so ever. If they want to freely discuss such ideas then let them redirect themselves to the Party. You do not really need to convince others that your ideology is correct, the Bolsheviks and all other revolutionaries did not convince the entire population that they're correct, only a minority that was followed by millions for one reason or another. As long as they had such a popular revolution, it will be ensured that if they continue on such a path people will remain convinced of their actions. Telling them to shut up and threaten them will fuel opposition during the first period and that usually takes the form of a Civil War, this is usually unavoidable as we have historically seen. The opposition generally dies out, is imprisoned, is changed, or is exiled after a successful revolution. Nevertheless, if an armed or physical opposition takes form it will be destroyed.


Censorship doesn't prevent action or thoughts, which is what caused his rise to power

Censorship does indeed prevent and limit action and thoughts, it is only when censorship fails that action and thoughts rise. The Weimar Republic ensured fredom of express and freedom of speech and the press, clearly then censorship was not what caused Hitler to rise to power. Hitler was capable of assembling, starting a revolution, and calling for the overthrow of the government. Had he been imprisoned for a long time or even executed, he would never have been able to rise to power.


and when it does, it leads to something just as bad as if the opposing side had gained power.

Bullshit. Such a superficial and ignorant view only typically comes from an Anarchist. I say Anarchist not because I'm turning into a Stalinist/Trotskyist throwing labels around, but exactly because it is what it is. Anarchists do not utilize any Marxists theories or analyses to examine society. Anarchists base their arguments on hierarchy, the staet, power structures, oppression, and exploitation. These Anarchists seem to the think that all hierarchy, states, power structures, oppression, and exploitation are the same without even bothering to ask "why", "by who", "targetting who", "where", "how", and so on. You need to properly analyze each side before claiming such nonsense. If a Socialist/Communist government were to take power and impose oppression, that oppression is not targeted at the proletariat as a class but at the bourgeoisie as a class and their sympathizers and supporters. The "bad" is targeted not at the victors, but at their opponents. It is of crucial importance to know "who" the victors are and "who" the opponents are, only then can you realize that your statement is completely false and ignorant.


A lot of the German people were already frustrated with conditions in Germany, filled with nationalism. I would see nothing wrong with preventing Hitler from gaining power, but merely speaking? Most fascists today and in the future are not a threat to us, and arresting them would bring them sympathy. A government that arrests its enemies for speaking only brings sympathies for those arrested, causing more harm than good.

It is this "speaking" which you treat so lightly that gives rise to actions such as Hitler gaining power. Hitler gained power by speaking which led to him being democratically elected. Speaking is not an act of innocence as you so attempt to make it out to be, speaking exists for a reason, that act of speaking is what gives rise to action. I suggest you look up "propaganda", "agitation", "call for action", "rallies", etc. etc. Fascists are a minor problem compared to their extreme degenerated form known as neo-Nazism. If anything, it is Nazism that is the issue here as in the case of Hitler and the neo-Nazis of today. Nazis in the past, today, and in the future are a problem to us all. You are repeating the words of the SPD and the Italian Socialists/Communists when you so ignorantly do away with the threat of Nazism and Fascism. Neo-Nazis are already slowly but surely gaining power, as we can see in the case of the Golden Dawn in Greece. To ignore such threat and allow them to continue their existence as a force would only lead to our suicide. They need to be shutdown before they can make any move. These neo-Nazis must be bashed on the streets, booted out of parliament, and forced to fill the jail cells. You claim that they will bring sympathy to themselves by getting arrested? Yes indeed, good luck with that while they're locked up with their sympathizers. That is, of course, if arresting such scum would bring them any sympathy in the first place, but I digress.


And the same would have happened to a new German communist leader if one had been in the making.

That's why a German Communist needs to assume power by whatever means necessary before anyone takes advantage of the situation and then when that German Communist is in power to secure power. Hitler was quite successful in such an action, too bad he was a Nazi.


I think the supposed "communists" already did, and look what happened.

Oh yes indeed, look at what happened! Not only did they emerge as the victors of the revolution, but they also won a Civil War, suppressed their enemies, and secured their position and revolution! Such a shame, isn't it? I mean, if we compare them to the success of the Paris Commune, the Spanish Revolution, etc. we'd cry our eyes out. Just remember that we start the revolution now and build our society later, as opposed to what the Anarchists keep suggesting and showing in history.


And that's why the Bolsheviks committed something known as the "Red Terror" and their rule lead to Stalin.

Exactly, and we should be thankful for that. The Bolsheviks were wise enough to know what to do to prevent themselves from losing. Anyway, Trotsky addressed such criticism AT LENGTH in "Terrorism and Communism" which I highly recommend. That book is essentially entirely on this subject and utterly destroyed Kautsky's complaints, as yours.

[#FF0000]

Yeah, we should let fascists speak their minds freely, censorship is bad, etc.

Liberal much?

Yeah we should definitely support the power of the bourgeois state to shut down speech and meetings of people and groups it deems a threat.

Liberal much?

And even if you just support the "No Platform" thing -- it's all about tactics, not dogma. Sometimes you don't need to have a big angry rally and kick the shit out of fascists to dissuade and discourage them. Sometimes doing that will turn opinion against you. Sometimes letting them talk is enough to dig themselves into a hole they can never get out of.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Because "The Party" only includes the most dedicated, educated, knowledgeable, and revolutionary elements of society. They invariably know what is destructive, i.e. negative criticism or attacks against the advancement of society, and what is constructive, i.e. constructive criticism calling on improvement here and there with ideas as how to do so. So the Party is all-knowing about the "correct way" to communism?


Nice one. Only Anarcho-Communists are Communists,
Here on RevLeft, we consider anarcho-communists and anarchists the same thing (thus anarcho-communists aren't' "true" anarchists), one because they used to be the only type of anarchist and two, anarcho-capitalists still want an economic hierarchy which is contradictory to anarchism (and communism) which seeks to abolish all authority.


As explained above, these Anarchists "all of whom oppose a state, all of whom oppose hierarchy, most of whom oppose a vanguard party, most of whom support decentralization, most of whom oppose authoritarianism, most of whom support federalism, many of whom support direct democracy, etc. etc.What's wrong with direct democracy?


Nonsense. People can think of the "bad ideas" all they want, it is when they attempt to act upon those "bad ideas" that they get repressed and suppressed. We cannot stop them from thinking nor must we do so ever. Agreed.


If they want to freely discuss such ideas then let them redirect themselves to the Party. Why, to freely discuss, must people "direct themselves to the party"?


The opposition generally dies out, is imprisoned, is changed, or is exiled after a successful revolution. Nevertheless, if an armed or physical opposition takes form it will be destroyed. I don't disagree with this if they did more than just speak or protest.


Censorship does indeed prevent and limit action and thoughts, it is only when censorship fails that action and thoughts rise.And you can't guarantee it won't fail. Even in the most brutal censorships, people don't just agree to be quiet. They rebel, revolt, and protest despite censorship laws.


Bullshit. Such a superficial and ignorant view only typically comes from an Anarchist. I still have the same views on this as I did when I was a Marxist. So this is not some secret anarchist argument.


Anarchists do not utilize any Marxists theories or analyses to examine society. Many do, actually.


These Anarchists seem to the think that all hierarchy, states, power structures, oppression, and exploitation are the same without even bothering to ask "why", "by who", "targetting who", "where", "how", and so on. You need to properly analyze each side before claiming such nonsense. If a Socialist/Communist government were to take power and impose oppression, that oppression is not targeted at the proletariat as a class but at the bourgeoisie as a class and their sympathizers and supporters. The "bad" is targeted not at the victors, but at their opponents. It is of crucial importance to know "who" the victors are and "who" the opponents are, Most anarchists don't oppose fighting against (thus oppressing) reactionaries after a revolution.


It is this "speaking" which you treat so lightly that gives rise to actions such as Hitler gaining power.And arresting and shooting a small small minority of a population will not help and will only make whoever did it look bad.


Hitler gained power by speaking which led to him being democratically elected. Speaking is not an act of innocence as you so attempt to make it out to be, speaking exists for a reason, that act of speaking is what gives rise to action. Stop the action, not the speaking, and speak and act back.


I suggest you look up "propaganda", "agitation", "call for action", "rallies", etc. etc. Why are you so condescending and rude?


Neo-Nazis are already slowly but surely gaining power, as we can see in the case of the Golden Dawn in Greece. To ignore such threat and allow them to continue their existence as a force would only lead to our suicide.

The Golden Dawn threat is because of their actions, not a few fascists speaking. I do not oppose keeping their movement from taking power, but massacring them for talking is not going to help.


They need to be shutdown before they can make any move. Agreed, but not by arresting and shooting them.


These neo-Nazis must be bashed on the streets, Only if they have done the same to immigrants, etc. as they often do.


booted out of parliament, Yes.


and forced to fill the jail cells. Only if they've actually done something physical against others.


You claim that they will bring sympathy to themselves by getting arrested? Yes indeed, good luck with that while they're locked up with their sympathizers.We can't arrest millions of people after a revolution.


Not only did they emerge as the victors of the revolution, but they also won a Civil War, suppressed their enemies, and secured their position and revolution!

That doesn't make their success good. A fascist revolution could do the same thing.


I mean, if we compare them to the success of the Paris Commune, the Spanish Revolution, etc. we'd cry our eyes out. These revolutions didn't lead to Stalin or some other type of party dictatorship. When capitalists spew about how communism is bad, they bring up 1930's Russia, not 1930's Spain.


Exactly, and we should be thankful for that. Stalin is an example of what you view as a successful revolution?


The Bolsheviks were wise enough to know what to do to prevent themselves from losing. And at the same time, they left a permanent scar on the communist movement.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

Yeah we should definitely support the power of the bourgeois state to shut down speech and meetings of people and groups it deems a threat.

Liberal much?

Except that I didn't say that.


And even if you just support the "No Platform" thing -- it's all about tactics, not dogma. Sometimes you don't need to have a big angry rally and kick the shit out of fascists to dissuade and discourage them.

I can agree with you here, yes.



Sometimes doing that will turn opinion against you.
I doubt that, really.


Sometimes letting them talk is enough to dig themselves into a hole they can never get out of.
From what I've seen and experienced, the only fascists that would be so dumb as to "dig themselves a hole they can never get out" are few. Fascists, at least where I live, use common-sense, concise and simple language, they appeal to emotions, to fear, as they always do. And they are heard because the people is 'sick' with conservatism as well.

So I'm sorry if I don't support freedom of speech to fascists. Today they talk, tomorrow they will be cutting our heads off.

[Fourth Internationalist]

So I'm sorry if I don't support freedom of speech to fascists. Today they talk, tomorrow they will be cutting our heads off.

There is nothing wrong with stopping reactionaries whether fascist or liberal from reactionary activity. However, after a revolution, millions and millions of people will be non-socialist, so arresting and shooting them would be impractical and thus wouldn't help.

[#FF0000]

Except that I didn't say that.

I don't consider counter-demonstrations and the like to be an abridgement of "freedom of speech". When you say that, I take it to mean the state intervening to punish fascist speech.


I doubt that, really.


People don't think it's cool when speakers get shouted down, generally speaking, no matter how controversial.


From what I've seen and experienced, the only fascists that would be so dumb as to "dig themselves a hole they can never get out" are few. Fascists, at least where I live, use common-sense, concise and simple language, they appeal to emotions, to fear, as they always do. And they are heard because the people is 'sick' with conservatism as well.

If you're in a country/state where Fascists might actually be a serious thing (Russia, Greece), then I can see where you're coming from. In the States, generally speaking, hella militant anti-fascism isn't necessary as the fascists here are absolute jokes. In Pennsylvania, the state where there's been an explosion in hate groups, most of them are made up of literal petty thugs and hilariously incompetent middle aged pudgy white men w/ midlife crisis sports shades and goatees. They're absolute jokes and make it abundantly clear whenever they try and do a thing and get met with a huge crowd of counter-protesters who don't take them seriously enough to be mad.

[#FF0000]

Surely you'll reach your goal faster that way than if you opted for a world government.

I'm gonna go out and find some food but when I get back we're gonna sit down and have a talk about why you're wrong about everything.

[Michelangelo]

I'm gonna go out and find some food but when I get back we're gonna sit down and have a talk about why you're wrong about everything.

I eagerly await to be told why I'm wrong to believe its best to allow free exchange of ideas and allowing multiple parties attempt to achieve revolution.

Or am I wrong because I would rather see communism and capitalism co-exist instead of a perpetual war? Am I wrong for being unable to justify violence against others because they prefer a different lifestyle?


Also I believe someone asked why libertarians bring up space often. It probably has to do with science fiction (and any fiction set in a 'frontier' setting really) hitting a certain vibe with us because rugged individuals and close voluntary groups being shown in a positive light.

Little House on the Prairie for example is well liked. For most of the series government is absent and most interactions are between people and not government or massive corporations. I recall one episode had a big banker appearing after the main family filed for bankruptcy. The town refused to bid on the auctioning of their possessions and gave the family their stuff back in the end. The idea of living in a community like that resonates well with libertarians. So that is why science/frontier fiction is well liked by them.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There's a lot wrong with what Theopys is saying. But one thing that's very wrong (and has nothing to do with supposedly liberal ideology) is the fact that highly centralized control around a singular orthodoxy creates immense distortions in communication. This is a problem with all highly centralized economic and political systems, from the former USSR to the modern corporation. If people have overseers and fear for their reputations, careers, or (in extreme cases) lives, they'll say whatever they think their superior wants to hear, even if it's not true. This ultimately ends up in a tremendous amount of waste and abuse...in few places was this more true than in the former USSR and other so-called socialist states.

[#FF0000]

I eagerly await to be told why I'm wrong to believe its best to allow free exchange of ideas and allowing multiple parties attempt to achieve revolution.

No. You're wrong because youthink that communists don't think that. Of course there needs to be a free exchange of ideas and relentless criticism, as well as differences in strategy and tactics. (That isn't to say that there aren't a whole bunch of communists who talk that talk but don't walk the walk, ofc).


Or am I wrong because I would rather see communism and capitalism co-exist instead of a perpetual war?Nah, you're wrong (naive) to think that this could happen.


Am I wrong for being unable to justify violence against others because they prefer a different lifestyle?Nope. Maybe a little silly to think that private property can be established without initiating force against others in the first place, but...

And also you're wrong because it seems like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of our aims and goals (because who even reads this left-wing nerd shit anyway). Communists/anarchists don't want a "world government". We want a stateless, classless society that spans the globe.


Also I believe someone asked why libertarians bring up space often. It probably has to do with science fiction (and any fiction set in a 'frontier' setting really) hitting a certain vibe with us because rugged individuals and close voluntary groups being shown in a positive light.

1) what do you think of cyberpunk
2) you should check out Iain M Banks' "Culture" novels.

[BIXX]

I got that idea from real life revolutions, namely the October Revolution, a bit of theory like from Lenin, Trotsky, and other such "minor" things that are of no relevance to you. Hey, have you ever heard of something called a "revolution" and how it tends to go? Maybe you've heard about something called "opposition" which tends to stand in the way of a revolution? How about the small note that the opposition to a Communist/Socialist revolution is usually Rightists, Monarchists, Capitalists, Fascists, Nazis, and other such counter-revolutionaries that need to be disposed of? No? Sad.

Don't act like I don't know a out those things. And obviously you're too oblivious to the fact that I was referring to ANARCHISTS being repressed.
Also, the fact is, communists and anarchists are known to work together. Communists also NATURALLY TEND toward anarchism, if it is actual communism (classless). Do some reading.




Actually it's quite true. The Communists split and split until they reached purified" form leaving out the bourgeois influenced garbage at the door. If anyone, be them Anarchists or Communists, stands in the way of a revolution then they are acting against the revolution.

Like I said, communists and anarchists work together. If a communist is actually striving for a classless society, they would have no reason to repress anarchists. And if they are not trying to achieve a classless society, then they aren't communists. Go ahead and learn what communism is for me, then we can talk.



No True Scotsman logical fallacy. Google it.

This doesn't fall into "no true Scotsman" because the repression of anarchists is strictly based in class interests. And communism is based in abolishing classes.



I'll wait for you and I'll respond when you come back with any "arguments" of your own. Don't worry.

Well, even if they weren't my own arguments (which they are) they still are better than anything you got.



Yes, Anarchists, all of whom oppose a state, all of whom oppose hierarchy, most of whom oppose a vanguard party, most of whom support decentralization, most of whom oppose authoritarianism, most of whom support federalism, many of whom support direct democracy, etc. etc. If any Anarchist attempts to "abolish da state" or "blow da banks" and that other shit they do, they'll get bashed as they are acting against a Socialist state. The will not be hunted down for their beliefs or what they said in private and all that nonsense, but they will be stopped if they attempt to take action against the achievement of the proletariat, peasants, etc.

HAHAHA oh my god I just realized you don't know anything about anarchism, or communism. First of all, we wouldn't "take action against the achievement of the proletariat, peasants, etc." because anarchism is based in defending their interests and abolishing hierarchies. Hierarchies which evolve into classes. Of course we oppose authoritarianism- that also is only to protect the interests of the upper classes. I'll explain why I don't support a vanguard in a minute. Also, a direct democracy is a good thing, why DON'T you support it? Decentralization is good, as centralization is just a way of increasing authoritarian power. Also, what Os Cangaceiros said about a highly centralized power structure and economy is true. As far as federalism goes, I support the idea of having communities being separate from one another, because what works for one does not necessarily work for all.



Because "The Party" only includes the most dedicated, educated, knowledgeable, and revolutionary elements of society. They invariably know what is destructive, i.e. negative criticism or attacks against the advancement of society, and what is constructive, i.e. constructive criticism calling on improvement here and there with ideas as how to do so.

That is just elitism. The vanguard is just a way to make it so those who are more educated and have more free time to spend on "revolutionary" activities (these people tend to be middle to upper class) have more power and can impress the working classes. And if you support oppression of the working classes, get the fuck out of RevLeft.



Nice one. Only Anarcho-Communists are Communists, but even then they're not Marxists nor Marxist-Leninists (not Stalinists, mind you).

Just cause we aren't Marxists or Marxist-Leninists, doesn't mean we're detrimental. You're assuming that anarchists just wanna go around breaking shit. Do everyone a favor and learn about anarchism before criticizing it.



Nonsense. People can think of the "bad ideas" all they want, it is when they attempt to act upon those "bad ideas" that they get repressed and suppressed.

At what point are they acting upon it to an extent to where they will be repressed? A protest? A gathering? Talking about it casually in a public place?


We cannot stop them from thinking nor must we do so ever. If they want to freely discuss such ideas then let them redirect themselves to the Party.

Who then ignores them because the Party is strictly adhering to its ideology that it has deemed "the one true way to create a classless society" (which I doubt you want, seeing as you advocate ideas that will generate classes).



You do not really need to convince others that your ideology is correct, the Bolsheviks and all other revolutionaries did not convince the entire population that they're correct, only a minority that was followed by millions for one reason or another.

So you support an elitist group who dictate what millions of people do without their input? Not gonna lie, but that sounds like a system of- wait for it- CLASS OPPRESSION!!!


As long as they had such a popular revolution, it will be ensured that if they continue on such a path people will remain convinced of their actions.

For how long do you think this can last? Cause the popular support in the USSR as far as I know didn't continue very long.



Telling them to shut up and threaten them will fuel opposition during the first period and that usually takes the form of a Civil War, this is usually unavoidable as we have historically seen. The opposition generally dies out, is imprisoned, is changed, or is exiled after a successful revolution.

Why would you fuel the opposition if you cared what the masses think? Cause it seems you aren't thinking about how important the masses are, you just wanna repress people that don't have your worldview.


Nevertheless, if an armed or physical opposition takes form it will be destroyed.

This I can understand. I mean, even if it is a communist state fighting off an anarchist revolution. Even though I'd disagree with the state in that case, I understand that the state will fight for it's own survival, because that is the natural tendency of a society- fighting for its survival.



Censorship does indeed prevent and limit action and thoughts, it is only when censorship fails that action and thoughts rise. The Weimar Republic ensured fredom of express and freedom of speech and the press, clearly then censorship was not what caused Hitler to rise to power. Hitler was capable of assembling, starting a revolution, and calling for the overthrow of the government. Had he been imprisoned for a long time or even executed, he would never have been able to rise to power.

What allowed Hitler to rise to power was acts that seemed beneficial such as building public parks, and at the same time he was opportunistic in that the people were already incredibly discontent, Hitler just said, "Hey, guess what, here is what we can do..." And due to the fact that he had built the parks and other beneficial shit, if he was suddenly censored, that would have caused major public discontent, and it would have led to another reactionary in Hitler's place. The fact is, Hitler, whether or not it was under that name, was an unfortunate, horrid, inevitability as soon as he began his political life.




Bullshit. Such a superficial and ignorant view only typically comes from an Anarchist. I say Anarchist not because I'm turning into a Stalinist/Trotskyist throwing labels around, but exactly because it is what it is. Anarchists do not utilize any Marxists theories or analyses to examine society. Anarchists base their arguments on hierarchy, the staet, power structures, oppression, and exploitation. These Anarchists seem to the think that all hierarchy, states, power structures, oppression, and exploitation are the same without even bothering to ask "why", "by who", "targetting who", "where", "how", and so on. You need to properly analyze each side before claiming such nonsense. If a Socialist/Communist government were to take power and impose oppression, that oppression is not targeted at the proletariat as a class but at the bourgeoisie as a class and their sympathizers and supporters. The "bad" is targeted not at the victors, but at their opponents. It is of crucial importance to know "who" the victors are and "who" the opponents are, only then can you realize that your statement is completely false and ignorant.

First off you're making a lot of assumptions. I use Marxist techniques to examine society, and I'm sure many others do. Plus, with a vanguard, among the other things you've shown to be your opinions, I believe you wish to repress the proletariat. Or rather, simply enforce what you seem to think theoretically would be "your rule". You seem to despise when anyone disagrees with you in the slightest, questioning your legitimacy.




It is this "speaking" which you treat so lightly that gives rise to actions such as Hitler gaining power. Hitler gained power by speaking which led to him being democratically elected. Speaking is not an act of innocence as you so attempt to make it out to be, speaking exists for a reason, that act of speaking is what gives rise to action. I suggest you look up "propaganda", "agitation", "call for action", "rallies", etc. etc. Fascists are a minor problem compared to their extreme degenerated form known as neo-Nazism. If anything, it is Nazism that is the issue here as in the case of Hitler and the neo-Nazis of today. Nazis in the past, today, and in the future are a problem to us all. You are repeating the words of the SPD and the Italian Socialists/Communists when you so ignorantly do away with the threat of Nazism and Fascism. Neo-Nazis are already slowly but surely gaining power, as we can see in the case of the Golden Dawn in Greece. To ignore such threat and allow them to continue their existence as a force would only lead to our suicide. They need to be shutdown before they can make any move. These neo-Nazis must be bashed on the streets, booted out of parliament, and forced to fill the jail cells. You claim that they will bring sympathy to themselves by getting arrested? Yes indeed, good luck with that while they're locked up with their sympathizers. That is, of course, if arresting such scum would bring them any sympathy in the first place, but I digress.

I feel arresting them for holding a rally or speaking out in support of something you disagree with will lend them support. For example, when the police fuck with a "figurehead", whatever that figure represented suddenly gains a lot of traction. I feel the only time they should be harmed is if they commit an act of violence against people, or aggressively making it harder for people to lead a comfortable, happy life.





That's why a German Communist needs to assume power by whatever means necessary before anyone takes advantage of the situation and then when that German Communist is in power to secure power. Hitler was quite successful in such an action, too bad he was a Nazi.

I believe that if there is to be a state, then yes, a Communist should take control as quickly as possible, but that control should not include the amount of censorship, or just general authoritarianism that you seem to be advocating. That level of authoritarianism would be nearly as bad for the proletariat as if fascists of some kind took over.




Oh yes indeed, look at what happened! Not only did they emerge as the victors of the revolution, but they also won a Civil War, suppressed their enemies, and secured their position and revolution! Such a shame, isn't it? I mean, if we compare them to the success of the Paris Commune, the Spanish Revolution, etc. we'd cry our eyes out. Just remember that we start the revolution now and build our society later, as opposed to what the Anarchists keep suggesting and showing in history.

Go read about some of that history that you're always bringing up. You'll find that the USSR degenerates rather quickly into a non-communist state. I wouldn't really call it a success. And as an anarchist, I suggest we make the revolutionary action and building of our society coincide as closely as possible, if not simultaneously.


Exactly, and we should be thankful for that. The Bolsheviks were wise enough to know what to do to prevent themselves from losing. Anyway, Trotsky addressed such criticism AT LENGTH in "Terrorism and Communism" which I highly recommend. That book is essentially entirely on this subject and utterly destroyed Kautsky's complaints, as yours.

You forget that the USSR was not a good example of communism and actually harmed many proletariat. I don't know why you fetishize the USSR so much, but really, it wasn't that great. It was good for the people who were ruling (Stalin and the Bolsheviks) but for the average person, not so much.

[Theophys]

So the Party is all-knowing about the "correct way" to communism?

Yes, better than your rabble of the masses that need not have read a single book on the subject.


Here on RevLeft, we consider anarcho-communists and anarchists the same thing (thus anarcho-communists aren't' "true" anarchists), one because they used to be the only type of anarchist and two, anarcho-capitalists still want an economic hierarchy which is contradictory to anarchism (and communism) which seeks to abolish all authority.

:laugh:

Apparently now Anarcho-Communists are the same as all other Anarchists on RevLeft including Mutualists, Collectivists, Anarcho-Syndicalists, Anarcho-Primitivism, Individualist Anarchists, Post-Left Anarchists, Synthesists, Anarchists-sans-adjectifs, etc. etc. Seriously, where the hell do you get your shit from? :laugh:

No, Anarcho-Communists were NEVER "the only type of anarchist", you had Collectivists (Bakuninist) and Mutualists before that.

Anarcho-Capitalists want a "voluntary" economic hierarchy whilst Anarcho-Communists want majority rule with direct democracy with the commune, the majority, etc. acting as the new hierarchy. Good one.

Communism does not oppose hierarchy, specifically the Marxist trend. Communism, specifically Marxist, does not wish to abolish all authority, only Anarchists wish to do that self-destructive impossibility.

So however you twist and mangle it, you are still wrong. Anarchists =/= Anarcho-Communists =/= Communists.

Read this titled "The Transition to Communism: Anarchism vs Leninism":
http://pastebin.com/Fd2Zd6Bs


What's wrong with direct democracy?

This simple sentence: "The most popular decision isn't always the best decision". Oh and maybe we should also consider the hierarchy that this creates in the form of majority rule (tyranny of the majority), commune rule, etc. over the individual and the collective. Maybe we should also add that people aren't educated, wise, or even smart enough to take part in direct democracy as we can see from today with their Capitalist and stupid habits. Try this experiment yourself, ask yourself if the kids that were in your class or the people you know in real-life that aren't Communists are capable of ruling the entire society. Hell, direct democracy isn't even capable of ensuring that things like civil rights, Communist policies, etc. etc. are even passed because you cannot even ensure that the participants are even Communists!


Why, to freely discuss, must people "direct themselves to the party"?

Because if they were to freely and publicy discuss, they would lead to the political situation we have today with all of its divisions, contradictions, conflicts, destructive attacks, etc. that would only hinder progress rather than advance society. The party puts into place the proper conditions to debate that would not and cannot be found in a society that bases itself upon the anarchy of the "freedom" of the press, "freedom" of speech, and "freedom" of expression.


I don't disagree with this if they did more than just speak or protest.

Protesting by itself is bad. Protesting is in and of itself an action that would only prove to be divisive and counter-productive rather than advancing and constructive. If they want to put forward reforms, let them take part in the Party where the debates are all publicy watchable and transparent. Protests give rise to conflict and violence which would otherwise be avoided with a proper means of discussion as that found within the party. Now, speaking by itself is not an issue, but speaking as in publicly calling for action, preaching neo-Nazism, etc. would be suppressed.


And you can't guarantee it won't fail. Even in the most brutal censorships, people don't just agree to be quiet. They rebel, revolt, and protest despite censorship laws.[/quoet]

We can never guarantee anything, but we can offer alternatives which are much more preferable and theoretically functional than what we have right now. People do not agree to be quiet, that is why the use of force is necessary. They rebel, they get crushed. They revolt, they get crushed. They protest, they get arrested. Nevertheless the interesting feature here is that many of these conflicts arise due to information asymmetry between the citizens and the government. If the government were to be open for suggestions, completely transparent, and televized then such issues would be minimized as people know what "actually" is taking place rather than claiming that the government is "doing nothing as usual" or that it is "corrupt" and "doesn't care about its citizens". Before you act surprised that I stated that the use of force is to be used, do remember the actions of the Spanish Anarchists and the Russian Communists when it came to the issue of reactionary and destructive opposition.

[quote]I still have the same views on this as I did when I was a Marxist. So this is not some secret anarchist argument.

No wonder you became what you are now.


Many do, actually.

Oh indeed, like the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the question of hierarchy, the question of federalism, the question of authority, the question of historical development, the question of a transitional society, the question of money, etc. etc. Do I even need to go on?


Most anarchists don't oppose fighting against (thus oppressing) reactionaries after a revolution.

Thus they are authoritarian and oppressive, contrary to their own claims. These Anarchists also support the suppression of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and whatnot, the very things you just opposed above. Ridiculous. If these Anarchists support such methods of oppression, suppression, and repression then they are nothing more than closet Marxists/Leninists denying themselves the best and most effective methods on the basis of nothing. See this on the question of the vanguard party: http://pastebin.com/wVwLcUf9


And arresting and shooting a small small minority of a population will not help and will only make whoever did it look bad.

You mean such as in the case of "most anarchists don't oppose fighting against (thus oppressing) reactionaries after a revolution"? Nice. They will not look bad at all if done properly, people did not "feel bad" as they killed the Whites or the Reds during the Red and White Terrors, they only "felt bad" when it came to killings under Stalin because of propaganda and anti-Stalinism due to Khrushchev and Capitalists expounding on that issue.


Stop the action, not the speaking, and speak and act back.

The speaking is what leads to the action. Without the speaking, the information and reasons behind the action would never come to light and thus would never be the justifications behind any action based on that act of speech. If one starts spreading Communist theories and works, he would be leading to the spread of that idea and thus the creation of a Communist revolution and so on. Without that one person spreading that idea then there would be no Communists taking action based on his speech. Imagine Nazism without Hitler, it would have never existed or imagine Marxism without Marx.


Why are you so condescending and rude?

Because when an individual tries to debate without knowing the basics of anything he's talking about then I have no reason not to be condescending and rude.


The Golden Dawn threat is because of their actions, not a few fascists speaking. I do not oppose keeping their movement from taking power, but massacring them for talking is not going to help.

No. The Golden Dawn is a threat because it is unhindered, it is not suppressed, it is not repressed, and it is allowed to exist. The Golden Dawn gains influence not because of its actions but because of its claims, speeches, rallies, and goals. Without those the Golden Dawn would not exist and instead be replaced by disorganized hooligans "bashing Pakis" instead of trying to take over the damned country. Massacring them is not the only possibilty as I had previously explained.


Agreed, but not by arresting and shooting them.

OH do tell me, how then? By hugging and kissing them? How about giving them the "pwetty hawsh silent tweatment"? Please.


Only if they have done the same to immigrants, etc. as they often do.

It's not an issue of whether or not they do that action or done the same to others, but that they call for such action, naturally resort to such action, and are prone to such action.


Yes.

At least this guy agrees to something useful.


Only if they've actually done something physical against others.

They always do, they have always done, and they will continue to do so.


We can't arrest millions of people after a revolution.

Nor should we, merely imposing restrictions and sanctions would solve the issue for many, but exceptions will remain and those exceptions need to be dealt with properly.


That doesn't make their success good. A fascist revolution could do the same thing.

More superficial ignorance disguised as analysis.
It does make their success good purely because they were Communists taking part in a Communist revolution. Fascists are Fascists, their revolution would not be a success in terms of our discussion and Communist success. A Fascist revolution does not lead to the Communists emerging as victors, make Communists win a Civil War, suppress the enemies of the Communists, nor secure the position of the Communists and their position.


These revolutions didn't lead to Stalin or some other type of party dictatorship. When capitalists spew about how communism is bad, they bring up 1930's Russia, not 1930's Spain.

You speak of "lead to Stalin" as something bad. It is not, it is only bad in your own opinion. The emergence of Stalin was an exception, not a rule of thumb. If you even try to speak of China and other countries, don't even bother as they were not independent revolutions but revolutions following the Soviet Socialist (and Stalinist in this case ) model. Let them bring up 1930's Russia, that's the easiest part to deal with, just remember that 1930's Russia is an exception, not a rule of thumb. They do not bring up 1930's Spain because 1930's Spain was a disaster with Anarchists buidling their society before even winning the revolution, without the revolutionaries securing power, and without the revolutionaries being able to crack down on the Fascists. Seriously your ignorant and philistine comparisons whilst entirely disregarding context and analysis sicken me.


Stalin is an example of what you view as a successful revolution?

No, the October Revolution and the victory in the Civil War is what I consider a successful revolution.


And at the same time, they left a permanent scar on the communist movement.

The scar was already there before the Bolsheviks came to power. The Capitalists never spoke of them in a proper light but constantly attacked them on the basis of being Communists even before the October Revolution. The October Revolution merely was a catalyst that forced them to become much more severe in their anti-Communist propaganda.


Don't act like I don't know a out those things. And obviously you're too oblivious to the fact that I was referring to ANARCHISTS being repressed.

You don't know about those things and I knew very well that you meant that Anarchists were being repressed.


Also, the fact is, communists and anarchists are known to work together.

Sure, only for the first few days before splitting and killing each other. Anarchists and Communists are by no means compatible except solely in the case of Anarcho-Communism but even then those are not compatible with neither reality nor Marxism/Leninism.


Communists also NATURALLY TEND toward anarchism, if it is actual communism (classless). Do some reading.

No they do not. The end-phase communism of Anarchists is entirely different from the end-phase communism of Marxists/Leninists and other Communists. Anarchists support massive and extreme decentralization, oppose hierarchy, oppose authority, oppose oppression, oppose money, oppose the state, support federalism, etc. etc. which other Communists disagree with entirely. I am the one who needs to do some reading? Listen, kid, YOU are the one who needs to "Do some reading", in fact I suggest you go read up on the arguments by Marxists and Leninists on the question of Anarchist federalism, hierarchy, authority, etc. Go read Bukharin's "ABC of Communism" and notice the communist society envisioned being almost completely different from that of the Anarchists whom Bukharin called "lumpenproletariat Socialism" and had the following to say about their "communism":

"1. Lumpenproletarian socialism (anarchism). The anarchists reproach the communists on the ground that communism (so they contend) will maintain the State authority in the future society. As we have seen, the assertion is false. The essential difference consists in this, that the anarchists are far more concerned with dividing up than with the organization of production; and that they conceive the organization of production as taking the form, not of a huge cooperative commonwealth, but of a great number of 'free', small, self-governing communes. It need hardly be said that such a social system would fail to liberate mankind from nature's yoke, for in it the forces of production would not be developed even to the degree to which they have been developed under capitalism. Anarchism would not increase production, but would disintegrate it. It is natural that, in practice, the anarchists should advocate the dividing up of articles of consumption and should oppose the organization of large-scale production. They do not, for the most part, represent the interests and aspirations of the working class; they represent those of what is termed the lumpenproletariat, the loaferproletariat; they represent the interests of those who live in bad conditions under capitalism, but who are quite incapable of independent creative work."

[...]

"Petty-bourgeois, agrarian, and lumpenproletarian socialism have one characteristic common to them all. Such varieties of non-proletarian socialism are outside the general course of evolution. The course of social evolution leads to the expansion of production. But in these nonproletarian varieties the whole trend is towards small-scale production. Inevitably, therefore, socialism of this kind is nothing more than a utopian dream. There is no likelihood of its actual realization."

You also seem to (ignorantly) claim that actual communism is just "classless" (the only thing in common) and nothing more. You obviously either do this due to ignorance on the nature of communism and its differences between Anarchists and Communists or because you knew the differences and instead resorted to intellectual dishonesty. Either way, you're wrong. Communists do not tend towars Anarchists, the two have little to do with each other, even Anarcho-Communists are barely similar to the Marxists and Leninsts and other Communists.


Like I said, communists and anarchists work together.

And I said that they do not, should not, and must not because they have no similar interests.


If a communist is actually striving for a classless society, they would have no reason to repress anarchists.

They have every reason to suppress Anarchists who do not agree with the transitional phase, authoritarianism, Socialism, Socialist policies, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, oppression, suppression, repression, and so on. Your claim is as absurd and laughable as claiming that since Abrahamic religions believe in an afterlife then they must all "tend" towards each other, have no reason to attack each other, and must be the same. Stupidity and philstinism at its best.


And if they are not trying to achieve a classless society, then they aren't communists. Go ahead and learn what communism is for me, then we can talk.

Communism is not only a "classless society" as they make it out to be, it is a thousand and one things that are determined firstly by Socialism before theory. A classless society can very well be achieved under Socialism with the collectivization, socialization, and nationalization of the means of production and thus the elimination of classes, ergo classelessness under Socialism. It would not be by any means communism, what are you going to do then? Exactly, you will not agree at all. What communism for you is nothing more than a Utopian pipedream, the very exact reason why I moved on from being an organizationalist Platformist Anarcho-Communist to a Marxist-Leninist. Marxism-Leninism is, if anything, the NATURAL EXTENSION of Anarcho-Communism. As soon as an Anarcho-Communism supports a revolution, suppression of the reactionaries, victory at whatever the cost, etc. then he is by every means a closet Marxist-Leninist (not Stalinism). Communism for you, apparently, is some mythical pipedream that is nothing more than "classlessness" for you.


This doesn't fall into "no true Scotsman" because the repression of anarchists is strictly based in class interests. And communism is based in abolishing classes.

Lol. Throwing around terms which you know little about, like "class interests". Simply lovely. Actually it is a No True Scotsman fallacy because you claimed that "they aren't communists" purely because they do not conform to your own classification or idea of them that if they repress all other ideologies or differences then they "aren't communists". That is a No True Scotsman fallacy, which is why I told you to google it because you obviously do not know what that means. Communists are not defined by whether or not they "repress all other ideologies or difference" but by numerous other factors which you did not even consider to claim that they "aren't communists". Communism is not only based on abolishing classes but numerous other issues and the means of abolishing said classes. If it means that Anarchists are opposing the Communists and standing in the way of the Communists or even opposing their means of achieving the ends (classlessness for example, amongst others) then they are to be repressed and suppressed. But nevertheless, to return to the initial statement what the hell does "because the repression of anarchists is strictly based in class interest" even mean? It makes absolutely no sense and looks to me as an attempt by someone to use "complicated" terminology which he himself does not even understand to give impact to his ridiculous arguments.


HAHAHA oh my god I just realized you don't know anything about anarchism, or communism.

Sure you did, let's see what you "realized" and let's destroy it part by part.


First of all, we wouldn't "take action against the achievement of the proletariat, peasants, etc." because anarchism is based in defending their interests and abolishing hierarchies.

False. As soon as an Anarchist even attempts to oppose the a SOCIALIST STATE, they are acting against the achievement of the proletariat and peasants by destroying the state that they themselves created. The Anarchists would abolish the state claiming that it is in the interests of the proletariat and the peasants whilst actually destroying their hold on power and achievements. Anarchism claims the interests of the proletariat and peasantry is the elimination of the state for them, the abolishing of hierarchies, and so on. Those, of course, are ridiculous assertions that are proven empirically to be false. The proletariat and the peasants did not and do not share the sentiments of the Anarchists, they do not want to abolish the state nor do they want to do away with hierarchies, only Anarchists want that. What happens then if these proletarians and peasantry establish their own STATE and their own HIERARCHY, what would you Anarchists do then? Support their actions and thus stop being Anarchists and stop attempting to achieve Anarchism or would you act to still abolish the state and hierarchy? If the former, then as I had previously explained "they will not be hunted down for their beleifs or what they said in private and all that nonsense", if the latter then "they will be stopped if they attempt to take action against the achievement of the proeltariat, peasants, etc." As you can see, destroyed. Next.


Hierarchies which evolve into classes.

And here we have an excellent case of perversion, ignorance, and philistinism. This little gentleman here thinks that classes are determined by hierarchy rather than by social relations of production that determine classes. This is why Anarchists should leave Marxism to the Marxists. Hierarchy has nothing to do with classes and hierarchy does NOT evolve into classes, classes are only created when the proper social relations of production allow for classes to exist such as the private ownership of the means of production and the creation of two main classes, those who "have" and those who "have not".


Of course we oppose authoritarianism- that also is only to protect the interests of the upper classes.

BAHAHAHAHA! There is no such as "upper class" as that is nothing but a mere bourgeois perversion of classes defined by income and social status than relations of production. Nevertheless, do tell me, when the proletariat starts a revolution, are they not allowed to resort to authoritarianism or force? What about when they assume power, are they not allowed to use authoritarianism to ensure that their achievements are not done away with by reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries? Can these victorious proletarians not resort to authoritarianism to impose their ideals over the rest of society? Without authoritarianism you would be forced to resort to mutual agreement and consent, you would thus have to ask the Nazis, Monarchists, Fascists, and Capitalists whether or not you can have a revolution, whether or not they will leave you alone, whether or not they will surrender their riches and wealth to you, and whether or not they will agree to stop troubling your society. Of course the answer to all of those by such elements would be a laugh, slap in the face, and the pointing of the gun at you and others. What would you do then? Defend yourself? That is still authoritarianism. What happens after you defend yourself? Do you leave the straggeling elements in your society to constantly undermine you and your acheivements or do you suppress them? That is authoritarianism. The "upper class" which you are referring that is protected by authoritarianism would be the proletariat that becomes the ruling class (only one class can rule at any one time and during a class revolution a class must emerge victorious over another and that victor would be the new ruling class), you would thus be acting against the interests of the proletariat, the new ruling class, since you oppose authoritarianism and "authoritarianism is only to protect the interests of the upper classes"! What ridiculous nonsense I read here! I don't know how stupid one needs to be to forget that the proletariat upon emerging victorious becomes the new ruling class, the new "upper class" and its achievements need to be defended through the use of force against force.

Read this titled "The Transition to Communism: Anarchism vs Leninism":
http://pastebin.com/Fd2Zd6Bs


I'll explain why I don't support a vanguard in a minute.

This will be fun.


Also, a direct democracy is a good thing, why DON'T you support it?

Because as I had explained to the guy above, "This simple sentence: "The most popular decision isn't always the best decision". Oh and maybe we should also consider the hierarchy that this creates in the form of majority rule (tyranny of the majority), commune rule, etc. over the individual and the collective. Maybe we should also add that people aren't educated, wise, or even smart enough to take part in direct democracy as we can see from today with their Capitalist and stupid habits. Try this experiment yourself, ask yourself if the kids that were in your class or the people you know in real-life that aren't Communists are capable of ruling the entire society. Hell, direct democracy isn't even capable of ensuring that things like civil rights, Communist policies, etc. etc. are even passed because you cannot even ensure that the participants are even Communists!"


Decentralization is good, as centralization is just a way of increasing authoritarian power.

Authoritarian power is necessary and unavoidable. There is absolutely nothing wrong with authoritarianism, yes you read that right, as long as it is on the side of the proletariat. Production with severe decentralization only hinders and cripples rather than does anything position. Decentralization divides society. Decentralization creates conflict rather than unity. Decentralization causes the inability of united action from taking place without countless meetings on nonsense. Decentralization prevents any form of effective planning. Decentralization in a communist society would only lead to mini-nations with numerous barriers and borders that lead to numerous wars and conflicts. Decentralization automatically leads to disogranization even as much as you desire to have federalism, meetings, etc. Just go read Bukharin's "ABC of Communism".


Also, what Os Cangaceiros said about a highly centralized power structure and economy is true.

Who the fuck is that? Maybe you should even bother to explained what he "said" instead of saying that he said something without bothering to explain what he said.


As far as federalism goes, I support the idea of having communities being separate from one another, because what works for one does not necessarily work for all.

That is the most counter-productive and destructive thing I have ever seen. See above on decentralization and see the quote by Bukharin on lumperproletarian socialism as well as take a look at the debates on this issue between Proudhon and Marx/Engels.


That is just elitism.

And what in the holy name of Jesus's dick is wrong with elitism as long as that elitism is Communist and acting in the interest of the proletariat and Communists?


The vanguard is just a way to make it so those who are more educated and have more free time to spend on "revolutionary" activities (these people tend to be middle to upper class) have more power and can impress the working classes.

Lol? Is THAT your argument? Seriously, is THAT what I have been waiting for when you said that you'll talk about vanguards "in a minute"? Oh my... Yes, the vangaurd is a place for the educated and those with free time to spend, and that is exactly what is needed. The last thing we need are uneducated rabble that have not read a single book, cannot even read, whom are too busy working somewhere else to even bother with the management of an entire society. We need exactly dedicated, educated, and revolutionary individuals with enough time to spend on the state and the management of society to make educated and intelligent decision on behalf of the people. Oh and you actually used "middle to upper class"? So much for the ignorance of Marxist class theory that you resort to the use of bourgeois perversions of classes! The terms "middle" and "upper" class have nothing to do with Marxism as these are defiinitions of classes based on income level and social status rather than relations of production. Nice try.

Read this titled "The Vanguard Party and its Necessity":
http://pastebin.com/wVwLcUf9


And if you support oppression of the working classes, get the fuck out of RevLeft.

So mighty and fierce yet without realizing that I never once supported the oppression of the working classes. Typical Anarcho-Kiddy.


Just cause we aren't Marxists or Marxist-Leninists, doesn't mean we're detrimental. You're assuming that anarchists just wanna go around breaking shit. Do everyone a favor and learn about anarchism before criticizing it.

I am very well educated in Anarchism, specifically Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism. You are detrimental exactly because you aren't Marxists and Marxist-Leninists. You are the Lyensko of revolutions. You promote false ideals and goals that only lead to the destruction and suicide of a revolution if ever followed. You speak of the abolishment of the state, hierarchy, and authority, all the elements that can, were, and are used by the proletariat to ensure its victory. I claim that Anarchists just want to go around breaking shit as a mocking joking/insult which seems to have flown directly over your head just like any other serious theory. I criticize Anarchism exactly because I am knowledgeable about it, not the other way around.


At what point are they acting upon it to an extent to where they will be repressed? A protest? A gathering? Talking about it casually in a public place?

A protest and a gathering. Casual talk, no.


Who then ignores them because the Party is strictly adhering to its ideology that it has deemed "the one true way to create a classless society" (which I doubt you want, seeing as you advocate ideas that will generate classes).

I CHALLENGE you to show me a SINGLE example of me supporting a SINGLE idea that will "generate classes". This will be extremely funny as you do not even define classes by their social relations of production but by their bourgeois perversions as "lower, middle, and upper" classes. Oh and I do not even suggest you try to speak of a bureaucracy/state/politicians becoming a new class, because as I have done to your friend I will do to you, you will be destroyed with ease as soon as I explain the differences between the "new class" and the "old classes", how that is incompatible with Marxist class theory, how the "new class" does not own the means of production, how the surplus value exracted is not the same as that extracted under the "old classes", etc. etc. Nevertheless, the Party's "one true way to create a classless society" is determined by countless public and transparent televized debates within the party where multiple theories and approaches are discussed and found to be detrimental or progressive and thus used properly.


So you support an elitist group who dictate what millions of people do without their input? Not gonna lie, but that sounds like a system of- wait for it- CLASS OPPRESSION!!!

Oh my fucking god. Do you even have the slightest fucking idea what "CLASS OPPRESSION!!1!one!" is? Class oppression has nothing at all to do with what I am referring to, especially because no classes would exist. Seriously, Anarchist, stop throwing around empty labels and words that you do not know the meaning of, you'll only sound like one of those still stuck in his Anarcho-Punk/Hipster phase. Anyway, the elitist group dictates what millions of people do without their input? Not really, the input by the people is necessary and that comes in the form of reactions, votes of "Yes or no" purely for feedback, and general sentiment, the rest of that is without their direct approval. Actions will be taken without people's approval because that elitist group knows what must be done and at what cost. People are more readily willing to keep things as they are, it is those elitist groups, be them revolutionaries, Communists, Anarchists, or whatnot that compel them on to revolutionary demands and ways. People are shortsighted and only care about short-term fulfillment of needs, they are not capable of looking and planning on the long-run. These people are only concerned with their families, putting food on the table, playing video games, and working, they care little about the actual running of a state and that is exactly why they take part in representative democracy rather than direct democracy.


For how long do you think this can last? Cause the popular support in the USSR as far as I know didn't continue very long.

It lasted for over 85 years until Gorbachev destroyed it with a rapid and illthought set of reforms. The reforms themselves were good, but he fucked up in the implementation and did not even to bother suppressing any opposition, allowed opposition to thrive, allowed public resistance and disobedience, and to gradually and properly implement the reforms whilst dealing with their consequences. As explained in "The Red Flag: A History of Communism":

Gorbachev was inadvertently destroying the ideological foundations of the Soviet system, and opinion changed very rapidly between 1987 and 1991. More became hostile to the party and positive towards the West. This even happened in Soviet satellites, where people had had a good knowledge of the West for some time; in Hungary, the number of those believing that ‘opportunities for educational and cultural growth’ were fully realized in the West leapt from 22.8 per cent in 1985 to 51.1 per cent in 1989.76 Even so, this is not to say that a majority of Soviet bloc citizens wanted a Western-style market economy. When asked what should be done to escape from the increasingly serious economic crisis, only 18 per cent of Soviet citizens wanted more private enterprise; 50 per cent wanted more discipline and order.77 Similarly, in 1989 73 per cent of Czechoslovaks opposed the privatization of industry and 83 per cent were hostile to the end of collective farms.78

The real beneficiary of the ideological crisis was nationalism and some of the earliest signs of political collapse came in the Baltic States, where nationalist hostility to Soviet rule had been widespread for some time. Popular Fronts in Support of Perestroika, created by the KGB to channel democracy in approved directions, soon escaped central control. Demonstrators began demanding complete independence, calling for a return to private property and the end of the Soviet system.

Gorbachev was soon faced with chaos. By attacking the old political system and ideology, he was cutting the sinews of power before an alternative power structure had been built. Much the same was true of the economy: the power of the state was undermined, before the ground had been prepared for the market to replace it. Gorbachev was faced with two coherent alternatives. There was the Chinese model, which assumed a gradual move to the market, led by a powerful party and reliant on continuing repression of dissent; or there was a neo-liberal ‘shock therapy’, counselled by many Western economists and the IMF. Understandably, Gorbachev resolutely set his face against the former: it contradicted his plans for political democracy, and, he believed, would only entrench the power of the bureaucrats he hated so much. However, Gorbachev also rejected shock therapy – equally predictably. It would have destroyed the economic bureaucracy at a stroke, and replaced it with markets, privatization and tough anti-inflation measures. Yet the result would also have been wild price swings, deep recession and mass unemployment. Even had this been a good idea, Gorbachev would never have pursued it because he was determined to have democracy and markets at the same time, whilst retaining his own power. The introduction of the market would inevitably have hurt many people, and democracy would have given the millions of ‘losers’ a powerful weapon against the government. Gorbachev himself responded to popular pressure by cushioning living standards with borrowing from the West. The consequence was ballooning foreign debt.

In place of neo-liberal shock therapy and Chinese-style state-led reform, Gorbachev settled on a deeply flawed compromise. The attack on the bureaucracy destroyed the old system that delivered supplies from one factory to another, whilst enterprise directors were given new autonomy: they were now free of any pressure – market or political – to produce efficiently and cheaply. Inevitably prices rose, shelves emptied and queues lengthened. Whilst the peace-maker ‘Gorby’ was being hailed in the West, his popularity at home plummeted.
Some at the time urged that Gorbachev copy the more statist Chinese model, and the debate over alternative paths continues.79 Chinese conditions were certainly very different from Russia’s. In the Soviet Union, agriculture had been more damaged by collectivization, and the old industrial apparatchiks were much more powerful and able to block economic reforms. Nevertheless, some argue that had the right incentives been put in place, some version of Deng’s Four Modernizations might have produced a better economic result.

It is perhaps pointless to speculate about possible alternatives. Given the democratic, anti-bureaucratic worldview of Gorbachev and the reformers, and the liberal intellectual environment in the West, the Chinese model had little chance. And even had a version of the Chinese model secured an improved economic result, it would have been at the expense of political freedom, and probably world peace. The Communists would have remained in power, and an old guard would have been more likely to resist the retreats of 1989 in Eastern Europe.

However, the course Gorbachev chose, whatever its political advantages, had a damaging economic outcome: the effective collapse of the state and the ‘theft’ of the economy by managers and officials. When, in 1989, the dithering Gorbachev eventually did appoint the liberal Nikolai Petrakov as his economic adviser, and made it clear the following year that privatization was on the cards, they began to ‘self-privatize’, selling off equipment and pocketing the proceeds. Meanwhile party bosses and state officials took advantage of Gorbachev’s attack on the central hierarchy and took the assets of the organizations they worked for. The bureaucrats were ‘stealing the state’.80 This semi-legal larceny was the source of the wealth of many of the ‘oligarchs’ of the 1990s. Gorbachev, intent on destroying the ‘bureaucrats’, had actually helped many of them to enrich themselves, and his idealism had set in train the decade of political and economic collapse that beset Russia after Communism, in turn fuelling the anti-liberal reaction that followed it under President Vladimir Putin.

From the autumn of 1989 onwards, therefore, the effects of Gorbachev’s creeping revolution against the Communist Party were becoming clear: the various spheres of Soviet power were collapsing. And it was no surprise that the first to go was the weakest link in the chain: Eastern Europe.


Why would you fuel the opposition if you cared what the masses think? Cause it seems you aren't thinking about how important the masses are, you just wanna repress people that don't have your worldview.

The "masses"? FUCK the "masses". The "masses" at this point would include the anti-Communists, the bourgeoisie, the Feudalists, the Monarchists, the Fascists, the Nazis, the clergymen, the reactionaries, and the counter-revolutionarise. The only instance where we must care about the "masses" is after the abolishment of classes and these reactionary elements suppressed. It is then and only then that we can speak of the "masses". I would not fuel any opposition, the opposition would fuel itself as a reaction to the policies being put into place. The massees are not important at all during a revolution as during a revolution we only care about two sections of the masses - those who are with the revolution and those who are opposed to the revolution.


This I can understand. I mean, even if it is a communist state fighting off an anarchist revolution. Even though I'd disagree with the state in that case, I understand that the state will fight for it's own survival, because that is the natural tendency of a society- fighting for its survival.

The only rational thing I have heard from you so far.


What allowed Hitler to rise to power was acts that seemed beneficial such as building public parks, and at the same time he was opportunistic in that the people were already incredibly discontent, Hitler just said, "Hey, guess what, here is what we can do..." And due to the fact that he had built the parks and other beneficial shit, if he was suddenly censored, that would have caused major public discontent, and it would have led to another reactionary in Hitler's place. The fact is, Hitler, whether or not it was under that name, was an unfortunate, horrid, inevitability as soon as he began his political life.

Hitler, the man who rose to power and significance by building parks. You heard this first here. No. Hitler did not rise to power because he built parks, he rose to power because he played on the emotions of people in a negative fashion. Hitler began blaming the Jews as a scapegoat, claimed that the German Aryans were the master race to rule all, started playing on nationalism above all else, etc. allowing the Germans to follow him with ease. This is what's happening in the case of the Golden Dawn and the neo-Nazis today. They are able to gather support by using a scapegoat and appealing to people's love of supremacy in the form of ethnic, national, or even racial supremacy. Moreover, if Hitler had been censored before he came to prominent significance then there would not have been any major public discontent, but if there had been then the person who is to replace him would see the same fate and their supporters bashed if they try to organize. Indeed, as soon as he began his political life! The thing is to prevent him from even beginning a political life unrestricted and free.


First off you're making a lot of assumptions. I use Marxist techniques to examine society, and I'm sure many others do.

Bullshit, as I have seen from this debate you know nothing of any Marxist techniques, you do not examine society above blank labels, and you know little of Marxism or the examination of society.


Plus, with a vanguard, among the other things you've shown to be your opinions, I believe you wish to repress the proletariat.

I CHALLENGE YOU AGAIN to show me where I spoke of repressing the proletariat. I speak of the vanguard party ensuring the class interests of the proletariat, but if it so happens that a proletarian sides with the Nazis then that exception is to be dealt with properly. Not all the proletarians will follow their class interests or the Communists as we have historically seen in Germany, Russia, and other countries where proletarians joined the reaction and counter-revolutionaries. I do not care about individuals and exceptions, I care about classes and class interests.


Or rather, simply enforce what you seem to think theoretically would be "your rule". You seem to despise when anyone disagrees with you in the slightest, questioning your legitimacy.

Oh you're going to play that card, are you now? No, I never spoke of "my rule" because I never spoke of the dictatorship of an individual. If the Party deems that something is theoretically correct then it is what it is as is the case in EVERY SINGLE government including direct democracy. I despise when idiots disagree on the basis of ignorance on their part.


I feel arresting them for holding a rally or speaking out in support of something you disagree with will lend them support. For example, when the police fuck with a "figurehead", whatever that figure represented suddenly gains a lot of traction. I feel the only time they should be harmed is if they commit an act of violence against people, or aggressively making it harder for people to lead a comfortable, happy life.

That only happens in the case of a "free" society with a "free press" and "free speech". That is to say the "free" here implies the bias of the press and speech in favor those who own the press and determine what is "free speech". There have been many an action taken by a bourgeois state against Communists and other such figureheads with little consequences who go unreported. In a society without a free press, the individual taken into custody can be shown to the public for what he truly did. There would be absolutely no need for the Stalinist show trials which would be a common aspect of an Anarcho-Communist society with all of its direct democracy, mob rule, tyranny of the majority, and uneducated decision-making. The figurehead when jailed can be announced publicly or kept a secret. You feel that it is only necessary that they should be harmed if they commit an action but forget that their speech, agitation, and propagnda do much, much more harm than a single action in the form of leading others to take part in action based on those words.


I believe that if there is to be a state, then yes, a Communist should take control as quickly as possible, but that control should not include the amount of censorship, or just general authoritarianism that you seem to be advocating. That level of authoritarianism would be nearly as bad for the proletariat as if fascists of some kind took over.

I'm supporting an extreme form of authoritarianism, so yes that would not necessarily come to fruition in reality. That level of authoritarianism which I advocate would not be bad for the proletariat but would in fact be in the best class interests of the proletariat as that authority is nothing but on their own behalf.


Go read about some of that history that you're always bringing up. You'll find that the USSR degenerates rather quickly into a non-communist state. I wouldn't really call it a success.

I have read that history. The USSR did not degenerate "rather quickly" into a "non-Communist state". The USSR remained a Communist state, i.e. following the ideology of Communism and ruled by a Communist Party that is following the ideology of Communism, until its last days. What happened with the USSR was that it had differing policies over the years, but it did not "degenerate rather quickly into a non-Communist state". It was by every means a success, it was the first ever proper proletarian revolution that succeeded and lasted for over 85 years, achieving numerous breakthroughs and acting as a stronghold for the world proletariat. It was only when Gorbachev fucked up his implementation of Glastnost and Peretstroika that he sent it toppling down. It took the USSR 85 years to become a non-Communist state, it was still at all times a Communist state during that period.


And as an anarchist, I suggest we make the revolutionary action and building of our society coincide as closely as possible, if not simultaneously.

No, absolutely not. That is the main reason why the Anarchist movements have historically failed. They attempt to build their society during a revolution instead of first winning the revolution at whatever cost. What must be done is what the Communists claimed must be done, that they win the revolution first and THEN start building their society. If history and empirical evidence is anything it is that the Communist method of revolution is much more successful than the Anarchist one. Again, see "The Transition to Communism: Anarchism vs Leninism".


You forget that the USSR was not a good example of communism and actually harmed many proletariat.

The USSR was not an example of end-phase communism, but it was an example of Socialism, i.e. Soviet Socialism. It did not harm many proletarians and in fact aided many. It was the bourgeoisie countries such as the US and the failure of the First World revolutionaries that led to the harming of the proletariat. If you are trying to claim that the victory of the proletariat in the USSR is what harmed the proletariat then you are thus acting against the proletariat.


I don't know why you fetishize the USSR so much, but really, it wasn't that great. It was good for the people who were ruling (Stalin and the Bolsheviks) but for the average person, not so much.

Actually go take a look at the statistics before the USSR, during the USSR, and after the USSR. You will regret saying that. I fetishize the USSR for the same reasons that people fetishize the Paris Commune and other revolutions. The USSR was the first ever proletarian revolution that was not only successful but also capable of securing its power and position and lasting for decades. It must never be sidelined, it must be supported as that even if you do not like what happened.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The last thing we need are uneducated rabble that have not read a single book, cannot even read, whom are too busy working somewhere else to even bother with the management of an entire society.

You might wanna try and get your stereotypes of the working class from some time a bit more recent than the 19th century.

[Comrade #138672]

If the Earth is Communist, and the moon then colonized, the moon will be Communist too.

Also, the moon would always be intertwined with the Earth, so there can only be Communism if the moon is Communist too. The world would then be the Earth plus the moon.

[Theophys]

You might wanna try and get your stereotypes of the working class from some time a bit more recent than the 19th century.
You might wanna try and talk to some individuals from the working class, maybe even away from First World countries. You'll then see for yourself if they can actually take part in government and whether their answers would want you to put them directly in power to decide the fate of millions. Maybe you should also realize that I was not merely referring to the working class but any other individual that is uneducated on the complex subjects required for proper governance.

Hell, if we are to take your direct democracy and put it into implementation, you'll see why exactly I speak of this "rabble". The elections in the United States are enough for me to rest my case. I could also remind you of the number of votes the Communists obtain during parliamentary elections. That should get you a "slight" understanding of peoples' sentiments and beliefs. They are nowhere near the belief in Communism, they even tend to vote for the stupidest shit one can image such as George Bush and even supporting a joke like Sarah Palin. And that's just in the United States.

Oh but it's not a stereotype of anything from the 19th century. Go on ahead and ask any worker you run into, tell him to explain Marx's take on the Labor Theory of Value, economics, revolutionary theory, the differences between Stalinism and Trotskyism, what Leninism is, what Marxism is, what is his opinion of Stalin and Communism, or even just ask him what he thinks Communism is. You can also go ahead and ask them about their opinion of homosexual rights, what the think of the USSR, which drugs, if any, should be legalized, what their opinion on foreign policy is, etc. etc. A revolution won't people suddenly smarter, they'll still require a government to exist.

People are not educated in these subjects, that's why they have a government to do that for them.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't know how to respond to all your stuff, especially since you said you have no reason not to be condescending and rude to me. I don't think you understand anarchism that well. A lot of your arguments are as common misconceptions about anarchism as their are against other forms of communism. By the way, Anarchism and Marxism are not as far away as you think, especially the more libertarian Marxism tendencies.


Yes, better than your rabble of the masses that need not have read a single book on the subject.

I don't know how I can debate with such elitism. Of course, though, the chances of a Party you 100% agree with is pretty much impossible, so allowing them to do whatever they want in the name of the proletariat is not good. Most Parties and political leaders claim to do what they believe is the only right way to their ideal world, but of course all of them can't be correct. The Vanguard Party will not be without exception.


Apparently now Anarcho-Communists are the same as all other Anarchists on RevLeft including Mutualists, Collectivists, Anarcho-Syndicalists, Anarcho-Primitivism, Individualist Anarchists, Post-Left Anarchists, Synthesists, Anarchists-sans-adjectifs, etc. etc. Seriously, where the hell do you get your shit from?
No, that is not what I said. We generally use "Anarchist" to refer to "Anarchist-Communist". Refering to anything else, people do use the "Anarchist-Whatever". I think this idea comes from the Anarchist FAQ that many anarchist-communists agree with, so we simply use the term anarchist to describe ourselves, because we are against "untrue" so to say forms of anarchism ie we believe anarchist-capitalism can't lead to anarchism.


Because when an individual tries to debate without knowing the basics of anything he's talking about then I have no reason not to be condescending and rude.

It was nice talking to you. Consider trying to keep your condescension and rudeness suppressed, as no one wants to talk with someone who is openly acting in such an immature way.

[Theophys]

Ignoring the fact that you avoided my entire post and arguments...


I don't know how to respond to all your stuff, especially since you said you have no reason not to be condescending and rude to me.
Cop-out.


I don't think you understand anarchism that well. A lot of your arguments are as common misconceptions about anarchism as their are against other forms of communism.
Show me the misconceptions and I shall address them properly. I'll be waiting.


By the way, Anarchism and Marxism are not as far away as you think, especially the more libertarian Marxism tendencies.
They are extremely far away from each other. Stop trying to whitewash history, I do not need to remind you of the debates between Marx/Engels vs Proudhon, Bakunin, and Co.


I don't know how I can debate with such elitism.
As easily as you can with any other.


Of course, though, the chances of a Party you 100% agree with is pretty much impossible, so allowing them to do whatever they want in the name of the proletariat is not good. Most Parties and political leaders claim to do what they believe is the only right way to their ideal world, but of course all of them can't be correct. The Vanguard Party will not be without exception.
They will learn from their mistakes as everyone does. They at least are able to minimize mistakes by studying the matters before implementing them given that they are already educated on the subjected and interested in advancing their society. They can never be 100% correct nor can I 100% agree with them, but they are much, much more preferable than the alternative or even direct democracy.


No, that is not what I said. We generally use "Anarchist" to refer to "Anarchist-Communist". Refering to anything else, people do use the "Anarchist-Whatever". I think this idea comes from the Anarchist FAQ that many anarchist-communists agree with, so we simply use the term anarchist to describe ourselves, because we are against "untrue" so to say forms of anarchism ie we believe anarchist-capitalism can't lead to anarchism.
What. You said this, "Here on RevLeft, we consider anarcho-communists and anarchists the same thing " and yet above you claim that's not what you said...? I just... Sigh. Anarchist had numerous schools of thought, you ignorant correlate it solely with Anarcho-Communism. That is not only false but stupid. An Anarchist can be anything ranging from Anarchist-without-adjectives to Anarcho-Communist and Anarcho-Capitalist whether you like it or not. That's like Marxists claiming that Communism is the "same thing" as Marxism. That's ridiculous, ignorant, and stupid. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing and admit that you are wrong. What you consider to be "untrue" others consider to be "true". Do you want us Marxist-Leninists to call ourselves the "true" Communists and call everyone else "untrue"? Laughable. And yet he called me out on elitism.


It was nice talking to you. Consider trying to keep your condescension and rudeness suppressed, as no one wants to talk with someone who is openly acting in such an immature way.
Note that I am only immature with those incapable of logical reasoning and debate.

Anarchism is the "same thing" as Anarcho-Communism... :laugh:

Good one.

[Rurkel]

Hell, if we are to take your direct democracy and put it into implementation, you'll see why exactly I speak of this "rabble".
"Rabble"? I think that Theophys is a great theoretician whose insights are so valuable, they can be taken as a foundation for a new tendency. It can be called "Aristocratic Communism" - and if we take the word "aristocracy" in its etymological meaning, it would be as close to a neutral description of what he's saying as possible.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You might wanna try and talk to some individuals from the working class, maybe even away from First World countries. You'll then see for yourself if they can actually take part in government and whether their answers would want you to put them directly in power to decide the fate of millions. Maybe you should also realize that I was not merely referring to the working class but any other individual that is uneducated on the complex subjects required for proper governance.

Literacy has lower rates in certain countries that is true, but so what? Illiterate doesn't mean stupid or incapable of educational attainment.


Hell, if we are to take your direct democracy and put it into implementation, you'll see why exactly I speak of this "rabble". The elections in the United States are enough for me to rest my case.

Seriously? You think pointing to a bourgeois electoral institution in a period of reaction supports your case?


I could also remind you of the number of votes the Communists obtain during parliamentary elections. That should get you a "slight" understanding of peoples' sentiments and beliefs. They are nowhere near the belief in Communism, they even tend to vote for the stupidest shit one can image such as George Bush and even supporting a joke like Sarah Palin. And that's just in the United States.

And that's never going to change, right?


Oh but it's not a stereotype of anything from the 19th century. Go on ahead and ask any worker you run into, tell him to explain Marx's take on the Labor Theory of Value, economics, revolutionary theory, the differences between Stalinism and Trotskyism, what Leninism is, what Marxism is, what is his opinion of Stalin and Communism, or even just ask him what he thinks Communism is. You can also go ahead and ask them about their opinion of homosexual rights, what the think of the USSR, which drugs, if any, should be legalized, what their opinion on foreign policy is, etc. etc. A revolution won't people suddenly smarter, they'll still require a government to exist.

On the contrary, a Marxian revolution is contingent on there being a significant majority of the proletariat having a revolutionary consciousness in the first place.


People are not educated in these subjects, that's why they have a government to do that for them.

Whose government? Unless it's the proletariat who have seized power as a class, why should proletarians give a stuff about what "a government" thinks is good for them?

[BIXX]

People are not educated in these subjects, that's why they have a government to do that for them.

I'm out. This guy is obviously not a communist, have extreme control issues, has an incredible disdain for the working class (of which my entire family and friend group is made up of currently), he gives no shots about the rights of the people, believes that the USSR was a great example of communism, etc... Wow someone is actually this dense.

I wonder what the proletariat would think if they were to read the things you've said. How they "aren't educated enough" to make complicated decisions. If you believe that I doubt any of them will follow your working class hatred group.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'm out. This guy is obviously not a communist, have extreme control issues, has an incredible disdain for the working class (of which my entire family and friend group is made up of currently), he gives no shots about the rights of the people, believes that the USSR was a great example of communism, etc... Wow someone is actually this dense.

I wonder what the proletariat would think if they were to read the things you've said. How they "aren't educated enough" to make complicated decisions. If you believe that I doubt any of them will follow your working class hatred group.

Ikr? The working class is so stupid and uneducated, they can't liberate themselves, but they surely will, of course, bow down to the Holy Will of the Blessed Party, Peace Be Upon It. :lol:


Whose government? Unless it's the proletariat who have seized power*as a class, why should proletarians give a stuff about what "a government" thinks is good for them?

Because the working class is too stupid to act by itself. Duh!

[Theophys]

Literacy has lower rates in certain countries that is true, but so what? Illiterate doesn't mean stupid or incapable of educational attainment.
And that is just the issue with illiteracy, the completely lack of literacy. We're not even getting to the part where the literate are also uneducated in Marxism and other revolutionary works. Even then we are not getting to the part of the lack of revolutionary consciousness, the existence of apathy, and the general lack of specialization and dedication of the average person. Illiteracy is only a minor problem.


Seriously? You think pointing to a bourgeois electoral institution in a period of reaction supports your case?
Oh please. Yes, I seriously think that pointing to the case of a democratic bourgeois electoral institution with free elections and universal suffrage where individual voters have chosen bourgeois parties over Socialist parties in any period supports my case.


And that's never going to change, right?
I do not see any justified nor valid reason for it to change that doesn't base itself in Utopian aspirations and daydreams about the sudden enlightenment of everyone on Earth. As far as I see it and as far as history has shown us, there is little possibility of it changing. Even with the free elections found in many countries today, bourgeois parties are voted into power with even the worst decision-making take place.


On the contrary, a Marxian revolution is contingent on there being a significant majority of the proletariat having a revolutionary consciousness in the first place.
That will never happen. Revolutions have historically taken place with only a minority of dedicated revolutionaries identifying as Marxists, Communists, Socialists, or whatnot with the rest merely following suit barely even reading a single book on the subject. Revolutionary consciousness can never be summoned out of thin air, it requires specific material conditions that allow it to come into existence and thrive. Until then, have fun with the proletariat voting for bourgeois parties.


Whose government? Unless it's the proletariat who have seized power as a class, why should proletarians give a stuff about what "a government" thinks is good for them?
Because when the proletariat seizes power as a class, they being naturally led by the Communists or otherwise create a government institution to take over the transitional period for them. Seeing as Communists tend to lead proletarian revolutions, Communists become those who manage the government of the proletariat and its class interests. The proletariat "give a stuff" about what a "government" thinks is good for them purely due to the very reasons why the proletariat and other classes today allow for the existence of a government to rule over them. The government is made up of the most revolutionary, dedicated, and educated elements of the proletariat and other elements under the banner of Communism. The proletariat can never, individually nor collectively, know what is truly good for them as they can only achieve trade-union consciousness, only care about their direct demands such as putting food on the table, and cannot by any means mange and run an entire economy by themselves. The proletariat thus assigns through one means or another an entity to do all of that form on their behalf.


I'm out. This guy is obviously not a communist
No True Scotsman logical fallacy.


have extreme control issues
Necessary.


has an incredible disdain for the working class (of which my entire family and friend group is made up of currently)
False assertion. I have no disdain for the working class, but I honestly do not give a shit if your family or friends are working class.


he gives no shots about the rights of the people
The rights of people? Remember what Trotsky told Kautsky on the question of the sacredness of human life. There is no place for human rights when you are attempting to win a life or death struggle during a revolution. Keep your "human rights" nonsense to your bourgeois liberal system.



believes that the USSR was a great example of communism
Of Socialism, not Communism.


etc... Wow someone is actually this dense.
I know and I thought you weren't as that dense. Ah well.


I wonder what the proletariat would think if they were to read the things you've said.
Let them think what they wish, they're already not convinced with your nonsense.


How they "aren't educated enough" to make complicated decisions.
They know this themselves very well, that is why they do not run as candidates. To deny this is to deny reality. Many individuals today, as in the past as in the future, are not cut-out to manage an entire society. Again, the most popular decision is not always the best decision.

Nevertheless, how could I forget mentioning the fallacies of direct democracy such as Arrow's Theorem and the Condorcet Paradox. Google them. Direct democracy cannot possibly represent the true will of the voters.


If you believe that I doubt any of them will follow your working class hatred group.
You remind me of Stalinists with your use of empty labels to throw at those you disagree with. "Working class hatred group". :laugh:


"Rabble"? I think that Theophys is a great theoretician whose insights are so valuable, they can be taken as a foundation for a new tendency. It can be called "Aristocratic Communism" - and if we take the word "aristocracy" in its etymological meaning, it would be as close to a neutral description of what he's saying as possible.

Petty sarcasm. Nevertheless, call it Authoritarian Communism, Aristocratic Communism, or whatever. I believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with authority and even totalitarianism although they seem "evil" due to the negative connotations associated with them. I kid you not when I suggest you play Assassin's Creed 3 and listen to Haytham's words. There is absolutely no reason as to why freedom or democracy should always be desirable. Freedom and public open democracy only lead to the rise of conflicting and contradictory ideologies and beliefs which inevitably lead to conflict and wars. The most severe of these contradictions which cannot be reconciled are class contradictions. Freedom allows for these contradictions to come to the fore and end in bloody conflict. Class conflict needs to be resolved by revolution and only then can we deal with the other contradictions. Contradictions are the basis of conflict, they need to be minimized or eliminated if we are to ever advance as a species. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and so on and so forth do not unite, they merely divide. The criticisms that result from such institutions are not progressive and advancing criticisms that would seek to improve society, but detrimental tabloid bashing that base themselves on nothing but petty scandals in order to undermine your opposition rather than bring society what is truly needed for the greater good.

The removal of certain aspects of speech or even free speech entirely do not by any means dim any hopes of achieving the "truth" on condition that positive for-progress discussion, dialogue, etc. are allowed. I feel the need to firstly explain what I believe to be preferable before I go on so that you do not end up stabbing in the dark when I fail to explain my own position.

Firstly, I am a Communist, a Marxist-Leninist specifically. We, in our theories, believe that society is composed and historically dominated by two major classes. The state, law, society, etc. always revolve around the ruling class (the one class that is in power). Now, I believe that uncurbed freedom of speech (and ergo the media, but that is for another discussion) is detrimental to society, progress, and the "truth". Uncurbed freedom of speech allows for overly evident reactionary elements in society to not only spread their message, but call for action indirectly and directly, influence the masses negatively, and eventually revert the progress made by society. Such elements, I claim, must be censored and even silenced. Such elements do not merely exist in the form of merely citing their opinions, no, they take action, they call for action, and they spread outright lies and false propaganda. They refuse to spread the "truth", they inhibit the "truth" for their own agendas. The case of the media in Venezuela under Chavez is evident of that. The media did nothing more than setback progress. It is akin to the multi-party systems where both systems set each other back for the sake of personal benefits. See the issue of the Republicans and the Democrats, or even the political parties in other countries such as in the case of Lebanon. They are nothing more than detrimental. Any criticism that takes place is not in favor of advancing society or seeking the "truth" but merely putting down the opposition. Society can never achieve progress when it is constantly hindered by internal contradictory forces that can never be reconciled.

I believe the "right" to be a society heading in the direction of Communism. How do I currently state that this is the "right", you ask? Debates, theories, discussions, etc. Debates and discussions must act as a replacement for the anarchy of free speech in society. I believe that within a Communist Party and from outside there is to be genuine constructive criticism and self-criticism in order to advance and progress towards the "truth" whilst acting in unison for a common goal (easily specified and achievable; nationalism and ideology are strong forces). If we are to ever achieve progress it would only be in this direction, never in the direction of anarchistic decentralization and vast freedoms. The splintering of society and the granting of permission for factionalization and division can only lead to chaos, disaster, and lies put forward as the 'truth" as we can see in the case of every party claiming to have the "right" way, even the Nazis.

Now that my position has been explained, I can continue. Some state that the "genuine pursuit of the truth means we have to be able to pursue it honestly, not handicap ourselves from the beginning [...]", yes indeed, and that is exactly why we must oppose freedom of speech as a factor for achieving the "truth". Freedom of speech inhibits, clouds, and hides the "truth" in a vast mess of conflicting and false opinions and claims that people actually believe without thought. The dichotomy and dilemma of the American political system is proof of this, so are numerous other countries with "freedom" of speech, parties, media, etc. This freedom has nothing to do with achieving the "truth", but merely putting forward your own ideas out of thousands regardless of credibility as the "right". If we are to genuinely pursue the "truth" then we need honesty. Honesty can never be had in a society divided and conflicted by millions of opinions, divisions, parties, ideologies, etc. that each compete against the other for nothing more than trivial nonsense and lies. If we are to achieve the "truth" then it can ONLY be achieved through the brunt of society acting in unison for a common goal through discussion, dialogue, and debate in hopes of achieving what is best for their own society, to achieve the "truth" without degenerating into petty political feuds and divisions which base themselves on nothing more than nonsense. Freedom doesn't enable them, it inhibits them. It conflicts individuals with one another instead of uniting their efforts towards a common cause and goal. By ruling some things that we have already determined to be off-limits, we are preventing any of these "handicaps" from crippling progress. No one tries to defy gravity by jumping off a balcony only to land in the pavement as a mat for a reason.

[Fourth Internationalist]

"Rabble"? I think that Theophys is a great theoretician whose insights are so valuable, they can be taken as a foundation for a new tendency. It can be called "Aristocratic Communism" - and if we take the word "aristocracy" in its etymological meaning, it would be as close to a neutral description of what he's saying as possible.

I'd prefer Marxism-Leninism-Theophysism. :D


Now that my position has been explained, I can continue. Some state that the "genuine pursuit of the truth means we have to be able to pursue it honestly, not handicap ourselves from the beginning [...]", yes indeed, and that is exactly why we must oppose freedom of speech as a factor for achieving the "truth". Freedom of speech inhibits, clouds, and hides the "truth" in a vast mess of conflicting and false opinions and claims that people actually believe without thought. The dichotomy and dilemma of the American political system is proof of this, so are numerous other countries with "freedom" of speech, parties, media, etc. This freedom has nothing to do with achieving the "truth", but merely putting forward your own ideas out of thousands regardless of credibility as the "right". If we are to genuinely pursue the "truth" then we need honesty. Honesty can never be had in a society divided and conflicted by millions of opinions, divisions, parties, ideologies, etc. that each compete against the other for nothing more than trivial nonsense and lies. If we are to achieve the "truth" then it can ONLY be achieved through the brunt of society acting in unison for a common goal through discussion, dialogue, and debate in hopes of achieving what is best for their own society, to achieve the "truth" without degenerating into petty political feuds and divisions which base themselves on nothing more than nonsense. Freedom doesn't enable them, it inhibits them. It conflicts individuals with one another instead of uniting their efforts towards a common cause and goal. By ruling some things that we have already determined to be off-limits, we are preventing any of these "handicaps" from crippling progress. No one tries to defy gravity by jumping off a balcony only to land in the pavement as a mat for a reason. And how do you determine who is telling the "truth"? Without freedom of speech, anything the Blessed Party wants will be accepted as true out of fear of punishment. Humans make up the Party, and humans aren't perfect and don't always know what's true. As we have seen thru history, most progress was and is being made because of an ever more progressive world, thru free speech, free thought, voting rights, etc. Do you think it's weird that you only believe in the right to censor others is only for the hypothetical Government you just so happen to think you will agree with? Chances are, if a vanguard party that you won't agree with leads a future revolution, you will be demanding free speech. Heck, go to another country with censorship laws. You won't like it, and you only like it if it agrees with you. Your ideology is man-made. It was not made by an all-knowing God. It is not perfect. It is able to be criticized, and it can be wrong. It is not an eternal truth.

[BIXX]

Guys, I have an idea: lets ignore him. He will think he has won, and we can live out the rest of our lives with relative peace.
Can we block posts by certain users? Of so I'd recommend blocking him. Every thread he's in he either hates the proletariat, starts an argument where none was needed, decides that we are all wrong in our beliefs and we should follow his belief that people who are oppressed are happy and stupid.

[#FF0000]

Have you ever gotten involved in a discussion that you knew you didn't want to get involved in? Because I'm about to do that.


And that is just the issue with illiteracy, the completely lack of literacy. We're not even getting to the part where the literate are also uneducated in Marxism and other revolutionary works. Even then we are not getting to the part of the lack of revolutionary consciousness, the existence of apathy, and the general lack of specialization and dedication of the average person. Illiteracy is only a minor problem.

"So that means we need to make people like me the boss vanguard of the rest of the unwashed, ignorant masses!"


I do not see any justified nor valid reason for it to change that doesn't base itself in Utopian aspirations and daydreams about the sudden enlightenment of everyone on Earth. As far as I see it and as far as history has shown us, there is little possibility of it changing. Even with the free elections found in many countries today, bourgeois parties are voted into power with even the worst decision-making take place.
"I can't imagine it changing so it will never change".

Reminds me of something I read when studying a bit on the French Revolution, about how French liberals in the years leading up to the revolution (late 80's about) never imagined having a revolution or harbored any serious anti-aristocratic ideas, for the most part. In fact many utilitarian-minded liberals felt they were useful. Fast forward a couple of years and they were decapitating those same aristocrats.


That will never happen. Revolutions have historically taken place with only a minority of dedicated revolutionaries identifying as Marxists, Communists, Socialists, or whatnot with the rest merely following suit barely even reading a single book on the subject.
Sounds like you're talking about so-called "communist revolutions" exclusively here. And you're still wrong because the working class in Russia was hella militant and in some ways more radical than their parties ("All Power To The Soviets" was as much a challenge to the various communist parties as much as it was just a baller slogan)

Secondly I'd also point out that, historically, all of these revolutions have failed utterly.


Revolutionary consciousness can never be summoned out of thin air, it requires specific material conditions that allow it to come into existence and thrive."And at least a two-year degree"


Until then, have fun with the proletariat voting for bourgeois parties. All parties are bourgeois parties.

[BIXX]

I'd prefer Marxism-Leninism-Theophysism. :D

Oooh! I wanna start hating the working class!!! Where so I sign up????

[#FF0000]

(We should probably split this thread)

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Oooh! I wanna start hating the working class!!! Where so I sign up????

I was hating the working classes before it was popular.

Poser. :P



.....Seriously though, I find Theophys's lack of empathy rather chilling.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And that is just the issue with illiteracy, the completely lack of literacy. We're not even getting to the part where the literate are also uneducated in Marxism and other revolutionary works. Even then we are not getting to the part of the lack of revolutionary consciousness, the existence of apathy, and the general lack of specialization and dedication of the average person. Illiteracy is only a minor problem.

So what's your solution? Call all those people dumb sheep and then lecture them from a pedestal about what's in their best interests? Yeah, I can see people being charmed by that. Not.


Oh please. Yes, I seriously think that pointing to the case of a democratic bourgeois electoral institution with free elections and universal suffrage where individual voters have chosen bourgeois parties over Socialist parties in any period supports my case.

Except how "free" are elections in system involving patent bullshit like electoral colleges? Universal suffrage doesn't matter when the electoral rolls are dominated by two institutionally favoured parties with no meaningful differences in policy.


I do not see any justified nor valid reason for it to change that doesn't base itself in Utopian aspirations and daydreams about the sudden enlightenment of everyone on Earth. As far as I see it and as far as history has shown us, there is little possibility of it changing. Even with the free elections found in many countries today, bourgeois parties are voted into power with even the worst decision-making take place.

You do realise there is more to politics than the bourgeois electoral sideshow?


That will never happen. Revolutions have historically taken place with only a minority of dedicated revolutionaries identifying as Marxists, Communists, Socialists, or whatnot with the rest merely following suit barely even reading a single book on the subject. Revolutionary consciousness can never be summoned out of thin air, it requires specific material conditions that allow it to come into existence and thrive. Until then, have fun with the proletariat voting for bourgeois parties.

Lemme guess, it won't happen because "human nature", right?


Because when the proletariat seizes power as a class, they being naturally led by the Communists or otherwise create a government institution to take over the transitional period for them. Seeing as Communists tend to lead proletarian revolutions, Communists become those who manage the government of the proletariat and its class interests.

You talk as if Communists and proletarians are necessarily different people. Why? It's the proletarian that stands to gain the most from a Communist revolution, whereas the bourgeoisie and petite-bourgeoisie will stand to lose. It's the proletariat that are the revolutionary class under capitalism.


The proletariat "give a stuff" about what a "government" thinks is good for them purely due to the very reasons why the proletariat and other classes today allow for the existence of a government to rule over them.

You mean ideological hegemony as well as physical and economic force? How is that remotely liberating?


The government is made up of the most revolutionary, dedicated, and educated elements of the proletariat and other elements under the banner of Communism. The proletariat can never, individually nor collectively, know what is truly good for them as they can only achieve trade-union consciousness, only care about their direct demands such as putting food on the table, and cannot by any means mange and run an entire economy by themselves. The proletariat thus assigns through one means or another an entity to do all of that form on their behalf.

I see, and how do we know the difference between something "assigned" by the proletariat and some junta making the same claim?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Guys, I have an idea: lets ignore him. He will think he has won, and we can live out the rest of our lives with relative peace.
Can we block posts by certain users? Of so I'd recommend blocking him. Every thread he's in he either hates the proletariat, starts an argument where none was needed, decides that we are all wrong in our beliefs and we should follow his belief that people who are oppressed are happy and stupid.

Bu... but his ideology is the eternal truth! There's even a song that says so!

Sailing seas depends on the helmsman,
Life and growth depends on the sun.
Rain and dew nourish the crops,
Making revolution depends on Theopys Thought.
Fish can't leave the water,
Nor melons leave the vines.
The revolutionary masses can't do without the Communist Party.
Theophys Thought is the sun that forever shines.

:laugh:

[Theophys]

Have you ever gotten involved in a discussion that you knew you didn't want to get involved in? Because I'm about to do that.

Yep.


"So that means we need to make people like me the boss vanguard of the rest of the unwashed, ignorant masses!"

Unless you think a vanguard party is comprised of one individual then no. The masses are indeed ignorant when compared to the likes of a Communist theoretician, for instance Lenin/Marx/Engels/Trotsky/Stalin/Bukharin compared to the proletariat during his time or our time.


"I can't imagine it changing so it will never change".
Unless you want to resort to petty Utopian idaelism then be my guest and start talking about your pipedreams. Until there is a very real possibility of them changing then and only then can we discuss them without resorting to fictional daydreams. Go play religion somewhere else.


Reminds me of something I read when studying a bit on the French Revolution, about how French liberals in the years leading up to the revolution (late 80's about) never imagined having a revolution or harbored any serious anti-aristocratic ideas, for the most part. In fact many utilitarian-minded liberals felt they were useful. Fast forward a couple of years and they were decapitating those same aristocrats.

People can very well change their views during the harsh moments leading up to a revolution due to the rapidly changing material conditions, but the same cannot be said of parliamentary elections. We have seen what historically happened in the case of parliamentary elections when it came to the German Socialists and Communists, for example. Even under the most favorable conditions the Communists did not win power. In the case of Russia, they did not win power through elections at which point they took part in another separate revolution (October Revolution) and asserted their power despite being a minority in the elections. A revolution allows for minorities to assert power despite their small number, parliamentary elections do not.


Sounds like you're talking about so-called "communist revolutions" exclusively here. And you're still wrong because the working class in Russia was hella militant and in some ways more radical than their parties ("All Power To The Soviets" was as much a challenge to the various communist parties as much as it was just a baller slogan)

Sloganeering whilst barely knowing what the slogan entails. The Egyptians called for the overthrow of their system and that slogan spread throughout the Arab Spring, look what good it did. People assume a mob mentality when it comes to such things. The parties weren't as radical because they were wary of slogans, they knew that if all power was in the hands of the Soviets then there would be no place for the Communists and ergo absolutely no guarantee that Socialism or Communism would be followed or that opportunist, reformist, and counter-revolutionary policies would not and could not be followed. Hell, if all power were handed to the Soviets during the Civil War it would have ended much like it did in Spain '36-'39 with extreme divisions, lack of central organization and command unity, an attempt at building their society before winning the revolution, etc. etc. That is to say, the Russians were militant but militancy is not always desirable as it is does away with caution, planning, and thinking in favor of harsh and rash radical measures which would later bite them in the ass.


Secondly I'd also point out that, historically, all of these revolutions have failed utterly.

The Soviet/Bolshevik revolution did not fail whether you wish it or not. The revolution was won and secured after the conclusion of the Civil War and the permanent assumption of power of the Bolsheviks. That's when and where the revolution ended. A revolution does not extend as in the case of the fairytales of rhetoric until world revolution, a revolution only lasts until one side assumes victory over the other.


"And at least a two-year degree"

Bad joke.


All parties are bourgeois parties.

:laugh:

Sure, keep telling yourself that. I just love how these people use the word "bourgeois" so liberally, it's as if they can use it to mean anything that they want it to mean or to be synonymous with "bad". A bourgeois party is a bourgeois party. Not all parties are bourgeois parties.



So what's your solution? Call all those people dumb sheep and then lecture them from a pedestal about what's in their best interests? Yeah, I can see people being charmed by that. Not.

That would be a way or a party could be formed to take over government and the management of the economy, production, and politics. That party would include the most revolutionary, educated, and dedicated members of the public that are actually capable of governing a society.


Except how "free" are elections in system involving patent bullshit like electoral colleges? Universal suffrage doesn't matter when the electoral rolls are dominated by two institutionally favoured parties with no meaningful differences in policy.

Electoral colleges are not even an issue, they rarely ever go against the majority's decision, but even then they have very good reasons why they decide to go against the majority's decision which they can explain. I hope you do actually realize that the two parties that are in power are so due to popular consent and voting rather than any "institutional" factors? People, the very people that you want to give the ability to decide everything, have chosen them for over multiple centuries to remain in power, fooled by those two parties if you may.


You do realise there is more to politics than the bourgeois electoral sideshow?

Yes, and that is exactly why direct democracy can never work and why the average Joe is not certified enough to take such matters into his own hands. Even the Soviets had assigned delegates rather than direct democracy, they had indirect democracy, they had separate executive branches filled with educated and revolutionary individuals in the Central Executive Committee, in the Politburo, and so on. They had very good reasons to impose such a system and it certainly wasn't because they believed people were able to rule themselves without the need of a government.


Lemme guess, it won't happen because "human nature", right?

No, the answer escapes me, but I bet you know the answer. I wonder why revolutions are led the way they are and why revolutionary consciousness is dependent upon the proper material conditions.


You talk as if Communists and proletarians are necessarily different people. Why? It's the proletarian that stands to gain the most from a Communist revolution, whereas the bourgeoisie and petite-bourgeoisie will stand to lose. It's the proletariat that are the revolutionary class under capitalism.

And that is exactly why the Communists are the logical extension of the proletariat. The Communists need not be proletarians themselves, but as Lenin explained, can very well be petit-bourgeois and bourgeois intelligentsia. Since the Communists are not "necessarily different people" according to you, then the Communists are naturally the logical extension of the proletariat; they are the most educated, revolutionary, and dedicated elements of the proletariat according to you and must thus know the class interests, theories, and what is to be done better than the rest of the proletariat. The proletarian indeed stands to gain the most from a Communist revolution, but until they obtain a revolutionary consciousness they'll continue ignoring Communism and sticking with the bourgeoisie parties. The proletariat are the revolutionary class under Capitalism, but they are nothing without the Communists. The Communists are those who study the class interests of the proletariat, offer them an alternative framework, explain to them the complicated theories of Marx, organize parties for them, stand in the frontlines of a revolution, and lead the proletariat during a revolution.


You mean ideological hegemony as well as physical and economic force? How is that remotely liberating?

Do you honestly think that people today are fine with their governments because of ideological hegemony and physical/economic force? Damn that mystification is deep in this one. No. People today generally do not wish to tend towards a revolution because they rationally do not want to risk their way of life as it is today, especially in the First World countries where the proletariat's needs are fulfilled. The government today ensures them protection and a continued comfortable way of life without the risk of a revolution and its uncertainties. A revolution would only be sought after if the proletariat is impoverished, immiserated, the government unable to aid it, unemployment reigns supreme, and the state attempts to oppress the proletariat and other such "allied" classes. How is it remotely liberating you ask? It is liberating because it prevents their society from degenerating into barbarism and savagery that would be the inevitable ends of a degenerated Capitalism or an unorganized society without law and order. The governments of today have systems of welfare, offer employment to many, couch exploitation with the superexploitation of Third World labor, ensure that food is put on the table of everyone, ensure proper and adequate security, etc. etc. There is a reason why you won't have any revolutions in places like the Scandinavian countries or the United States any time soon, but you will have revolutions in Third World and Second World countries where the proletariat and peasantry are impoverished with the government unable to ameliorate their suffering.


I see, and how do we know the difference between something "assigned" by the proletariat and some junta making the same claim?
The Junta, being Communist, would be as you explained "not necessarily different people". If you believe that Communists are the proper representatives of the class interests of the proletariat then with Communists in power you have your own answer. If you do not believe that such is the claim then we'll have to discuss this at length.


I'd prefer Marxism-Leninism-Theophysism. :D

And how do you determine who is telling the "truth"?

We bash him until he tells the truth. ;)1

We determine who is approaching the truth through theoretical debate, if one's ideas hold water then they are considered to be hypothetically true. They need to be put to the test to be determined whether they are "true", i.e, advancing and working or not.


Without freedom of speech, anything the Blessed Party wants will be accepted as true out of fear of punishment.

I already explained that freedom of speech would exist in the party following Democratic Centralism, but with a few alterations such as the discussion of a broad array of subjects and topics to find those that are ridiculous and unworkable versus those that can best benefit society. If a policy is to be suggested, criticisms are put forward to modify that policy or eliminate it purely based on the interests of advancing society. How can this be ensured? Careful filtering of who enters the party based on dedication, ideology, beliefs, education, and experience. To present new ideas you need only join the Party. Petition the Party. Appeal the case. As long as you have the proper evidence then such a grave injustice, in your eyes, will continue as it has been decided by the majority, if not all, within the Party for the good of society. They know what's good for society much more than a close-sighted individual citizen can. They have studied the issue, society, politics economics, history, etc. and thus know better than others on social issues. They explain, publicly, openly, and transparently exactly "why" they did what they did. They need to make people see the circumstances behind every decision made, possibly record entire sessions. You can challenge orthodoxy in certain cases, but it is extremely undesirable to challenge certain orthodoxy without proof, evidence, etc. especially if it is based on opinions. The Party always has a privileged monopoly, not on "truth", but on the means to get to the "truth". The Party already examined, detailed, debated, discussed, and went over the issue in question much more than you or any other possibly can and in a positive and constructive fashion for the sake of your "understanding" and progress.


Humans make up the Party, and humans aren't perfect and don't always know what's true.
But these humans can attempt to get as close to the "truth" as possible even with their limitations. As new information becomes available they will be able to modify their previous conclusion and arguments.


As we have seen thru history, most progress was and is being made because of an ever more progressive world, thru free speech, free thought, voting rights, etc.

Are you kidding me? And how do you think "free speech", "free thought", "voting rights", and an "ever more progressive world were obtained? Through that free speech, free thought, and voting rights? No. They were obtained through the forceful overthrow of governments and authorities, through concessions by authorities to rebelling masses. Did you seriously just link every achievement in history to understanding? Are you seriously kidding me? Free speech, free thought, voting rights, etc. imply that you somehow claim that society progresses and is progressing because of understanding rather than conflict! Everything we have here today has nothing to do with understanding, it has to do with wars, government, law, force, coercion, and economics. Nothing bases itself on understanding today. Not everyone agrees with the government, that's why huge opposition exists. Not everyone likes everyone else or wishes to understand them, that's why politics and such are left out of micro-economic transactions. We do not go to space because we "understand" others. Our societies are not based on the pursuit of understanding, that is quite ridiculous. They are based on numerous factors and not one of them includes understanding. Our societies are held together with all of their contradictions through the force and authority of law and government, not because we all wish to pursue understanding or progress through "free speech" or whatever. When law and government offend or became incapable of rule, they are overthrown with force and blood, not by trying to "understand" them with a "progressive" view of the world. Our societies were forged from the fires of war, not hippy orgies. History was not founded nor does it base itself on the mythical "pursuit of understanding" and "progress" but on revolutionary class wars and conflict as Marx himself explained that have advanced society. Wars, colonization, conquest, and today imperialism are what are pushing society, albeit modestly, but NOT understanding nor a desire for progress. It is only until very recently that we have had any shred of understanding, but even then wars and conflicts are STILL taking place and only 20 years ago the threat of MAD and nuclear apocalypse was a reality.

Progress is not being made because of a progressive world, but because of authority, government, and law. Force, authority, and government forced people to not kill each other. Time passed by until it became a norm that was adopted by others. Now it is a norm. The emergence of human rights was nothing more than a buildup from that primitive law of force as it became a norm for individuals and after revolutions that overthrew the old order and put in place the rights of man. Again, this has little to do with your pursuit of progress and more to do with material conditions, force, authority, and law due to what I had explained previously. Such notions rose out of reactionary regimes being toppled and reformed by the at-the-time progressive bourgeoisie. Human and civil rights, as I explained, arose out material conditions that led to them. The human and civil rights "as is" are not by any means anything to be proud of to be taken as always good, beneficial, and necessary as a package as they include freedom of speech, freedom of press, and thus the creation of antagonisms and contradictions which ultimately lead to conflict, regression, and the inhibition of progress and advancement. Not that anyone really follows such rights anyway. What is the point of human and civil rights which you idealize above when they are constantly being done away with and abused by other citizens and even governments? Absolutely nothing. First we achieve a society that can be called a "human race", united, and progressive and then at such a moment we can speak of civil rights and human rights, not before. You need to weigh the positives against the negatives.

Oh and by the way, authoritarian regimes have also put forward progressive laws, policies, rights, etc. and lowered violence to a large extent (i.e. violence between citizens, not government imposing its will as that I have no issue with here). It was the Tsar Alexander II who emancipated the serfs, it was the USSR who extremely lowered crime rates as compared to the more liberal United States, it was the post-USSR countries that led to the escalation of violence, not the other way around. We need to also remember that it was always governments, inherently authoritarian, that put forward the rights, policies, and laws, not anarchistic groupings.


Do you think it's weird that you only believe in the right to censor others is only for the hypothetical Government you just so happen to think you will agree with? Chances are, if a vanguard party that you won't agree with leads a future revolution, you will be demanding free speech. Heck, go to another country with censorship laws. You won't like it, and you only like it if it agrees with you. Your ideology is man-made. It was not made by an all-knowing God. It is not perfect. It is able to be criticized, and it can be wrong. It is not an eternal truth.

I most likely won't like it if I disagree with it, but I would join the party and discuss the issue within. Of course my proposition of such a system is purely theoretical as it has never been tested before, but it is by every means preferable to the alternatives presented by others that base themselves on the freedom of contradictions and conflict. I may not agree with the vanguard party, but the vanguard party may have very good reasons to explain its position. I also, mind you, only support such a system to be Communist and nothing else. I will support freedom of speech as long as a country censors Communist, proletarian, and Socialist speech, but as soon as we obtain that freedom of speech we use it to our advantage, assume power, and then use that power to silence oppositions' free speech. Freedom of speech is only useful and necessary if it is on our side.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That would be a way or a party could be formed to take over government and the management of the economy, production, and politics. That party would include the most revolutionary, educated, and dedicated members of the public that are actually capable of governing a society.

Without widespread revolutionary consciousness among the proletariat such a party would be at best marginal or at worst an oligarchic coup.


Electoral colleges are not even an issue, they rarely ever go against the majority's decision, but even then they have very good reasons why they decide to go against the majority's decision which they can explain. I hope you do actually realize that the two parties that are in power are so due to popular consent and voting rather than any "institutional" factors? People, the very people that you want to give the ability to decide everything, have chosen them for over multiple centuries to remain in power, fooled by those two parties if you may.

If they're being fooled then they're not really choosing them, are they? Also bourgeois democratic politicians get voted in on election promises they are under no obligation to keep, and which they often end up ignoring anyway.


Yes, and that is exactly why direct democracy can never work and why the average Joe is not certified enough to take such matters into his own hands.

How does that follow? You think people aren't aware or concerned about say, local issues?


Even the Soviets had assigned delegates rather than direct democracy, they had indirect democracy, they had separate executive branches filled with educated and revolutionary individuals in the Central Executive Committee, in the Politburo, and so on.

Which would have been fair enough, had the Soviets not been rendered politically irrelevant.


They had very good reasons to impose such a system and it certainly wasn't because they believed people were able to rule themselves without the need of a government.

Why should proletarians give a fuck what the Bolsheviks thought? They might have won the civil war, but they lost the revolution.


No, the answer escapes me, but I bet you know the answer. I wonder why revolutions are led the way they are and why revolutionary consciousness is dependent upon the proper material conditions.

I wonder why revolutions "led" by small cliques of authoritarian jackasses claiming to act in the name of the proletariat and/or other oppressed classes have crumbled and been incorporated into global capitalism. And why every one of them has done that so far.


And that is exactly why the Communists are the logical extension of the proletariat. The Communists need not be proletarians themselves, but as Lenin explained, can very well be petit-bourgeois and bourgeois intelligentsia. Since the Communists are not "necessarily different people" according to you, then the Communists are naturally the logical extension of the proletariat; they are the most educated, revolutionary, and dedicated elements of the proletariat according to you and must thus know the class interests, theories, and what is to be done better than the rest of the proletariat. The proletarian indeed stands to gain the most from a Communist revolution, but until they obtain a revolutionary consciousness they'll continue ignoring Communism and sticking with the bourgeoisie parties. The proletariat are the revolutionary class under Capitalism, but they are nothing without the Communists. The Communists are those who study the class interests of the proletariat, offer them an alternative framework, explain to them the complicated theories of Marx, organize parties for them, stand in the frontlines of a revolution, and lead the proletariat during a revolution.

Nope. You still talk as if Communists are something apart from the rest of the proletariat, imposed from above rather than being an organic development of class interests from below.


Do you honestly think that people today are fine with their governments because of ideological hegemony and physical/economic force? Damn that mystification is deep in this one.

Mystification? So the concept of the global dominance of capital in both ideological and material terms is "mystification"? What the fuck?


No. People today generally do not wish to tend towards a revolution because they rationally do not want to risk their way of life as it is today, especially in the First World countries where the proletariat's needs are fulfilled. The government today ensures them protection and a continued comfortable way of life without the risk of a revolution and its uncertainties. A revolution would only be sought after if the proletariat is impoverished, immiserated, the government unable to aid it, unemployment reigns supreme, and the state attempts to oppress the proletariat and other such "allied" classes.

I thought it was the dominance of capitalist relations myself, since when poverty and unemployment happens material conditions don't always lead to workers going against capitalism, whether in the so-called "First World" or elsewhere.


How is it remotely liberating you ask? It is liberating because it prevents their society from degenerating into barbarism and savagery that would be the inevitable ends of a degenerated Capitalism or an unorganized society without law and order.

So you claim, but that hasn't actually happened yet, has it?


The governments of today have systems of welfare, offer employment to many, couch exploitation with the superexploitation of Third World labor, ensure that food is put on the table of everyone, ensure proper and adequate security, etc. etc. There is a reason why you won't have any revolutions in places like the Scandinavian countries or the United States any time soon, but you will have revolutions in Third World and Second World countries where the proletariat and peasantry are impoverished with the government unable to ameliorate their suffering.

I don't know if you've been paying attention to world events recently, but in various so-called "First World" countries since 2008 the rolling-back of the welfare state has been accelerated under policies of "austerity". It seems like this "super-exploitation" has been insufficient to prevent an accelerated decay in the rate of profit.

As for the so-called "Second World" and "Third World" countries, they don't seem any closer to having communist revolutions than the rest of the world. Also, I think your terminology is outdated, rooted as it is in the Cold War, which is over now.


The Junta, being Communist, would be as you explained "not necessarily different people". If you believe that Communists are the proper representatives of the class interests of the proletariat then with Communists in power you have your own answer. If you do not believe that such is the claim then we'll have to discuss this at length.

That depends, would you include pro-worker class-struggle anarchists under "Communists"?

[Theophys]

Without widespread revolutionary consciousness among the proletariat such a party would be at best marginal or at worst an oligarchic coup.
And yet the USSR. Bolsheviks won over the country starting by a coup by a hanful of revolutionary proletariat and others during the October Revolution. It certainly was not the entire nor majority of the population or proletariat that allowed for this to happen. In fact, they were satisfied with the Constituent Assembly and Kerensky until the Bolsheviks came in and agitated for a revolution calling "All Power to the Soviets". The party would be marginal, always, otherwise it would win in bourgeois parliamentary elections. In fact it was the Bolsheviks who did not win in Russia's various elections. The German and Italian Communists even with extremely favorable conditions and support could not win their elections or even their revolutions. The Spartacist uprising was a complete failure. It is not a question of having "widespread revolutionary consciousness" but a question of how effectively you utilize what "revolutionary consciousness" you have at your disposal. The Bolsheviks certainly did not have widespread revolution consciousness until they came into the fore and organized a Socialist and Communist revolution and society.


If they're being fooled then they're not really choosing them, are they? Also bourgeois democratic politicians get voted in on election promises they are under no obligation to keep, and which they often end up ignoring anyway.
Actually no, they are being fooled into choosing them. They are still choosing them. As if Socialist or Communist politicians fulfill any promises and are obliged to keep them, especially the vague, hidden, and unknown delegates of direct democracy.


How does that follow? You think people aren't aware or concerned about say, local issues?
They may very well concerned about local issues and may be aware with them but they are not by any means certified nor qualified to address or solve them. You need educated votes and the best conclusion that arises from such educated votes. Again, the most popular decision isn't always the best decision, this is more of an issue for an uneducated and nonspecializing mass of people as opposed to a government of educated and specialized officials. Simply take a look or talk to any average person you find outside, ask him about Communism, Socialism, political, local issues, etc. and see his reply. You will be amazed as your bubble bursts. Go try it, I'll wait.


Which would have been fair enough, had the Soviets not been rendered politically irrelevant.
What a contradiction right there. The Soviets were not a direct democracy, it is as far as you can get from direct democracy. Electing officials directly would have been much more "fair" and "direct" than this system of delegation you support.


Why should proletarians give a fuck what the Bolsheviks thought? They might have won the civil war, but they lost the revolution.

Because the Bolsheviks were Communists and Socialists including the most revolutionary, educated, and dedicated elements of the population and specifically the proletariat. Proletarians should and did give a "fuck" what the Bolsheviks thought because the Bolsheviks were Communists and thus know what's best for the proletariat. Thhey also "give" a fuck because as we have historically seen they have followed them through with every decision and were under their banner since the start of the revolution and even during the harshest of times in the Civil War. The proletariat by itself cannot know what is best for it because it is not by any means organized, if it attempted to to do so it would have to be through the Soviet delegates which in turn would be completely flawed and ineffective in expressing their class interests. The Bolsheviks, being Communists, have studied revolution theory, are aware completely of the conditions, happening, and circumstances of the country as they are part of the government as opposed to the proletariat and others who are almost blind to the happenings of the country as a whole. The Bolsheviks knew what had to be done and they did it. They won the won the civil war and through that victory they won and secured the revolution, contrary to what you believe.


I wonder why revolutions "led" by small cliques of authoritarian jackasses claiming to act in the name of the proletariat and/or other oppressed classes have crumbled and been incorporated into global capitalism. And why every one of them has done that so far.

These revolutions lasted for decades, that's much more than can be said about your pathetic non-existent "revolutions". These revolutions were led by these small cliques of authoritarian jackasses representing the class interests of the class that they support and act on behalf crumbled because they actually took place, secured victory, and lasted for decades before crumbling. This at least shows that they took place, lasted, and succeeded before crumbling. The crumbled not because they were "small cliques of authoritarian jackasses" but because of numerous other reasons such as problems of central planning being impossible without the technology we have today, the failure of world revolutions and the failure of revolutions in First World countries, having to go through and be targeted by a Second World War, having to spend a huge chunk of their production, income, and GDP on the military to defend themselves and aid other revolutions, etc. Your "revolutions" can be best exemplified in the case of the Arab Spring and the various riots and unrest found today. They all lead to reformist revolutions instead of revolutionary Communist or Socialist revolutionary because they simply have no vanguard party to guide them, to tell them what to do, to convince them towards Communism, or even to organize them under the banner of Communism.


Nope. You still talk as if Communists are something apart from the rest of the proletariat, imposed from above rather than being an organic development of class interests from below.
They are apart from the proletariat as long as they are not proletarians themselves. The Communists come from different class, not just the proletariat. The Communists can very well be imposed from above that represents the "organic development of class interests from below". It is exactly because they represent the latter but are not the latter that they turn into a "small clique". If your statement where in any way true then the entire proletariat would be made up of Communists but instead it is the petit-bourgeoisie who turn into Communists because they have the time, ability, education, reading, and observation to become Communists, well-read ones at that, and join a vanguard party. They, however, are not by any means "apart" from the class interests of the proletariat as they are the only ones that can properly represent them.


Mystification? So the concept of the global dominance of capital in both ideological and material terms is "mystification"? What the fuck?

Yes. That is the most ridiculous mystification I have ever heard. You essentially are claiming that people are brainwashed and that you, the Great Reader, are the one who is to liberate them. You remind me of those religion whacks who speak of faith claiming that people are yet "unenlightened" until they turn to their religion. Oh and this is quite similar to your criticisms of the "small clique" which you here seem to belong to, but the difference is that "small clique" is not trying to "enlighten" everyone to make them start a revolution but simply guiding people through a revolution when it happens for them. The global dominance of capital does not exist in "ideological terms" as you can see here with people on RevLeft being Communists and Socialists. That and the fact that people "accept" Capitalism, but do not "support" it. A vital difference which you do not seem to understand at all. Capital dominates through material terms through Capitalism, that is evident, and that is why a lot of people oppose Capitalism, not support it.


I thought it was the dominance of capitalist relations myself, since when poverty and unemployment happens material conditions don't always lead to workers going against capitalism, whether in the so-called "First World" or elsewhere.
They don't always lead to revolution due to numerous factors, some of which include reforms by the state, welfare, the replacement of the government by other bourgeois reformist politicians BY THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND PROLETARIAT, as we have seen in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc. etc. People need a vanguard party to guide them to a COMMUNIST and SOCIALIST alternative, otherwise they will just replace their current government with something similar. It is only when a radical vanguard party exists that people follow through to Communism and Socialism. If the Bolsheviks did not act, the Russians had already accepted Kerensky's government with large support, it was only until the Bolsheviks acted and assumed power by force that they led to the country towards Communism and Socialism.


So you claim, but that hasn't actually happened yet, has it?

A degenerated Capitalism? No, only reaching that in the Third World. The First World countries are satisfied and they have something we call "First World problems". Degenerated Capitalism would lead to revolution and popular unrest with threat of revolution. It is when Capitalism is unable to meet the basic human needs, when it leads to vast unemployment, vast impoverishment, and superexploitation that it becomes degenerated. The reason why the 19th and early 20th century had large labor movements and revolution was not because the proletariat and Co. were happy, comfortable, and satisfied, but because they were superexploited, impoverished, homeless, and unemployed with the state unable to aid them.


I don't know if you've been paying attention to world events recently, but in various so-called "First World" countries since 2008 the rolling-back of the welfare state has been accelerated under policies of "austerity". It seems like this "super-exploitation" has been insufficient to prevent an accelerated decay in the rate of profit.

Actually, have YOU been paying attention to world events recently? Take a look at the riots, labor and mass organizations, cabinet ousting, etc. that is taking place in those countries. The austerity measures have angered millions. It is exactly because they do not have a uniting vanguard party calling for revolution that they are resorting to parliamentary reforms rather than revolution. This empirical evidence of this debate to support my claims. Thanks.


As for the so-called "Second World" and "Third World" countries, they don't seem any closer to having communist revolutions than the rest of the world. Also, I think your terminology is outdated, rooted as it is in the Cold War, which is over now.

I use such terminology not to refer allegiances to either side of the Cold War, but as terms of development for countries. Historically they happened and succeeded in Third World countries rather than First World countries ranging from, arguably, Russia and China to Vietnam, Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, and other such countries. They did not happen or did not succeed in First World countries and were limited to Germany and, briefly, Hungary. And today? Indian Naxalite Communists taking part in a "people's war" revolution, Nepalese Communists taking pat in a "people's war" revolution, and so on.


That depends, would you include pro-worker class-struggle anarchists under "Communists"?
Yes.

[Michelangelo]

No. You're wrong because youthink that communists don't think that. Of course there needs to be a free exchange of ideas and relentless criticism, as well as differences in strategy and tactics. (That isn't to say that there aren't a whole bunch of communists who talk that talk but don't walk the walk, ofc).

When did I claim that I think communists don't want a free exchange of ideas? You are the one who said I was wrong.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I'm not trying to argue against communism. If that is genuinely what you all want, who am I to stop you? I only hope that you extend the same courtesy to myself and those who wish to live in a capitalist society.



Nah, you're wrong (naive) to think that this could happen.

I'm waiting to be told why I'm wrong.

For all our differences we are all humans. I don't want violence among us if it can be avoided. If anything is 'naive' it is the belief that violence is the answer. Violence is rarely the answer. If you need to resort to violence to get what you want then you are a barbarian for being unable to persuade others to see things your way.



Nope. Maybe a little silly to think that private property can be established without initiating force against others in the first place, but...

I understand that you think capitalism is immoral. It goes without saying that I find communism to be immoral. We both think the other isn't being moral. I'm also unlikely to be converted to communism and I suspect you're unlikely to convert over to libertarianism.

However I am willing to concede there is a chance I'm wrong. Maybe capitalism is immoral and communism is moral. This is another reason why I'm horrified about the idea of world government - it puts all our eggs in one basket. Either all of humanity exists immorally or all of it exists morally.

In a world of co-existence the likelihood that at least some sect of humanity is living morally increases. If communism is moral then at least 50% of humanity is living morally. If capitalism is moral then at least 50% of humanity is living morally.

Do you get what I'm getting at here? No matter how devoted we may be to our respective ideologies, there is a chance we're wrong. Diversity of political organization allows us to avoid a scenario where humanity is lead down a dark path.



And also you're wrong because it seems like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of our aims and goals (because who even reads this left-wing nerd shit anyway). Communists/anarchists don't want a "world government". We want a stateless, classless society that spans the globe.


And I claimed that communism wants world government where? The OP brings up how I've found libertarians who want world government and how I'm horrified of the idea. Don't presume I'm an ignorant right-winger who has never read literature from the left. Bakunin was the first political theorist I remember ever reading. I still adore him and recommend him to others.



1) what do you think of cyberpunk
2) you should check out Iain M Banks' "Culture" novels.

Not my cup of tea.

[#FF0000]

When did I claim that I think communists don't want a free exchange of ideas? You are the one who said I was wrong.

"I eagerly await to be told why I'm wrong to believe its best to allow free exchange of ideas and allowing multiple parties attempt to achieve revolution." - You, earlier.

No one suggested you're wrong to want to allow free exchange of ideas.


I'm waiting to be told why I'm wrong.

For all our differences we are all humans. I don't want violence among us if it can be avoided. If anything is 'naive' it is the belief that violence is the answer. Violence is rarely the answer. I told you why, and it isn't (entirely) because people think other people should do things their way. It's because capitalism requires constant growth, access to new markets, expansion, etc. or else face crisis. What we think about violence and difference of opinion has no bearing on it -- capitalism has needs and demands and those demands will be met no matter what the human cost.