To anarchists

[Subversive Pessimist]

I've heard from many commies, that you believe you can skip right ahead to anarchism. Do you believe such a thing? If so, why is that?

[Vinny Rafarino]

It's a simple matter of party line. Anarchists believe that a period of socialism prior to communism is not required. If they believed otherwise,then they would be called communists and not anarchists.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Some anarchists believe that term "communist" applies to anyone who is a member of the "true" left. According to them, they are the only "true communists". :rolleyes:

[elijahcraig]

Well some right-wing Christians think they're the only "real and true" Christians. Don't make it a factual belief at all. In fact it's just plain ridiculous.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 21 2004, 08:46 PM
It's a simple matter of party line. Anarchists believe that a period of socialism prior to communism is not required. If they believed otherwise,then they would be called communists and not anarchists.
Don't worry, not all of us are sectarians like good old RAF.

Marx talked about a transitional period from capitalism to communism which he called socialism, or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Anarchists reject this transitional period because we believe not only is it unnecessary, it can never lead to communism.

It has been tried throughout history and has failed every time. The reason for that is the dictatorship of the proletariat, classically, requires the state to perpetrate its control. Anarchism sees the state as inherently bad, meaning that no matter who is incontrol of it, the state will always corrupt, leading to dictatorship of the party, rather than the proletariat.

Anarchists believe that in order to achieve a communist society, the state has to be smashed, and replaced with a federalist style of organisation.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 09:15 PM
Some anarchists believe that term "communist" applies to anyone who is a member of the "true" left. According to them, they are the only "true communists". :rolleyes:
Those anarchists are wrong. Many Marxist-Leninists want to achieve a communist society, they just won't be able too.

[elijahcraig]

In other words, you agree with RAF's reply, Crippled X.



And the utopian daydreaming continues.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 02:40 PM
In other words, you agree with RAF's reply, Crippled X.



And the utopian daydreaming continues.
Why the hell do you have to get offensive?

You're not adding anything to the debate, troll. Goddammit, I don't know why we ever convinced Malte to unrestrict your fucking ass.


There are two cases where we restrict or ban Stalinists. The first is if they are utterly disrespectful and we feel they contribute little to the site. We don't need to hear "trot, hippy, pot-head, feminist extremist" in every debate. Any so-called Stalinist who resorts to this is sent to the Opposing Ideologies forum, where they belong.
So you stopped using "trot, hippy, pot-head, feminist extremist", and moved on to "cripple-x". Big improvement.


I've heard from many commies, that you believe you can skip right ahead to anarchism. Do you believe such a thing? If so, why is that?
As for Anarchism, we don't believe in the "overnight" bullshit some people attribute to us, but we do believe that a "middle step" is not only unnecessary, but inherently counter-revolutionary as well.

Not only would it perpetuate the old powers that made Capitalism possible and a necessity, it also robs the workers of their revolutionary spirit.

It's a return to the same old bullshit, with a few red flags and some red ticker tape. After having fought hard to overthrow the old shit, a "middle step" of even more shit before the new world is the last thing they wanna see.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Don't worry, not all of us are sectarians like good old RAF.



Is that so?



Marx talked about a transitional period from capitalism to communism which he called socialism, or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Anarchists reject this transitional period because we believe not only is it unnecessary, it can never lead to communism.



Anarchism sees the state as inherently bad, meaning that no matter who is incontrol of it, the state will always corrupt, leading to dictatorship of the party, rather than the proletariat.



Anarchists believe that in order to achieve a communist society, the state has to be smashed, and replaced with a federalist style of organisation.


It appears to me that you completely reject any other ideology other than your own. How very NONsectarian of you.

[The Feral Underclass]

Interesting. One minute i'm not thinking for myself enough, and now i'm thinking for myself too much.

And no. I reject Leninism. I managed to see threw the myth.

This might be of use to you RAF...

Aspects of Anarchism (http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/aspects.html)

Basic Bakunin (http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/bakunbas.html)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Why the hell do you have to get offensive?

All that profanity is pretty agressive too, comrade.


As for Anarchism, we don't believe in the "overnight" bullshit some people attribute to us, but we do believe that a "middle step" is not only unnecessary, but inherently counter-revolutionary as well.

Whoa!
First of all, you're an anarchist? Since when? You must get this crap a lot, but you should consider chnaging your username, eh?

And if it doesn't occur overnight what is inbetween?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 10:34 PM
you should consider chnaging your username, eh?
Why don't you get out of this plaground mentality of defending che guevara from us meany weany anarchists. It's pathetic.


And if it doesn't occur overnight what is inbetween?

Federated workers control.

[Guest1]

Whoa!
First of all, you're an anarchist? Since when?
I've been an Anarchist for a long time, though I only admitted it to myself about November.


You must get this crap a lot, but you should consider chnaging your username, eh?
The answer is no.


And if it doesn't occur overnight what is inbetween?
The revolution is inbetween, comrade. It's the continuing process of collectivizing workplaces, taking revolutionary actions, and building that society right there on the ground as you fight.

There is no reason why we shouldn't begin collectivizing as we fight, rather than wait for the mountains to turn purple and the sky to split before starting.

[atlanticche]

my beliefs of anarcho-socialism is that communism is anarchy and nirvana, everyone is happy there is only one class, the anarchists who believe in anarchy so as to do whatever the hell they like are not anarchists they have no true ideas and will soon stop any accosiaton with anarchism when they find out they do not know what they are talking about, there must be a period of socialism in which the peoples freedom will increase and any form of power will decrease

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The revolution is inbetween, comrade. It's the continuing process of collectivizing workplaces, taking revolutionary actions, and building that society right there on the ground as you fight.

There is no reason why we shouldn't begin collectivizing as we fight, rather than wait for the mountains to turn purple and the sky to split before starting.

So you're suggesting martial rule untill the foundation for anarchism is prepared?

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:38 PM
So you're suggesting martial rule untill the foundation for anarchism is prepared?
Suggesting what? What are you talking about?

There is no "in-between". There is the revolution, the period of uprisings across the world and militant proletarian organizing, then there is the future. The revolution may take a long time, but as it progresses, the workers see what they are fighting for. They see it because they are building it right then and there with every victory, instead of waiting for the second coming of Christ to change anything.

The collectives will rise up one after the other. Factories will be put under worker's control one after the other, and as they fight, they live their dream and realize it is no longer just that, it has become reality.

[elijahcraig]

Why the hell do you have to get offensive?

You're not adding anything to the debate, troll. Goddammit, I don't know why we ever convinced Malte to unrestrict your fucking ass.

What the hell was offensive? My opinion of the anarchists is that they continually idealize situations to their own wants and desires, ignoring the facts of the real world. As the rest of this thread has shown.

As to “Crippled X”: I don’t think TAT even cares, but if he does…whatever. It’s our thing, I’m the jackass Leninist, he’s the Utopian Cripple laying on his sickbed waiting for me to pull the plug any minute.


So you stopped using "trot, hippy, pot-head, feminist extremist", and moved on to "cripple-x". Big improvement.

Stop whining.


And no. I reject Leninism. I managed to see threw the myth.

You mean you read Bakunin and Chomsky before you came to Lenin’s side of the story.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Federated workers control.

What does that mean? It sounds like the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Suggesting what? What are you talking about?

There is no "in-between". There is the revolution, the period of uprisings across the world and militant proletarian organizing, then there is the future. The revolution may take a long time, but as it progresses.....

How long will the revolution take? If the entire process of rebuilding is "the revolution" who is in power during this period? The guerrillas, I presume?


the workers see what they are fighting for. They see it because they are building it right then and there with every victory, instead of waiting for the second coming of Christ to change anything.

The collectives will rise up one after the other. Factories will be put under worker's control one after the other, and as they fight, they live their dream and realize it is no longer just that, it has become reality.

You&#39;ve moved me to tears, comrade. <_<

This debate&#39;s gonna take forever to reach a decent point if the bulk of yours posts consist of this histrionic crap. So I&#39;m moving on.

If I&#39;m not mistaken, Anarchism consists of various collectives. These collectives are made up of the local workers, yes? They make decisions and operate under the administration of no one, correct?

If this freedom and peace isn&#39;t achieved "overnight", who is in command until it is achieved?

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 06:47 PM
If this freedom and peace isn&#39;t achieved "overnight", who is in command until it is achieved?
The enemy in some pleaces, the worker&#39;s collectives in others.

It doesn&#39;t happen overnight, but it&#39;s not an "pray and wait" plan either.

Bah, must go eat, will expand later.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 12:13 AM
You mean you read Bakunin and Chomsky before you came to Lenin’s side of the story.
Fuck Chomsky&#33;

I was a Marxist-Leninist, I was a member of the biggest M-L party in the UK for 6 years and even organised for them at one point...Like I said, I saw threw the myth&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 12:52 AM

Federated workers control.

What does that mean? It sounds like the dictatorship of the proletariat.
No. This (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/dictp.html) is the dictatorship of the proletariate

Or you could read this --------- ) Dictatorship of the Proletariat - Karl Kautsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1918/dictprole/index.htm)

If you want to learn you have to read.


FEDERALISM

ONE PART OF THE ANARCHIST MOVEMENT is collectivist in the sense that they believe that a future anarchist society will be based on a series of communities of one sort or another. Anarchist communists in particular envisage individual freedom and security, for instance, as deriving from social life, where we live and work in solidarity with one another. Our goal, therefore, is not a world of individuals concerned only with their own well-being regardless of others, but one in which personal freedom develops and is expressed to the benefit of all. Freedom comes from, and does not stand in opposition to, community.

Collectivist anarchists are, unfortunately, lumped alongside all other anarchists who themselves are portrayed by the media as isolated individuals bent on terror. The reality is that, throughout history and mostly even today, anarchists work in groups and some, like the Anarchist Federation, seek to build large-scale national and international organizations. We seek to build a mass anarchist movement. The problem that presents itself, once we reject individualism, is how to organise the movement and, hopefully, a future society in ways that maximize the benefit of solidarity while preserving and extending individual and collective freedom. How do we, in our revolutionary struggle and the eventual transformation of society, avoid the pitfalls of bureaucracy, elites and power?

To quote one Italian anarchist, Errico Malatesta, “An anarchist organization must…. allow for complete autonomy and independence and therefore full responsibility to individuals and groups; free agreement between those who think it is useful to come together for co-operative action, for common aims; a moral duty to fulfil one’s pledges and to take no action which is contrary to the accepted programme”. (Il Risveglio, October 15 1927). In other words, for an anarchist organization to operate effectively on a principled basis, its members must combine freedom with responsibility, full participation in the decision-making processes with a commitment to carry out collective decisions No anarchist organization can be effective if its members act against collective aims and methods. Equally however, no organization can be anarchist without total freedom to take part in the formulation of goals, aims and methods plus, ultimately, the right to withdraw from this process.

The Federalist Approach

The usual method adopted by anarchists to combine freedom with organization has been federalism. This idea is the reverse of the standard form of organization in which decisions are made at the top by an elite and carried out by the rank and file. Under a federal system, autonomous members of the organization, organised in groups or branches at the base make the decisions which are carried out by the organization. Political power flows from the base to the summit or rather, from the circumference to the centre, since anarchist organization is horizontal (based on equality), not vertical (based on inequality and hierarchy. Anarchist organizations should be expressions of the collective voice, not directing centers which control people.

The basic ‘unit’ is the member who voluntarily joins the organization. Usually a member will be part of a local or industrial group which freely agrees to join a larger unit at, for instance, the district level. The district is in turn affiliated to a regional body which is part of a national and ultimately international federation. The most local or central group will take those decisions which affect it most closely and which it is best placed to decide about. Small collectives might decide how to live and work together – this will have small impact outside. A district commune might decide on the location of a new medical centre but the damming of a river, which has much wider consequences, would have to be agreed upon by a group of communes, with all interests represented. Each part of society, which is, of course, the individuals comprising that society, can influence the orientation of the whole, its goals and methods. Should a group disagree with decisions reached, it has the right to withdraw from the process and its affiliation with the whole. However, if it has participated in the decision-making process, to quote Malatesta again, it has a duty “to take no action which is contrary to the accepted program” so long as it remains within the boundaries of the whole: whether organization, commune or federation.

For a federal system to operate in an anarchist fashion, there must be the greatest possible degree of involvement by members, free communication and checks on the development of either ‘leaders’ or ‘functionaries’, for instance through rotation of all representational positions, the regular and extraordinary recall of delegates or ‘officials’, and a ban on permanent postings. Strictly speaking, in both anarchist organizations and societies, there will be no ‘official’ or ‘formal’ positions and no ‘officials’ to occupy them. Each part of organization and society represents itself directly through mass media accessible to all with an interest, and through temporary delegates, sometimes elected, sometimes chosen by lot. In the end, however, the health of any organization will be dependent on and ultimately reflect the enthusiasm and commitment of those who comprise it.

Not only anarchist organizations but anarchist societies would operate on a federal basis. Society would be a ‘honey-comb’ or ‘lattice’ or inter-connected groups, collectives and communes, sometimes making decisions for themselves (but sharing information about the decisions with others), sometimes joining with other groups to make joint decisions and carry out joint activities. Each group would have the right to self-determination in respect of it’s own affairs and also the right to secede from the whole in extreme circumstances. The basic social grouping would probably be the neighbourhood commune (for decisions affecting all who live in a particular area) and the affinity group (for those who work together or otherwise co-operate). These would voluntarily federate to a wider body, perhaps regional or provincial (in the former case) or as a federation or association (in the latter). Delegates from the groups and communes would deal with issues that required the co-operation of more people or other communes. There would be a natural limit to the complexity of this form of organization since, at a certain level or beyond a certain point, co-operation ceases to be more effective than at local levels.

In Practice

Federalism is a straightforward form of organization which combines the maximum individual and local freedom and autonomy with collective decisions. It permits planning on a wide scale through negotiation, co-operation and mutual agreement, whether planning is being done by a group of anarchists or a complete anarchist society. Federalism, with its vital right to secession, safeguards all minorities from potential majorities, even anarchist ones&#33; However though an ideal picture, federalism alone cannot create or preserve a free society. It must be combined with the elimination of centralized power, hierarchy, authority and inequality. Where these are preserved, freedom is a sham and any federation entirely bogus, a fact that would be revealed as soon as one group challenged or opposed another. In theory, the old Soviet Union was a federation of republics which enjoyed the right of secession. In reality it was probably the most centralized of twentieth century nations. The federal structure of Yugoslavia was similarly bogus. When the central authority failed, as it did in the 1990s, local nationalisms and ethnic rivalries re-emerged and the pseudo-federations disintegrated, with disastrous consequences. Any such federation based on group, social or national inequalities, and which involves none of the essential features of the anarchist vision, can form the basis of anarchist organization nor complete the task of revolution. It is the task of revolutionary anarchists and the working class to create it.

Read (http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/aspects.html)

[elijahcraig]

Fuck Chomsky&#33;

I was a Marxist-Leninist, I was a member of the biggest M-L party in the UK for 6 years and even organised for them at one point...Like I said, I saw threw the myth&#33;

Right. Forgive me if I don’t believe that.


PS: You shouldn&#39;t curse out the elderly, it&#39;s impolite.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 05:05 PM

Fuck Chomsky&#33;

I was a Marxist-Leninist, I was a member of the biggest M-L party in the UK for 6 years and even organised for them at one point...Like I said, I saw threw the myth&#33;

Right. Forgive me if I don’t believe that.
Very convinient&#33;

The Socialist Workers Party, I organised in Hull England. By all means check it out.

[elijahcraig]

The mere existence of the party, which I am of course aware of, proves nothing you have said.

Although I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.



Maybe one day you&#39;ll see through the myth of anarchism as well.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 09:24 PM
Although I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Why thank you&#33;


Maybe one day you&#39;ll see through the myth of anarchism as well.

Myth?

Once ya pop, ya just can&#39;t stop.

[elijahcraig]

The flavor goes on for miles&#33;

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 21 2004, 09:57 PM

There is no "in-between". There is the revolution, the period of uprisings across the world and militant proletarian organizing, then there is the future. The revolution may take a long time, but as it progresses, the workers see what they are fighting for. They see it because they are building it right then and there with every victory, instead of waiting for the second coming of Christ to change anything.

The collectives will rise up one after the other. Factories will be put under worker&#39;s control one after the other, and as they fight, they live their dream and realize it is no longer just that, it has become reality.

Im not sure this is plausible, and im going to have a hard time debating or explaining why, but im going to have to do my very best to articulate.

Where first of all do you intend for this to happen at?
The workers pf the world share the same opression but not the same situation, and they are all as of now isolated in struggle.

You may contend that most governments after Leninist led revolutions failed, but for a reason they at least suceeded in bringing about results in the first place. The Leninist idea of the vanguard movement has almost always delivered. Its strong, and opressed people do not want to just place their faith in any old thing. And that is the issue I am trying my best to tell you. The world&#39;s workers are condemned into not being able to have faith in shit on this earth except their own deaths. Your movement requires alot of faith.

I dont think there is a problem fundamentally with the dictatorship of the proliteriat. Its just certain unattended detials about it later on.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 02:41 PM
Where first of all do you intend for this to happen at?
The workers pf the world share the same opression but not the same situation, and they are all as of now isolated in struggle.
It&#39;s our job to deal with that isolation. It&#39;s not our job to "intend" for this to happen anywhere specific, but rather everywhere.

We won&#39;t know where it&#39;ll start until it starts, and while it may be true that it&#39;s different in different countries, it&#39;s not as different as people would have you believe. Freedom is freedom, no matter where you are. If there&#39;s working class consciousness, then that&#39;s all you need to start working for a better society. If there isn&#39;t, well it&#39;s gonna end in Capitalism anyways, so why bother handing over the reigns to "the party"?


You may contend that most governments after Leninist led revolutions failed, but for a reason they at least suceeded in bringing about results in the first place.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss&#33;"

Yes, they really did bring about results, a whole cart-load of red-flags&#39; worth of results. Other than that, calling it the "people&#39;s whip" won&#39;t matter to the worker being whipped.


The Leninist idea of the vanguard movement has almost always delivered.
Almost always delivered? Since when? This is new to me <_< If I recall correctly, they have never delivered.


Its strong, and opressed people do not want to just place their faith in any old thing. And that is the issue I am trying my best to tell you. The world&#39;s workers are condemned into not being able to have faith in shit on this earth except their own deaths.
Yes, it is strong, which is why we don&#39;t need it. Stronger class society is a bad thing.

As for faith, that&#39;s why the workers need to see what they are fighting for happening right there on the ground. That doesn&#39;t require faith, it just requires observation. It&#39;s State Socialism and the second-coming of Christ it asks the workers to wait for that requires faith.

Frankly, they don&#39;t have it anymore, and they&#39;re sick of the bullshit. They wanna fight for something and see results, not fight to give someone else a fat pay check and a secret police.

That&#39;s where Anarcho-Communism and Libertarian-Communism come in. State Socialism has had its day.


Your movement requires alot of faith.

I dont think there is a problem fundamentally with the dictatorship of the proliteriat. Its just certain unattended detials about it later on.
Reversing "dictatorship of the proletariat" to say "dictatorship over the proletariat" and failing to abolish class society are more than "unattended details". I&#39;m sure you meant "unintended", but I don&#39;t think a fuck-up is any less of a fuck-up if its unintended.

[elijahcraig]

It&#39;s our job to deal with that isolation. It&#39;s not our job to "intend" for this to happen anywhere specific, but rather everywhere.

Everywhere? Yeah, that’ll happen.


"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss&#33;"

I saw Roger Daltrey doing infomercials, I wouldn’t quote a whore for pop music.


Yes, they really did bring about results, a whole cart-load of red-flags&#39; worth of results. Other than that, calling it the "people&#39;s whip" won&#39;t matter to the worker being whipped.

Stop the incessant rhetoric, it really gets tiring.


Almost always delivered? Since when? This is new to me If I recall correctly, they have never delivered.

Yeah, I know. In Russia under socialism, those workers being brought from third world povertystricken illiterates to first world socialists was horrible and certainly not a deliverance of an increase in societal position. Damn those dirty workers.


As for faith, that&#39;s why the workers need to see what they are fighting for happening right there on the ground. That doesn&#39;t require faith, it just requires observation. It&#39;s State Socialism and the second-coming of Christ it asks the workers to wait for that requires faith.

You are completely blind to the fact that Anarchism and Christianity aren’t all that different—they both require faith in the possibility of a utopia.


Frankly, they don&#39;t have it anymore, and they&#39;re sick of the bullshit.

About 90% of the world still believe in Creationism, they LOVE faith.


State Socialism has had its day.


How profound. RAF, isn’t this guy so profound?

Moron.
Like a worker wants to hear some pothead preaching their rhetoric.

[Guest1]

Everywhere? Yeah, that’ll happen.
Are you not a Marxist? Because if you don&#39;t believe that Communism will reach global proportions, I don&#39;t know why we&#39;re having this debate.


Yeah, I know. In Russia under socialism, those workers being brought from third world povertystricken illiterates to first world socialists was horrible and certainly not a deliverance of an increase in societal position. Damn those dirty workers.
Communism isn&#39;t about delivering "an increase in societal position", what are you, a reformist?

Communism is about eliminating the class system established by Capital, the state and Religion.

On that point, they have not "delivered". By your standards, alot of Capitalist nations would be receiving praise right now :huh:


About 90% of the world still believe in Creationism, they LOVE faith.
Sure, but they don&#39;t have any faith in State Socialism, they put faith in that long ago and moved on.


Moron.
Like a worker wants to hear some pothead preaching their rhetoric.
I see you still haven&#39;t read the Che-Lives guidelines, though I already showed you them once this month <_<:

"There are two cases where we restrict or ban Stalinists. The first is if they are utterly disrespectful and we feel they contribute little to the site. We don&#39;t need to hear "trot, hippy, pot-head, feminist extremist" in every debate. Any so-called Stalinist who resorts to this is sent to the Opposing Ideologies forum, where they belong."

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 09:41 PM
Where first of all do you intend for this to happen at? The workers pf the world share the same opression but not the same situation, and they are all as of now isolated in struggle.
I predict that the revolution will happen in a Western European country. It will happen when the economic situation reaches a certain point so that the movements which already exist are able to exploit those situations, have built to a relativly large force and is able to challange capitalism and the state effectivly.

Western Europe, although in places small and generally opposed to each other, has a large revolutionary left tradition and if organised and united could pose a real threat to capitalism.


but for a reason they at least suceeded in bringing about results in the first place.

What results?


The Leninist idea of the vanguard movement has almost always delivered.

...dictatorships, new ruling classes, revision and capitalism


Its strong, and opressed people do not want to just place their faith in any old thing.

The people don&#39;t want to do anything at the moment. That will change though. When it does, we need a solution which will work, not one that has failed every single time.


I dont think there is a problem fundamentally with the dictatorship of the proliteriat.

Then you are wrong. The dictatorship of the proletariat advocates the perpetration of a state and its insitutions, centralised into the hands of a vangaurd, which is a ruling class in all but name. This has inevtibaly resulted in the state and this ruling class becoming stronger and stronger, and ultimatly does not lead to communism.

The analogy I often use to try and explain the effects of perpetrating the state and the result is it is like trying to clean your clothes with dirt. You are trying to achieve the opposite of what the thing your using will create.


Its just certain unattended detials about it later on.

No, they are fundamental flaws in the entire theory, and had Marx lived through the 20th century I doubt very much whether he would have maintained it.

[elijahcraig]

Are you not a Marxist? Because if you don&#39;t believe that Communism will reach global proportions, I don&#39;t know why we&#39;re having this debate.

It WILL reach global proportions (at least socialism will), and will not happen in the “universal revolt” you seem to advocate.


Communism isn&#39;t about delivering "an increase in societal position", what are you, a reformist?

Communism is about eliminating the class system established by Capital, the state and Religion.

On that point, they have not "delivered". By your standards, alot of Capitalist nations would be receiving praise right now

1. Yes it is, Socialism puts the workers in power.
2. Thanks for that, piggish little prick.
3. No, they would be reacting to unions and popular uprisings which have caused the rise in a labor aristocracy.


Sure, but they don&#39;t have any faith in State Socialism, they put faith in that long ago and moved on.

Most people don’t know anything about it; they know no difference between my brand and your brand; they are in ignorance of what their government have told them.


I see you still haven&#39;t read the Che-Lives guidelines, though I already showed you them once this month :

"There are two cases where we restrict or ban Stalinists. The first is if they are utterly disrespectful and we feel they contribute little to the site. We don&#39;t need to hear "trot, hippy, pot-head, feminist extremist" in every debate. Any so-called Stalinist who resorts to this is sent to the Opposing Ideologies forum, where they belong."

Ban me then, I’m sick of your rhetoric and whining.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 10:47 AM
Ban me then, I’m sick of your rhetoric and whining.
No one&#39;s gonna ban you man.

Dude, I was one of the people who fought to get you unrestricted, all I&#39;m asking is you stop being so damn abusive in debate. Reading your posts, one would think we weren&#39;t fighting the same enemy and our disagreements were about more than style. Which in reality, they aren&#39;t.

We both want to end class distinctions, the state and religion. It&#39;s just about how to that we disagree.

It&#39;s not like you&#39;re a corrupt party leader, so I don&#39;t doubt your commitment to the same cause we&#39;re all fighting for. Neither should you doubt mine.

So I don&#39;t see why you need to call me a pot-head.

I enjoy debating with you, I think you&#39;re very smart. I just wanna have a respectful debate with you, that&#39;s all.

[mysticofthewest]

this whole debate brings to mind the joke What do you call an anarchists?
an impaient communist

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 10:47 AM
It WILL reach global proportions (at least socialism will), and will not happen in the “universal revolt” you seem to advocate.
I never said the revolt will be universal, I said it is not our place to "intend" for it to happen anywhere specific. It will happen anywhere that the working class become conscious and take power in their hands. Eventually, it will happen almost everywhere, but that&#39;s a long way off.

I do also believe it is most likely to begin in Western Europe, but I stand by my statement that we should "intend" for it to happen everywhere. THink globally, act locally.


1. Yes it is, Socialism puts the workers in power.
2. Thanks for that, piggish little prick.
3. No, they would be reacting to unions and popular uprisings which have caused the rise in a labor aristocracy.
1. Leninism didn&#39;t bring the workers to power though I will grant you it may have given them a small amount more power. This point we would probably argue forever, so let&#39;s just say we disagree.

2. No need to be abusive. I was just saying that the debate was about wether or not Vanguardism had delivered when it comes to Communism. Obviously, it hadn&#39;t. I&#39;m not even talking about full Communism, but it moved no closer to Classless, Stateless society in my opinion. It did not even eliminate bosses, the most basic step towards it. Again you may disgaree, that&#39;s fine.

3. True, I was just pointing out that a "higher societal position" is not a good measure of wether or not Vanguardism had delivered.


Most people don’t know anything about it; they know no difference between my brand and your brand; they are in ignorance of what their government have told them.
You are right of course, but I haven&#39;t ever seen anyone criticise Anarchism by saying it will lead to a dictatorship.

I&#39;m just pointing out that the experiences of Vanguardism have set in with most of the population, even if they have only a vague idea of what it is.

[Raisa]

When I say the Leninist idea delievered, I mean, it got rather far in comparison to alot of other kinds of attempts. Its organized. I am not particularly a Leninist, but I also do not have faith in Anarchism, becasue I notice that the world is so saturated in capitalism that I do not think we can just have "communism right now&#33;&#33; right away&#33;&#33;"

For the one who said "they [the working people] dont have it anymore, their sick of the bullshit"......I couldnt agree better&#33; No more failiure my friend&#33; The world is running out of time for failiure becasue every time the people are disillusioned, it takes even more time for them to want anything to do with a change again. But as this is happening, We are becoming more deepfried in the lard of capitalism by the minute&#33;

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+May 26 2004, 11:59 PM--> (Che y Marijuana @ May 26 2004, 11:59 PM)
[email protected] 26 2004, 02:41 PM
Where first of all do you intend for this to happen at?
The workers pf the world share the same opression but not the same situation, and they are all as of now isolated in struggle.
It&#39;s our job to deal with that isolation. It&#39;s not our job to "intend" for this to happen anywhere specific, but rather everywhere.

We won&#39;t know where it&#39;ll start until it starts, and while it may be true that it&#39;s different in different countries, it&#39;s not as different as people would have you believe. Freedom is freedom, no matter where you are. If there&#39;s working class consciousness, then that&#39;s all you need to start working for a better society. If there isn&#39;t, well it&#39;s gonna end in Capitalism anyways, so why bother handing over the reigns to "the party"?
[/b]

I dont think that if this anarchism movement even works any where...it can be used every where. I do not believe one idea is good for every where because every where is not the same.

and when you say we dont know where it starts untill it starts.....when is that? How long should we wait, as though the situation were not serious&#33;?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 10:34 PM
When I say the Leninist idea delievered, I mean, it got rather far in comparison to alot of other kinds of attempts.
Yes, it got far in asserting the leninist party into a position of unquestionable power, but it did not create communism. And never. If you look at the results in terms of what was it supposed to achieve as a conclusion and then what it achieved at its conclusion you will see that it failed catastrophically.


Its organized. I am not particularly a Leninist, but I also do not have faith in Anarchism, becasue I notice that the world is so saturated in capitalism that I do not think we can just have "communism right now&#33;&#33; right away&#33;&#33;"

Who said anything about communist right now right away. No anarchist believes that we can suddenly create communism out of thin air. We believe that you can not create communism using leninism as a method. It doesn&#39;t work. Centralised dictatorships, the state etc can not achieve communism.

If what you are trying to achieve is a world of state socialism, then leninism is very effective in doing that, but to achieve a statless, non centralised world, leninism will never deliver. Ever. History proves that.

Anarchism does not negate organisation, it negates the leninist style of organisation, because it recognizes the inherent contradiction in the style, which ultimatly leads to disaster.


For the one who said "they [the working people] dont have it anymore, their sick of the bullshit"......I couldnt agree better&#33; No more failiure my friend&#33; The world is running out of time for failiure becasue every time the people are disillusioned, it takes even more time for them to want anything to do with a change again. But as this is happening, We are becoming more deepfried in the lard of capitalism by the minute&#33;

I disagree. The more disillusioned they become, the more action they will want to take. The fact is, that the disillusionment of the working class is not channeled anywhere productive. We need to channel it so it becomes productive, and as that disillusionment grows, so will the confidence to act on it.


I dont think that if this anarchism movement even works any where

But that&#39;s not true. The anti-capitalism movement is extremly effective in achieving its aims. They manage to organise mass demonstrations and organise huge events locally and internationally without the use of centralised authority.

It seems that the further left you go, the smaller it gets. I admit that the anarchist movement is small, but that doesnt mean its wrong. Anarchism is a means to an end. It is a theory which has been applied and has worked. Of course there have been problems, but that is to be expected. if we fail, we have to try again. We can not abandon a principle because it is difficult. Achieving communism is not a joke, and we can not keep using the same formula over and over again, especially when it continues to fail over and over again.


and when you say we dont know where it starts untill it starts.....when is that? How long should we wait, as though the situation were not serious&#33;?

How can anybody seriously answer that question. Anyone who says the revolution will start here at this time is lying to you. The world changes every second, new things happen which we could not forsee ever happening, and we can not know that they will happen until they do. What we can know is that we need a movement which is organised and big enough to take on the challange when the time does come.

[Subversive Pessimist]

I saw threw the myth&#33;

What kind of myth? :unsure:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 11:43 PM

I saw threw the myth&#33;

What kind of myth? :unsure:
The myth that leninism can lead to communism.

[Nas]

why is it that people fear what they don&#39;t understand

[elijahcraig]

I&#39;m not really in the mood for the anarchist debate, so I&#39;ll just stop posting. I think we can see the differences are not going to be resolved by continually debating this.

Nas, I dislike your avatar--geting fucked is fun.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 09:24 PM
why is it that people fear what they don&#39;t understand
Please, enlighten me on what it is i&#39;m not understanding

[apathy maybe]

As I understand Anarchism and Communism are two different things. While they have the same political structure they have different economic structures.

As to skipping straight to anarchism (or communism or a mix of both), I don&#39;t believe that this can happen with out much bloodshed (and potential for cappies and other rightists to move on from the fake democracy to true dictatorship). Thus I call for a global decentralised governing structure. But to achieve this I think we need to use the fake democracy we have (where we have it) and promote a decentralised socialist state, which when established can then move straight to the decentralised no power in the centre society that we see with anarchism and communism.

However, I see a possibility for the rightists to stage a counter-revolution (even though I don&#39;t think there will be a revolution in the first place) and that will lead to the situation that CyM seems to support (straight to Anarchism in some parts, while other parts are still under capitalism (or worse)).

The way to prevent the cappies (or anyone for that matter) from seizing power in the intermediate &#39;state&#39; is simple. Remove all the bases for power. Randomly select people to represent the people for decisions that need an instant response, and have direct (or true) democracy for other decisions. Remove control of the media from the cappies that run it now, move it into the hands of a governing body that represents the people (random selection again anyone?).

Once we have reformed the political structure we can work on the bits of the economic structure that are still oppressive. We dismantle &#39;useless&#39; corporations and nationalise (and turn over to the people control of) other companies. We start with the big ones and move down.

Then when we have a global socialist structure we can dismantle it. And no one can stop us because no one has any power (see above). Mwwhaa ha ha.

The great thing about my approach is that we have the majority of people on side all the way. We get rid of politicians (wonderful they say), we get rid of big bad corporations (great they (and small businesses too) say), and then we get rid of all businesses and since the people can see where we are going they say wonderful again.
And the other great thing is that you can stop at any point (get rid of politicians, big business, all business, all government) and you will still be better off then before. Which I&#39;m afraid would probably not be the case if a revolution failed.
And yet another thing I just thought of, (which I just forgot, damn it).
Oh and did I mention little (or no) bloodshed?

[elijahcraig]

Randomly select people to represent the people for decisions that need an instant response, and have direct (or true) democracy for other decisions. Remove control of the media from the cappies that run it now, move it into the hands of a governing body that represents the people (random selection again anyone?).

Who "selects" these random people?

[Hiero]

If we have federilism, what about the counter revolutionaries, why should they get political freedom, and what of outside capitalist countries that uneducated mass in international politics can not see the danger. Education of the masses before communism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 31 2004, 06:37 AM
As I understand Anarchism and Communism are two different things. While they have the same political structure they have different economic structures.
Then you are wrong.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 31 2004, 03:02 PM
If we have federilism, what about the counter revolutionaries, why should they get political freedom,
If there actions are subverting the revolution then they shouldnt.


and what of outside capitalist countries that uneducated mass in international politics can not see the danger. Education of the masses before communism.

We can not achieve communism while outside nations are still capitalistic. Other than this comment, I dont understand what it is you&#39;re saying.

[gaf]

i think the big trouble is that everybody see the other as an (....iste)
well that&#39;s really what fascisme is. get away from thoses pictures the only way to be anar is to be yourself respecting others so as they are,self if you dont like it.be patient and persistent you&#39;ll see it will work ....... don&#39;t forget. the only way to be really subversive is to take this system more seriously than it takes itself.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 31 2004, 03:45 PM




If there actions are subverting the revolution then they shouldnt.


A dictatorship of the progressive proleteriat.



We can not achieve communism while outside nations are still capitalistic. Other than this comment, I dont understand what it is you&#39;re saying.


So anarchism is international movment then?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 1 2004, 11:17 AM
A dictatorship of the progressive proleteriat.
But what does that mean?


So anarchism is international movment then?

Of course&#33;

[apathy maybe]

Really I disagree when you say I&#39;m wrong. I may have confused two different types of anarchism (social and individual) with communism and anarchism, but even if this were the case, they still differ economically.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 3 2004, 07:40 AM
Really I disagree when you say I&#39;m wrong. I may have confused two different types of anarchism (social and individual) with communism and anarchism, but even if this were the case, they still differ economically.
Anarchist Communism is based on communal ownership using the maxim "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

Granted, there are some forms of anarchism which differ economically...but they are stupid forms :P

[Guest1]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 3 2004, 04:21 AM
Granted, there are some forms of anarchism which differ economically...but they are stupid forms :P
Uggh... anyone remember Parecon? <_<

What an idiotic waste of that time that system was. I haven&#39;t heard anything about it for a long time, so I&#39;m hoping that means it&#39;s long dead. I&#39;m sure it&#39;s still around, but I can dream :P

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Jun 3 2004, 07:21 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension &#064; Jun 3 2004, 07:21 PM)
apathy [email protected] 3 2004, 07:40 AM
Really I disagree when you say I&#39;m wrong. I may have confused two different types of anarchism (social and individual) with communism and anarchism, but even if this were the case, they still differ economically.
Anarchist Communism is based on communal ownership using the maxim "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

Granted, there are some forms of anarchism which differ economically...but they are stupid forms :P [/b]
I feel that the idea of "from each, to each" is the stupid form. Why should I (and everyone else for that matter) have to work for 5 or 7 days a week when the whole society could get by (quite easily, with lots of surplus) working only 2 or 3 day weeks? The issue I have with it is the "from each" part. The "to each" is quite acceptable, it happens to some extent in welfare states today (though I&#39;m sure that many feel they need more then what they receive).

Even having to work at all seems to me to be against the whole anarchist idea. "From each" seems to be saying, &#39;you will work&#39;. I thought Anarchism was about freedom, even the freedom not to work if you don&#39;t want to (though this would not be an issue for the majority of people).

So I stand by my claim that communism (with the fundamental "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need") is different economically from anarchism (or at least individual anarchism (which is the only &#39;real&#39; anarchism)) (with the fundamental "from each what they feel like, to each what they need (plus a bit extra if there is a surplus)".

[synthesis]

I feel that &#39;from each according to their ability...&#39; was a fundamental misstatement on Marx&#39;s part, and not what the rest of his philosophy represents.

It seems to me that a more appropriate phrase would be "from each according to necessity, to each according to their need." Everything else you have is what you do for yourself.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 4 2004, 12:37 AM
So I stand by my claim that communism (with the fundamental "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need") is different economically from anarchism (or at least individual anarchism (which is the only &#39;real&#39; anarchism)) (with the fundamental "from each what they feel like, to each what they need (plus a bit extra if there is a surplus)".
You don&#39;t know much about Anarchism :huh:

Individualist Anarchism is most definitely not the only form of Anarchism, and definitely can&#39;t seriously be called "the only real Anarchism". In fact, most Anarchism is Collectivist in some way, be it Anarcho-Syndicalist, Anarcho-Collectivist or Anarcho-Communist.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 4 2004, 06:37 AM
I feel that the idea of "from each, to each" is the stupid form.


Really...


Why should I (and everyone else for that matter) have to work for 5 or 7 days a week when the whole society could get by (quite easily, with lots of surplus) working only 2 or 3 day weeks?

Like I said, you don&#39;t really understand it. The means of production would be collectivised and organised on a national level with smaller city collectives organising &#39;socially necessary work.&#39;

Work would be divided between the collective or between the national collectives and you would dedicate your time to what ever was needed of you.

Let&#39;s say you have a collective of 588,092 people. In this collective you have 4 power stations, 3 water companies, 4 farms producing goods, nationally, 21 factories producing goods national, 6 food distribution centres, city maintainance, ambulance servce and fire service

4 Power stations needs 400 people each » 1,600
3 Water generaters needs 200 » 600
4 farms needs 100 people » 400
21 Factories needs 1000 people » 21,000
6 Distribution centres needs 100 people » 600
City maintainance needs 2000 people
Ambulance and fire servce needs 4000 people in total

Of course there will be more jobs, but I greatly exagerated this so lets just take this as an average. A city this size, on average, needs 30,200 people to work at any one time.

588,092 divided by 30,200 is, lets call it a round 19. Lets say that the time of service is 3 weeks. That means that for every one 30,200 going to work you have 21 days until the next, so you work for 21 days then you dont work again for, well, a whole year (378 days to be exact). So you work for 3 weeks per year and recieve all the benifits of society. You have given your ability, and recieve what you need. A logical way to organise a collective

Of course there are a thousand an one other possibilities that haven&#39;t been taken into consideration, but even if a few weeks were added onto the time of work needed you can see that the actual amount of labour required of anyone person is next to nothing.


So I stand by my claim that communism (with the fundamental "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need") is different economically from anarchism

Anarchism doesn&#39;t have a defined economic stance as far as i&#39;m aware.


(or at least individual anarchism (which is the only &#39;real&#39; anarchism)) (with the fundamental "from each what they feel like, to each what they need (plus a bit extra if there is a surplus)".

Real anarchism? You make me shit....you&#39;re not even an anarchist&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 07:52 AM
I feel that &#39;from each according to their ability...&#39; was a fundamental misstatement on Marx&#39;s part, and not what the rest of his philosophy represents.

It seems to me that a more appropriate phrase would be "from each according to necessity, to each according to their need." Everything else you have is what you do for yourself.
I think your absolutly right. I think the maxim does mean "each according to necessity..." but I also think that this is the way it will work out anyway. You can only give your best ability to work that is there.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 31 2004, 01:02 PM
If we have federilism, what about the counter revolutionaries, why should they get political freedom,
Let them talk all the crap they want, when they want to take their head out their ass, communism is always there for them with arms wide open&#33;

I am against censorship.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 28 2004, 09:27 PM
, as though the situation were not serious&#33;?

How can anybody seriously answer that question. Anyone who says the revolution will start here at this time is lying to you. The world changes every second, new things happen which we could not forsee ever happening, and we can not know that they will happen until they do. What we can know is that we need a movement which is organised and big enough to take on the challange when the time does come. [/quote]
So then when? :( When the sea can no longer feed the human race cause we over fished it or the ozone layer&#39;s hole exposes a hemisphere or war blasts the world to hell ? By then when we are clouded in our own smoke from our own world burning down thanks to capitalism, will it hopefully start then? How long should we wait before we realize it takes more then people getting pissed to have a revolution. It takes contiousness, dedication, blah blah blah.....

[Chad King]

I gotta agree there... Im a firm believer in the "if you build it, they will come" idea... if someone has damn good ideas and dedicates his time to sharing that, the "organization" will happen around him, as opposed to someone sitting around drawing out and making the organization around another idea.

You need to make it real to make it happen, as opposed to just trying to make it happen.

Actually, I might have stepped into more of a social reform as opposed to a full blown revolution.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 10:06 AM
So then when? :( When the sea can no longer feed the human race cause we over fished it or the ozone layer&#39;s hole exposes a hemisphere or war blasts the world to hell ?
No one can say.


By then when we are clouded in our own smoke from our own world burning down thanks to capitalism, will it hopefully start then?

This is political flap your arms neurosis&#33; Just go out and join a political movement and build the movement.


How long should we wait before we realize it takes more then people getting pissed to have a revolution.

Not really. We are not in a position to decide when the revolution is. It&#39;s rediculously abstract. The only thing you can do is help build a movement ready for when capitalism trips up on itself. To sit around flapping your wings and whining about "when is the revlution going to happen...oh the world is crumbling around us" isn&#39;t helping the situation...Get out there and join something&#33;


It takes contiousness, dedication, blah blah blah.....

How can you just dismiss these things. Our objective isn&#39;t a revolution, it&#39;s communism, and without consiousness and dedication that isn&#39;t ever going to happen.

Movements from around the world.......pick one&#33; (http://www.broadleft.org/anarchis.htm)

[Chad King]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2004, 08:38 AM
We are not in a position to decide when the revolution is.
How are we not? Since America seems to be "run" from the Constitution and built on the Declaration of Independance, which states, and I will quote:

"That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to abolish it."

Meaning, if were not happy, as a populace, we can change things. The problem lies with the majority of people being merely content with their lives, there&#39;s no big push, I mean big push, to show them otherwise.

Now, if you really want to be a man, youd go to some large millionaire and tell him to take back his ill-gotten gains and give it to the people that got him to where he was that he seems to ignore. If you can do that, then the people might listen, that shows power&#33; Or something... again, 5:00am now...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chad [email protected] 6 2004, 10:47 AM
How are we not?
Because we&#39;re not psychic&#33;


Since America seems to be "run" from the Constitution and built on the Declaration of Independance, which states, and I will quote:

"That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to abolish it."

Meaning, if were not happy, as a populace, we can change things. The problem lies with the majority of people being merely content with their lives, there&#39;s no big push, I mean big push, to show them otherwise.

I am talking about the actual action of a revolution&#33;


Now, if you really want to be a man, youd go to some large millionaire and tell him to take back his ill-gotten gains and give it to the people that got him to where he was that he seems to ignore. If you can do that, then the people might listen, that shows power&#33; Or something... again, 5:00am now...

For a statrt how would I get close to some who was a millionaire...secondly why in gods name would they listen to me&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Chad King]

For a statrt how would I get close to some who was a millionaire...secondly why in gods name would they listen to me&#33;&#33;&#33;

How to get close to a millionaire? Its kinda easy, at least for me it is, living in West Palm Beach, I see millionaires daily. And why would they listen to you? If you had something productive to say and do, as opposed to sitting around *****ing about never seeing a millionaire, you would gain respect.

Again, make it real first, then make it happen instead of trying to instantly make it happen.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chad [email protected] 6 2004, 11:13 AM
as opposed to sitting around *****ing about never seeing a millionaire, you would gain respect.
Me: "Hello Mr Millionaire...I want to create a communist society."

Millionarie: "too bad for you pal, i like being a millionaire"


as opposed to sitting around *****ing about never seeing a millionaire, you would gain respect.

What&#33;&#33; What are you talking about?


Again, make it real first, then make it happen instead of trying to instantly make it happen.

But what does this actually mean?

[Victor-Meunier]

To make it quick, I&#39;ll tell you what is (byt its definition) anarchism :

"State of disorder and confusion that leads to the weakness of political authority" taken from Dictionary of the french language in colors (I had to translate but anyway.

Someone who claims Anarchy is someone who accepts what is going to happen to anyone including him at any moment. Arnarchy means there are no laws to protect people, environment etc... In an Anarchy prospect, no one would feel safe, except the stronger people, the more easily intelligent or the more "good looking" and THAT IS a part of what capitalism promotes.

In order to finish, I&#39;d say that anrachy is the pure form of capitalism, the elder one.

I&#39;m no judging in this thread, just giving the official definition, and my interpretation.

[Chad King]

Me: "Hello Mr Millionaire...I want to create a communist society."

Millionarie: "too bad for you pal, i like being a millionaire"



If you wish to make a joke out of it, fine.



What&#33;&#33; What are you talking about?


Im talking about creating some progress in the ideals of revolution.



But what does this actually mean?


Ah, now some details...

Here you are, arguing with a complete stranger over the internet about revolutionary ideas. What else do you do in your spare time?

What do I mean about making it real? I mean by influencing the people around you, show them you feel there is a better way, show them why and show them how it could be accomplished. In a revolution, people are your greatest weapon, if you dont gain any people and spend your time *****ing on the internet about the way things could be, then I guess you dont feel too strongly about your ideals.

Thats what I mean by making it real, *****ing on the internet wont make it happen, you as a person, around other people, will make it happen.

[Victor-Meunier]

Originally posted by Chad King
What do I mean about making it real? I mean by influencing the people around you, show them you feel there is a better way, show them why and show them how it could be accomplished. In a revolution, people are your greatest weapon, if you dont gain any people and spend your time *****ing on the internet about the way things could be, then I guess you dont feel too strongly about your ideals.
Excuse my intervention but I&#39;d like to say you are totally right :
This message board is to make our opinions grow, but nearly not to convert new people to our points of view. Someone who has never really thought about communism and always hears that it&#39;s bad etc...will surely never come on this website to find the truth. What we must do in priority is to come at the people and tell them (without forgetting our opinions&#39; exchanges.

[Chad King]

Originally posted by Victor&#045;[email protected] 6 2004, 10:39 AM
Excuse my intervention but I&#39;d like to say you are totally right :
This message board is to make our opinions grow, but nearly not to convert new people to our points of view. Someone who has never really thought about communism and always hears that it&#39;s bad etc...will surely never come on this website to find the truth. What we must do in priority is to come at the people and tell them (without forgetting our opinions&#39; exchanges.
I took a little hardlined edge on my post... I know there are people who will come to this site looking for more information that their government teacher didnt tell them or whatever, so I would like to say *****ing on the internet isnt all that bad ;)

[Victor-Meunier]

Originally posted by Chad King
I took a little hardlined edge on my post... I know there are people who will come to this site looking for more information that their government teacher didnt tell them or whatever, so I would like to say *****ing on the internet isnt all that bad
I really know that in fact, I have known communism for the first time this way :rolleyes:
I said "nearly", which is important to me, but not everyone has the ability to think that verifying what some people tell them is useful.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Victor&#045;[email protected] 6 2004, 12:31 PM
"State of disorder and confusion that leads to the weakness of political authority" taken from Dictionary of the french language in colors (I had to translate but anyway.

Someone who claims Anarchy is someone who accepts what is going to happen to anyone including him at any moment. Arnarchy means there are no laws to protect people, environment etc... In an Anarchy prospect, no one would feel safe, except the stronger people, the more easily intelligent or the more "good looking" and THAT IS a part of what capitalism promotes.

In order to finish, I&#39;d say that anrachy is the pure form of capitalism, the elder one.
That&#39;s a complete lie. Bourgeois misrepresentation and outright fabrications. That is not what anarchism is at all.

I think you should do some more research. A little more than copy and pasting the text of a dictionary.


I&#39;m no judging in this thread, just giving the official definition, and my interpretation.

The official defination of whom? Not anarchists&#33; And your interpretation is absolutly and completely wrong&#33;

I suggest you read this&#33; (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6421)

[Victor-Meunier]

Originally posted by The anarchist tension
That&#39;s a complete lie. Bourgeois misrepresentation and outright fabrications. That is not what anarchism is at all.

I think you should do some more research. A little more than copy and pasting the text of a dictionary.
Maybe you are right I don&#39;t know, I&#39;ll check out your link, but the "Bourgeois misrepresentation" is really out of place notice it.
I&#39;m here to improve my thoughts about the world that is arround me, not to get insulted.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chad [email protected] 6 2004, 12:32 PM
If you wish to make a joke out of it, fine.
I wasn&#39;t joking.


Im talking about creating some progress in the ideals of revolution.

What&#33;?


Here you are, arguing with a complete stranger over the internet about revolutionary ideas. What else do you do in your spare time?

My name is Joe Morris

I am currently working in Mozambique - CICD (http://www.cicd-volunteerinafrica.org/)

I belong to this (http://www.drh-movement.org) movement and I work in a teachers training college as a humanitarian volunteer creating a networked curriculum for about 1000 future primary school teachers..

I am also a member of this organisation » Anarchist Communist Federation (http://www.afed.org.uk/)

Previously to that I was a volunteer for the Stop the war coalition and a full time member (i got paid) for the Socialist Workers Party

What do you do?


What do I mean about making it real? I mean by influencing the people around you, show them you feel there is a better way, show them why and show them how it could be accomplished.

Thanks for the advice.


In a revolution, people are your greatest weapon,

Noooo, really?.........(yes, that was sarcasm)


if you dont gain any people and spend your time *****ing on the internet about the way things could be, then I guess you dont feel too strongly about your ideals.

You&#39;re barking at the wrong boy mate&#33;



Thats what I mean by making it real, *****ing on the internet wont make it happen, you as a person, around other people, will make it happen.

:o If only i&#39;d known that earlier&#33;&#33;&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Victor&#045;Meunier+Jun 6 2004, 12:51 PM--> (Victor-Meunier @ Jun 6 2004, 12:51 PM)
The anarchist tension
That&#39;s a complete lie. Bourgeois misrepresentation and outright fabrications. That is not what anarchism is at all.

I think you should do some more research. A little more than copy and pasting the text of a dictionary.
Maybe you are right I don&#39;t know, I&#39;ll check out your link, but the "Bourgeois misrepresentation" is really out of place notice it.
I&#39;m here to improve my thoughts about the world that is arround me, not to get insulted. [/b]
I did not intened to insult you. That comment was not direct at you. It was simply a statement of fact.

[Victor-Meunier]

I&#39;ve read the information, and there is a passage i&#39;d like someone to explain to me :

All anarchists are socialists. Ok, but, as far as a I know there are racist anarchists, are they socialists too ? Or is that a diffenrent kind of anarchism ?

[Chad King]

Anarchism is cute and all, with some good ideas, but Im a firm believer in a balance... Anarchy would if people werent so, say... keen on killing other people. That creates chaos. Chaos will always exist, and I feel it would spread further if Anarchy existed. Again, Anarchists would probably say otherwise and say since its communal, no one would have a reason to screw anyone else over... Im sure if an idea would lead to a pure Utopia, it would have been worked out and implemented already.

[Y2A]

Anarchism has historically been a movement of the far-left.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Victor&#045;[email protected] 6 2004, 01:00 PM
All anarchists are socialists. Ok, but, as far as a I know there are racist anarchists, are they socialists too ? Or is that a diffenrent kind of anarchism ?
Can you give examples?

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Victor&#045;[email protected] 6 2004, 11:00 AM
All anarchists are socialists.
No, Anarchism simply means no state. Therefore, I can be an Anarcho-Capitalist and belive in no state. And also, socialists are not anarchists. Socialists believe in state-owned industry to divide wealth while anarchists believe that the state should own nothing. However the idelogical stances of socialists and "traditional" anarchists are the same.

[Victor-Meunier]

A -former- friend of mines. Not another sk8ter whos claims Anarchy without knowing if it&#39;s a mark of yoghourts or of the name of a sk8te shop but a relly implied in Anarchy (faaar more than me which is really easy lol).
He prones Anarchy but still stands on his thoughts about "races" (that&#39;s why he is no longer one of my friends)


I mean if he for exemple is racist, can we considere him as a socialist as he is anarchist ?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chad [email protected] 6 2004, 01:01 PM
Anarchism is cute and all, with some good ideas, but Im a firm believer in a balance... Anarchy would if people werent so, say... keen on killing other people. That creates chaos. Chaos will always exist, and I feel it would spread further if Anarchy existed. Again, Anarchists would probably say otherwise and say since its communal, no one would have a reason to screw anyone else over...
Well...what do you do?


Im sure if an idea would lead to a pure Utopia, it would have been worked out and implemented already.

Can you prove that? Surely capitalism has had something to do with not achieving a utopian society.

[Chad King]

I wasn&#39;t joking.


Ok.




Im talking about creating some progress in the ideals of revolution.

What&#33;?


You know, doing something for the beliefs you stand in in order to aid the populace.



My name is Joe Morris

I am currently working in Mozambique - CICD (http://www.cicd-volunteerinafrica.org/)

I belong to this (http://www.drh-movement.org) movement and I work in a teachers training college as a humanitarian volunteer creating a networked curriculum for about 1000 future primary school teachers..

I am also a member of this organisation » Anarchist Communist Federation (http://www.afed.org.uk/)

Previously to that I was a volunteer for the Stop the war coalition and a full time member (i got paid) for the Socialist Workers Party

What do you do?


My name is Chad King. Im currently a waiter because I love being around people and I view work as more of a hobby than actual work. I dont belong to any super special movements or organizations, for I dont need to, I feel I exist only to enlighten those around me, through that median I could personally touch people with my ideas for a better existence. I travel around reading spoken word on stage to get my points across I feel strongly about, and people give my money to continue on to the next town so I may speak again. Again, I dont hide behind an organization with some fancy name, I am but one man, me. I do what I need to do to ensure that I get across what I, as a person, wish to get across.




What do I mean about making it real? I mean by influencing the people around you, show them you feel there is a better way, show them why and show them how it could be accomplished.

Thanks for the advice.


Anytime...



Noooo, really?.........(yes, that was sarcasm)


How cute.



You&#39;re barking at the wrong boy mate&#33;


I hardly think I am...



:o If only i&#39;d known that earlier&#33;&#33;&#33;


Again, how cute... do you approach every serious subject in a laughing matter? You wouldnt, by chance, happen to be a Michael Moore fan, would you?

[Y2A]

Poverty existed before capitalism TAT and it will exist after it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Victor&#045;[email protected] 6 2004, 01:06 PM
A -former- friend of mines. Not another sk8ter whos claims Anarchy without knowing if it&#39;s a mark of yoghourts or of the name of a sk8te shop but a relly implied in Anarchy (faaar more than me which is really easy lol).
He prones Anarchy but still stands on his thoughts about "races" (that&#39;s why he is no longer one of my friends)


I mean if he for exemple is racist, can we considere him as a socialist as he is anarchist ?
There are many neo-nazis who subscribe to anarchism, but they are as misguided as those people who call themselves anarcho-capitalists.

Anarchism as a theory came into existence as a direct challange to developing capitalism, exploitation, the state and marxism&#33;

Capitalists have simply stolen the label and applied it to their want for complete capitalist freedom&#33;

[Victor-Meunier]

Originally posted by Y2A+Jun 6 2004, 11:05 AM--> (Y2A @ Jun 6 2004, 11:05 AM)
Victor&#045;[email protected] 6 2004, 11:00 AM
All anarchists are socialists.
No, Anarchism simply means no state. Therefore, I can be an Anarcho-Capitalist and belive in no state. And also, socialists are not anarchists. Socialists believe in state-owned industry to divide wealth while anarchists believe that the state should own nothing. However the idelogical stances of socialists and "traditional" anarchists are the same. [/b]
I don&#39;t understand then why my words (which come from the link to Comrade James) are right written and exist. Are you all with different opinions on the right definition of Arnarchy ?

[Chad King]

You must exist to simply counter all I am trying to say... ::sigh::



Well...what do you do?


I exist and take in my surroundings as they become apparent to me, as any good Buddhist would.



Can you prove that? Surely capitalism has had something to do with not achieving a utopian society.


You cant prove idealism, I want you to prove to me that anarchy would work as you say it should, without linking me to some essay by some guy you dont even know, and then I will answer your question.

[Y2A]

It is technically correct however TAT. Anarchism simply means no state authority. That is what Anarcho-Capitalists want, therefore they are Anarchists. And who cares actually? They are just a small misguided minority, just like left anarchists ;)

[Victor-Meunier]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Jun 6 2004, 11:10 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Jun 6 2004, 11:10 AM)
Victor&#045;[email protected] 6 2004, 01:06 PM
A -former- friend of mines. Not another sk8ter whos claims Anarchy without knowing if it&#39;s a mark of yoghourts or of the name of a sk8te shop but a relly implied in Anarchy (faaar more than me which is really easy lol).
He prones Anarchy but still stands on his thoughts about "races" (that&#39;s why he is no longer one of my friends)


I mean if he for exemple is racist, can we considere him as a socialist as he is anarchist ?
There are many neo-nazis who subscribe to anarchism, but they are as misguided as those people who call themselves anarcho-capitalists.

Anarchism as a theory came into existence as a direct challange to developing capitalism, exploitation, the state and marxism&#33;

Capitalists have simply stolen the label and applied it to their want for complete capitalist freedom&#33; [/b]
Damn, another lie fell &#33; So he is definitly not anarchist :blink:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chad [email protected] 6 2004, 01:08 PM
You know, doing something for the beliefs you stand in in order to aid the populace.
You mean like you?


I dont belong to any super special movements or organizations, for I dont need to, I feel I exist only to enlighten those around me, through that median I could personally touch people with my ideas for a better existence.

How very arrogant of you. Unforunatly for you, your "enlightenment" isnt going to create a communist society.


I travel around reading spoken word on stage to get my points across I feel strongly about, and people give my money to continue on to the next town so I may speak again.

Why don&#39;t you join a movement fighting for change. Maybe then your efforts will mean something.


Again, I dont hide behind an organization with some fancy name, I am but one man, me.

How extremly usful..&#33;


I do what I need to do to ensure that I get across what I, as a person, wish to get across.

...and leave all the real stuff for the big kids.


I hardly think I am...

:rolleyes:


do you approach every serious subject in a laughing matter?

You havent presented anything worth not laughing at.

[Y2A]

QUOTE (Chad King @ Jun 6 2004, 01:08 PM)
You know, doing something for the beliefs you stand in in order to aid the populace.

:) He works for an aid organization. Now, I don&#39;t argee with his beliefs at all but he sure as hell puts his money where his mouth is.

[Victor-Meunier]

I&#39;m not very good at analysing some stuff but what the guy quoted by TAT said is really annoying : He lives on the ressources of other if I understand, without contribuating to the common effort ?&#33;&#33; too bad.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chad [email protected] 6 2004, 01:11 PM
You must exist to simply counter all I am trying to say... ::sigh::
Fools should be challanged.


I exist and take in my surroundings as they become apparent to me, as any good Buddhist would.

Oh....my....god&#33;


You cant prove idealism, I want you to prove to me that anarchy would work as you say it should, without linking me to some essay by some guy you dont even know, and then I will answer your question.

Other people have said it far better than I...and I have no interest in convincing you of anything.

[Chad King]

Originally posted by Chad [email protected] 6 2004, 01:08 PM
You know, doing something for the beliefs you stand in in order to aid the populace.

You mean like you?


Oh, I get it, youre going to take shots at me now for getting off my ass and taking ideas for a possible social reform to the people that would be directly affected by it. Awesome.




I dont belong to any super special movements or organizations, for I dont need to, I feel I exist only to enlighten those around me, through that median I could personally touch people with my ideas for a better existence.

How very arrogant of you. Unforunatly for you, your "enlightenment" isnt going to create a communist society.


How very arrogant of you. Unfortunately for you, Im not trying to create a communist society. Sorry.




I travel around reading spoken word on stage to get my points across I feel strongly about, and people give my money to continue on to the next town so I may speak again.

Why don&#39;t you join a movement fighting for change. Maybe then your efforts will mean something.


If I find an organization that is being productive in their efforts, then I will join, until then, I prefer to be a loner.




Again, I dont hide behind an organization with some fancy name, I am but one man, me.

How extremly useful..&#33;


You know, Ive been fruitful so far, so yes, it is indeed useful.




I do what I need to do to ensure that I get across what I, as a person, wish to get across.

...and leave all the real stuff for the big kids.


Ah, so not 12 year olds, eh ;) Because I obviously dont have the maturity to handle "the big stuff" you so speak of. Do tell, what is the "real stuff" you speak of?




I hardly think I am...

:rolleyes:


Awesome.




do you approach every serious subject in a laughing matter?

You havent presented anything worth not laughing at.


Good, at least I was some entertainment for you, since you seemed to approach the debate with a narrow mind, Ill let you laugh and not say a word past these.

[Chad King]

Originally posted by Chad [email protected] 6 2004, 01:11 PM
You must exist to simply counter all I am trying to say... ::sigh::

Fools should be challanged.


Neat, is that why Im challenging you on issues? Whos the real fool here? Im pretty confident youre going to say I am, but did you not say earlier that he who has the loudest mouth has the most to hide?




I exist and take in my surroundings as they become apparent to me, as any good Buddhist would.

Oh....my....god&#33;


Yeah, and?




You cant prove idealism, I want you to prove to me that anarchy would work as you say it should, without linking me to some essay by some guy you dont even know, and then I will answer your question.

Other people have said it far better than I...and I have no interest in convincing you of anything.


But hey, fools should be challenged, eh? So you probably want to tell the fool theyre wrong somehow, thus you have to go through some convincing process...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Victor&#045;[email protected] 6 2004, 01:19 PM
I&#39;m not very good at analysing some stuff but what the guy quoted by TAT said is really annoying : He lives on the ressources of other if I understand, without contribuating to the common effort ?&#33;&#33; too bad.
He just likes to talk...the very thing he accused me of&#33; Interesting.

And I think your signiture is great, spot on ;)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chad [email protected] 6 2004, 01:23 PM
But hey, fools should be challenged, eh? So you probably want to tell the fool theyre wrong somehow, thus you have to go through some convincing process...
Yes...until you admitted your psychological problem, and then I realised I should probably just leave you to it.

[Y2A]

His signature is pure crap. It is utopianism and it blocks people from seeing the realities. Like I said, poverty existed before capitalism and will exist after it. This idea of infinate resources for a growing world population is ludicrous.

[Chad King]

Originally posted by Chad [email protected] 6 2004, 01:23 PM
But hey, fools should be challenged, eh? So you probably want to tell the fool theyre wrong somehow, thus you have to go through some convincing process...

Yes...until you admitted your psychological problem, and then I realised I should probably just leave you to it.


Well then, arent you just Mr. King of the World Elitist guy&#33;

If you want, Ill go a few more rounds with you, I had fun doing it.

[apathy maybe]

I&#39;m wrong&#33; All this time I&#39;ve been calling myself an Anarchist/Communst I&#39;ve actually been a Cappitalist. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Please someone restrict me. </sarcasm>

Oh and Y2A, anarchism is about no rulers, not no state. It could also be interpreted as no heirarchy. Either way, it ain&#39;t capitalist.

[DaCuBaN]

Oh a Y2A, anarchism is about no rulers, not no state. It could also be interpreted as no heirarchy. Either way, it ain&#39;t cappitalist

Not necessarily - a capital economy and anarchic governance can be mixed together. The question of course is how long such a society would be able to mantain equality.

[apathy maybe]

Right&#33; Capitalism will always lead to inequality and so it opposed to anarchism.

[elijahcraig]

Capitalism didn&#39;t lead to inequality, don&#39;t make sense: inequality existed beforehand, and it had one of its resulting ecnomic situations in capitalism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 7 2004, 04:17 AM
I&#39;m wrong&#33; All this time I&#39;ve been calling myself an Anarchist/Communst I&#39;ve actually been a Cappitalist. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Please someone restrict me. </sarcasm.
You&#39;re not an anarchist AM&#33;&#33;&#33;

Anarchism seeks to destroy the state&#33; You have, on many many occasions, said how that is not possible and that it must be maintained. That is in fundamental opposition to anarchism&#33;

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 10:37 PM
Capitalism didn&#39;t lead to inequality, don&#39;t make sense: inequality existed beforehand, and it had one of its resulting ecnomic situations in capitalism.
I think what he meant to say was that as long as any degree of capitalism exists, equality won&#39;t be possible.

[elijahcraig]

Equality isn&#39;t possible...period.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 09:57 AM
Equality isn&#39;t possible...period.
said the dictator to his subjects...

[apathy maybe]

Actually I said that I wanted to destroy the state slowly. I did not say that it must be maintained forever. Nor do I want it maintained forever.

The reason I call my self an Anarchist/Communist is &#39;cause I want a society where everyone is free to do anything so long as it doesn&#39;t impact on the freedoms of others (and equality etc as well). And a state isn&#39;t going to create that, but nor is a violent revolution.

[elijahcraig]

said the dictator to his subjects...

Dictators usually say that there is only freedom through one man.

I oppose the state, dictators, democracy, and any other form of government. Or to be more structured in my though: I oppose all forms of government which seek to destroy the art in a society. I don&#39;t really oppose democracy, actually, I don&#39;t think it a plausible possibility.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 8 2004, 04:52 AM
Actually I said that I wanted to destroy the state slowly. I did not say that it must be maintained forever. Nor do I want it maintained forever.
But a fundamental basis of anarchism is that this isn&#39;t possible.


The reason I call my self an Anarchist/Communist is &#39;cause I want a society where everyone is free to do anything so long as it doesn&#39;t impact on the freedoms of others (and equality etc as well).

That&#39;s not what defines an anarchist.


And a state isn&#39;t going to create that, but nor is a violent revolution.

Let&#39;s all sit around in a big cirlce chanting and throwing flowers at the big meany weany policy weesy then shall we :rolleyes:

[Chad King]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Jun 7 2004, 08:48 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Jun 7 2004, 08:48 AM)
[email protected] 7 2004, 09:57 AM
Equality isn&#39;t possible...period.

said the dictator to his subjects... [/b]
Haha&#33; I know weve had a couple of differences TAT, but I gotta say, I do respect you ;)

I read that and started cracking up, Im not saying Im an anarchist or anything, but that was a damn funny point.

[elijahcraig]

yes, TAT is good at making "chomksyian" jokes.

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 07:57 AM
Equality isn&#39;t possible...period.
yeah.not with you anyway

[elijahcraig]

I&#39;m glad you have recognized you are not my equal, it&#39;s the first step to a staircase of exploration of yourself.