Anarchism Is Bullshit, Heres Why

[ComradeIvan]

Anarchism is just complete bullshit, and any Anarchist who lived in an Anarchist society would very quickly begin to realize how shitty it is.
Think about how cool this is all you anarchist freaks.
I come into your house at night, round up your whole family shoot them in front of your eyes while a group of my buddies tie you down and steal all your shit. After words we slit your throat and leave you there to die.
WHOA! SOUNDS PRETTY DAMN COOL HUH?
Then the real bullshit begins. Groups that have lots of cash and have lots of people with them (like a gang or something) buys up a bunch of guns and various other arms. They come into a town take the whole town over and make the whole town work for them. This happens all over the Anarchist territory and what you have is a bunch of little states run by blood thirtsy, money hungry people where there is just war all the time between them for more money.
Wow, Would be real awesome to have your city destroyed by gang fights every day, your neighbors killed, your stuff and house used by the gang during the way therefore also being destroyed eventually. You and your own family probaly being forced to fight or work for the gang under the threat of death if you didnt obey.
All you anarchists should really think about what it would really be like before saying it is so great.
I could go on with millions of more scenarios but I won't.

[ComradeRed]

Maybe you should read up on the Anarchist ideology before you critique it. Besides you committed a classical fallacy, assuming anarchism=anarchy; same root, different meanings...

[Blackberry]

Now, now, ComradeIvan. Calm down and make yourself a cup of coffee. The way you are holding anarchists in such disrespect* -- fellow human beings, mind you -- is quite disgraceful. What did any anarchist do to harm you?

Despite your deep prejudice and ignorance of any anarchist theory and past practice, I will attempt to put your concerns at ease.

The scenarios you envision in any "anarchist" society is, in fact, very frightening and disgusting. I very much agree on that point.


I come into your house at night, round up your whole family shoot them in front of your eyes while a group of my buddies tie you down and steal all your shit. After words we slit your throat and leave you there to die.

Yes, that is definitely a possible scenario in any society. Anarchism is claimed to cut down such anti-social "crime" due to eliminating hierarchical practices on every aspect of society, but such "crime" can never be discounted completely.

Observing your scenario, you seem to be under the impression that shooting human beings and slitting their throats would be allowed under an anarchist society. Not so; in fact, it would be a disgusting and unacceptable act as it infringes upon the personal space and right of a citizen to be safe.

You also observe that the above group would "steal all (of the family's) shit." A very puzzling scenario, indeed. Why bother stealing from a family when your needs can be satisified by accessing community storehouses and taking what you need from there to survive and enjoy life?

At any rate, what would happen is that a communal militia (a de-professionalised "security force" consisting of members that do not join for more than a short term), and perhaps the help of other community militias, would do their best to track those who have committed this injustice. Upon capture, they (and "you") would then be tried under a court system, albeit in a different form to what it is today, whereby a verdict would be reached and action to be taken place concerning the individuals involved.


Then the real bullshit begins. Groups that have lots of cash and have lots of people with them (like a gang or something) buys up a bunch of guns and various other arms. They come into a town take the whole town over and make the whole town work for them. This happens all over the Anarchist territory and what you have is a bunch of little states run by blood thirtsy, money hungry people where there is just war all the time between them for more money.

The presupposition to the creation of an anarchist society is that it has support from a clear majority. It has to be that way for it to work, and anarchists find minority revolution immoral.

Laying down that, it is highly unlikely that gangs would run amock at any time. The citizens of anarchist society would, I imagine, take the necessary steps in order to protect themselves from such violence (whatever those steps might be...they might start by creating de-professionalised militias, for one), if it were ever to occur.

In the unlikely situation that the scenario above descended upon an anarchist society, then that would no longer be an anarchist society. It would be chaos. The lust of money is not a feature of anarchist society. Satisfying needs (and some wants) of all citizens is the feature of anarchist society.


Wow, Would be real awesome to have your city destroyed by gang fights every day, your neighbors killed, your stuff and house used by the gang during the way therefore also being destroyed eventually. You and your own family probaly being forced to fight or work for the gang under the threat of death if you didnt obey.

No anarchist would find that awesome. In fact, that is the definition of chaos, or tyranny. Anarchism/anarchy is very much different, as I have already stated in a less implicit way.

If you want to learn more about what anarchism is, I invite you to read a thread I developed ("Making Sense of Anarchism - Anarchism for Dummies (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6421)"), which contains links that can lead to further exploration.


I could go on with millions of more scenarios but I won't.

I should hope not. It would be rather boring! ;)

-----

*Calling anarchists "freaks"; using massive amounts of sarcasm; patronising anarchists; implying that they advocate gang violence and chaos.

[Mute]

Right on!

[God of Imperia]

I'm sorry to hear that there are people who think they figured something out without even reading the slightest thing about that subject. I can't believe ComradeIvan has read something about anarchism.

But I feel even sorrier because he's not alone, I think a lof people think like CI does... The only thing we can do about that is explain what anarchism really is and hope they'll listen.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Being a communist that does not believe that that a "sudden leap to communism" is possible, I tend to disagree with anarchist theory.

However your opinion of how society will behave in an anarchist (communist) society is absurd.

Since an anarchist society is exactly the same as a communist society, it appears to me that you believe the masses will never be able exist without some governmental body "keeping them in line".

Tell me then son, what kind of "communist" are you "comrade" Ivan?

[T_SP]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 6 2004, 05:00 PM


Tell me then son, what kind of "communist" are you "comrade" Ivan?
Concur.

It seems naievety brings out the worst in people and Ivan's view of Anarchism is extremely warped, it seems that having a ago at other ideologies with no facts is a common thing for him. The idea of a Communist society is to make everybody equal, eventually this will hopefully iradicate senseless crime and the desire to be better than others, people only turn to drugs,crime and murder because of the oppressiveness of the Capitalist system.

On another note you are one sick bastard and coming from someone who isn't an Anarchist I'd say that was something. Your examples were ludicrous and disgusting and your weird death fantasies have no place here pal, there are web-sites elsewhere for people like you counsellors too! :angry:

[Forward Union]

Well, done for describing...NIHILISM!!!, who's up for restricting this guy?? I mean seriously 'Comrade(?)Ivan, if you hate anarchism so much; then why the hell do you use the name 'Comrade' and have the workers flag as your avatar?? your a joke.

Now I appreciate that many members here disagree with Anarchism that's fine, they've got reasons. But you don't even seem to understand the idea, you should really read about it before you go slagging it off. Start by looking up why Communism=Anarchism, then by looking up why Anarchism = Not Nihilism.

[redstar2000]

I come into your house at night...[much mindless yap about blood, gangs, etc.]

Sounds like Detroit! :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Marxist [email protected] 6 2004, 08:01 PM
Well, done for describing...NIHILISM!!!, who's up for restricting this guy?? I mean seriously 'Comrade(?)Ivan, if you hate anarchism so much; then why the hell do you use the name 'Comrade' and have the workers flag as your avatar?? your a joke.

Now I appreciate that many members here disagree with Anarchism that's fine, they've got reasons. But you don't even seem to understand the idea, you should really read about it before you go slagging it off. Start by looking up why Communism=Anarchism, then by looking up why Anarchism = Not Nihilism.
Who's up for restricting you for being a prick? Sorry, but the guy doesnt understand what you consider to be anarchism... big deal. If you think he's wrong then explain why, not come out with restriction nonsense.

if you hate anarchism so much; then why the hell do you use the name 'Comrade' and have the workers flag as your avatar?? your a joke.


The term "Comrade", and the workers flag are not exclusive to anarchist ideologies, if you think your so smart as to attack others then you should really get it right.

Start by looking up why Communism=Anarchism,

Comunism doesnt = anarchism. Not by any stretch, the ideal end society work on very similar principals, its true and they are almost indistinguishable, but the method of achieving this aim is completely different, indeed Anarchists have totally different logic and ideals to communists.

You should also do a bit of reading into "Nihilism", because Nihilism is not a completely lawless basless society, at least no more than the ideas of anarchism held by most of this site. Indeed Nihilism is a revolutionary ideology based on materialism and achieved by terrorism, where people hold no regard for subjective ideals such as beauty, etc, or any political, social or religious authority if they stood in the way of "Freedom". Bakunin actually developed nihilistic thought, in opposition to Marx's ideals. What this guy described was, what most consider to be, "anarchy", where as the majority of this site, who subscribe to anarchism, support anarcho-communism or anarchism. The actual term anarchy was used to describe the lawless society during the English civil war, to be more exact it was called "The Anarchy". It suggests the break down of government and of law and order.

The society commonly thought of as "anarchy" is the one which subscribes to "The Anarchy". As such his statements were completely valid, his only mistake was a misunderstanding of what you consider to be anarchism.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 08:45 AM
The term "Comrade", and the workers flag are not exclusive to anarchist ideologies, if you think your so smart as to attack others then you should really get it right.
No, but his attacks were aimed at the ideas of stateless society, which is what the workers' movement is about, be it Marxist or Anarchist. He claims to be a Marxist, thus his hypocracy is obvious.


Comunism doesnt = anarchism. Not by any stretch, the ideal end society work on very similar principals, its true and they are almost indistinguishable, but the method of achieving this aim is completely different, indeed Anarchists have totally different logic and ideals to communists.
You yourself just said they are indistinguishable. The method of achieving the society is entirely irrelevant to this debate, which is a debate on whether any form of stateless society can ever function. Thus in this debate, it can indeed be said that an attack on Anarchism in the manner shown above, is an attack on Marxism as well. The argument made was that society must always mean the subjugation of human by human, at the risk of chaos and murder. Which is obviously rejected by both Anarchists, and Marxists. But obviously not bougie Liberals...


You should also do a bit of reading into "Nihilism", because Nihilism is not a completely lawless basless society, at least no more than the ideas of anarchism held by most of this site.
Which you try to back up with the following, without once mentioning the idea of law:


Indeed Nihilism is a revolutionary ideology based on materialism and achieved by terrorism, where people hold no regard for subjective ideals such as beauty, etc, or any political, social or religious authority if they stood in the way of "Freedom".


Bakunin actually developed nihilistic thought, in opposition to Marx's ideals.
People explore alot of things in their political development, that doesn't make Anarchism Nihilistic, as Bakunin is not Anarchism.


What this guy described was, what most consider to be, "anarchy", where as the majority of this site, who subscribe to anarchism, support anarcho-communism or anarchism.
Here we go once again, your complete lack of understanding of political theories and ideologies thinly veiled by an appeal to "common sense notions". Just because people have preconceived notions about Marxism does not mean we must accept this patently false definition of Marxism, rather than the definition built by a movement for more than a century. Equally, the same can be said of Anarchism. We know that this is what alot of people think is Anarchism, they are wrong.

Your second, more insidious implication, was that somehow the Anarchists here are a fringe exception to the rule. Not so. The majority of the Anarchist movement is one of building a real society, by default. Because those who don't believe in a future society, don't believe in a movement :lol: So you can lay that one to rest, you are wrong.


The actual term anarchy was used to describe the lawless society during the English civil war, to be more exact it was called "The Anarchy". It suggests the break down of government and of law and order.
Much like the term Democracy was used interchangeably with it during sporadic revolts for the reigning in of the monarchs across Europe, and much like the term "Communist" was used to mean the same, with baby eating and all. Your point only highlights your internalization of such ruling class ideas, and your subconscious willingness to spread them.


The society commonly thought of as "anarchy" is the one which subscribes to "The Anarchy".
And the society commonly thought of as "Communism" is the one which subscribes to "The Baby-Eating". What is your point, that intelligent people should pick up Bushisms?


As such his statements were completely valid, his only mistake was a misunderstanding of what you consider to be anarchism.
No, his only mistake was a misunderstanding of Anarchism, period. I see you still haven't given up your game of redefining words as they fit you. Let me clue you in on something. Such definitions may have worked for your 9th grade Civics courses way back in the day, but now you're expected to have grown. We don't have the time to waste reading bullshit about lunatic definitions of political terminology. You want to discuss, discuss, but don't give us definitions from the english Civil War because such definitions do not matter in the political movements of today.

Grow up Enigma.

[Invader Zim]

No, but his attacks were aimed at the ideas of stateless society

Tell me did you bother to read his comments? Nope, I thought not, the guy attacked anarchism under the common misinterpretation of anarchism being similar to that prortayed in songs like anarchy in the UK by the sex pistols.

You yourself just said they are indistinguishable.

Indeed, but method is entirley different.

The method of achieving the society is entirely irrelevant to this debate,

No, its entirley relevant, the nature of change is the decisive factor defining communism and anarchism.

it can indeed be said that an attack on Anarchism in the manner shown above, is an attack on Marxism as well.

Apart from the fact that the origional attack was an attack on niether, rather a common misinterpritation, which could have been corrected without attack.

But obviously not bougie Liberals...


What ever sunshine.

Which you try to back up with the following, without once mentioning the idea of law:

You find a fault with my statements? Also I would like to point out that one does not have to mention any idea of law, because society makes its own laws, or at least codes of conduct.

People explore alot of things in their political development, that doesn't make Anarchism Nihilistic, as Bakunin is not Anarchism.

Way to go for both him and you... now your point is what?

Just because people have preconceived notions about Marxism does not mean we must accept this patently false definition of Marxism, rather than the definition built by a movement for more than a century.

Precisely, what you must do is calmly explain the common mistake, and try and educate the person... not have a hissy fit.

We know that this is what alot of people think is Anarchism, they are wrong.

Explain to them why, then.

was that somehow the Anarchists here are a fringe exception to the rule.

Maybe in your warped mind, because I never implied any such thing.

Not so. The majority of the Anarchist movement is one of building a real society, by default.

I dont doubt it.

Much like the term Democracy was used interchangeably with it during sporadic revolts for the reigning in of the monarchs across Europe, and much like the term "Communist" was used to mean the same

Aagin, you have no point... other than what I have been trying to say.

And the society commonly thought of as "Communism" is the one which subscribes to "The Baby-Eating".

I said that is what what is commonly thought of as anarchy, and therefor anarchism, is the manifestation of a "The Anarchy" like society, I never said that it was correct.

No, his only mistake was a misunderstanding of Anarchism, period.

Thank you for your entirely subjective, and quite irrelevant opinion.

I see you still haven't given up your game of redefining words as they fit you.

Sorry, but dont redefine anywords, I just use their real meanings, you know like it says in the dictionary, and not your pseudo leftist jargan.

You want to discuss, discuss, but don't give us definitions from the english Civil War because such definitions do not matter in the political movements of today.

Of all you countless stupid comments that takes the cake, if it doesn't matter, then why are people still making this centuries old error?

You may want to stop preaching to the chior.

[ComradeIvan]

Communism does not equal Anarchism.
I was not attacking the classes state. But the lawless anarchist state.
I used the most gruesome examples to try to get a point through.
The Sickle and Hammer does not stand for Anarchism you moron. It stands for the Soviet Union. The workers and peasants. No relevance to Anarchist bs.

[ComradeIvan]

Wow, I just read some of that Anarchist stuff.
All sounds like a cheap rip off of Communism to me.
pathetic.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Communism does not equal Anarchism.

You are very confused about the meaning of communism. this is not entirely shocking considering your very young age.


I was not attacking the classes state. But the lawless anarchist state.


To begin with son, once a society achieves communism, there is no such thing as a "state";

In addition, there is so bourgeois ideology of modern "law"; an idea you seem to be grasping onto as hard as you must grasp your placard of Lenin while you march up down mummy's garden.



The Sickle and Hammer does not stand for Anarchism you moron. It stands for the Soviet Union

Wrong. The hammer and sickle represent the Communist party, moron.


No relevance to Anarchist bs

And your inane drivel has no relevance to Communism.

As a firm believer that the anarchist method to achieve communism is not the proper method, I find it even more pathetic that I have to deal with pricks like yourself "comrade" Ivan.

[ComradeChris]

You are very confused about the meaning of communism. this is not entirely shocking considering your very young age.

Actually more young people tend to drift towards communist thought. The older you get, the more settled you get in your current society. Communism is an ideology that has many different takes on it. Marxism just happened to be one of those takes. Like people are saying about fascism, you can't really "define" it. However, I find it easier to put a definition on fascism. Our current society seems to be very anti-communist, and therefore the definitions are all slanted.


To begin with son, once a society achieves communism, there is no such thing as a "state";

The dictionary seems to think there is. But that's primarily because all branches of "communism" we've seen have been totalitarian governments.


In addition, there is so bourgeois ideology of modern "law"; an idea you seem to be grasping onto as hard as you must grasp your placard of Lenin while you march up down mummy's garden

Laws are just collective morals. Communism would be a direct democracy where everyone should get a say. I wouldn't want to live in a lawless society, or like Comrade Ivan said, people could and probably would, go around murdering people.


Wrong. The hammer and sickle represent the Communist party, moron.

Actually, it was initially supposed to represent Soviet SOCIALISM. Marxist doctrine didn't take into account the backwardness of Russia, and it's primarily agricultural heritage. That's where Trotskyism comes in (that and going from a monarchy directly to socialism). That is why the Soviets chose it, to symbolize that farmers would be included into the Marxist-LENIN ideological state. It is only after they created it (in a socialist society I may add; not a communist one), that other parties began to use it to symbolize communism as you say.


And your inane drivel has no relevance to Communism.

As a firm believer that the anarchist method to achieve communism is not the proper method, I find it even more pathetic that I have to deal with pricks like yourself "comrade" Ivan.

I'm not aware as to what the anarchist method to achieving communism would be. If you could explain that that might help. Or maybe someone else could explain it?I don't particularly like the way you explain things; as I think is obvious. You might decide to hold my fucking hand again. :rolleyes:

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 12:20 AM
Communism is an ideology that has many different takes on it. Marxism just happened to be one of those takes. Like people are saying about fascism, you can't really "define" it. However, I find it easier to put a definition on fascism. Our current society seems to be very anti-communist, and therefore the definitions are all slanted.

:
There are different ways to acheive communism but communism is communism.

[ComradeIvan]

Wrong. The hammer and sickle represent the Communist party, moron.

Wow, Seems you didn't read my post one line further. Where I say it stands for the Workers and Peasants of the Soviet Union you moron.

[ComradeRed]

Wrong, the hammer and sickle represented the unity between the agriculture and industry, the proles in the fields and the factories(or at least, that was its original intent).


Wow, I just read some of that Anarchist stuff.
All sounds like a cheap rip off of Communism to me.
pathetic. But you then go on to say:
Communism does not equal Anarchism. So it is a cheap ripoff of what it isn't? :unsure:

Besides, Anarchism was there before communism. So how could it be a "rip off"?

[ComradeIvan]

I know WORKERS AND PEASANTS
AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRY
The top thing was supposed to be a quote from some other guy.

[Guest1]

No, peasants are not a part of the workers' revolution. Agricultural workers are completely different from peasants. One sells his labour in agricultural communities, and one either owns small means of production in the modern sense in developing countries, or is pretty much owned by his feudal lord and sells nothing. He trades living space and food in return for the upkeep of his lord's lands.

Regardless, the Communist party stands for Marxism, no matter what their method of acheiving it. Even Lenin said the end result was to be the whithering away of the state.


Communism does not equal Anarchism.
I was not attacking the classes state. But the lawless anarchist state.
You I can understand making this common mistake. There is no classless state, the state ceases to exist without classes. Thus there can't be laws. Marxism is the same, in end result, as Anarchism.


You find a fault with my statements? Also I would like to point out that one does not have to mention any idea of law, because society makes its own laws, or at least codes of conduct.
Again with the redefining of laws. Laws are codes of conduct institutionalized in the form of a system of laws under a state. Anarchism still has commonly understood rights and wrongs.


No, its entirley relevant, the nature of change is the decisive factor defining communism and anarchism.
I agree, but that is exactly why it is irrelevent. He never attacked the method, he attacked the end result. Which shows understandable ignorance on his part, and dangerous contempt for the political movments' histories on yours.


Sorry, but dont redefine anywords, I just use their real meanings, you know like it says in the dictionary, and not your pseudo leftist jargan.
This quote just further shows your inability to think beyond the bourgeois methods of sedation you have been a victim of. My point is, their real meanings are not defined by what the dictionary says. Much like Galileo's theories were not akin to paganism merely because the authorities at the time may have said so.

Pseudo-leftist indeed. Is it possible the bougie Liberal has so accepted his place amongst the forces of reaction and against those of progress, that he will now use what bourgeois society says about us as an argument?

What happened to this:


I said that is what what is commonly thought of as anarchy, and therefor anarchism, is the manifestation of a "The Anarchy" like society, I never said that it was correct.
We are quite aware of what bourgeois society says about both Marxists and Anarchists, thank you very much. But which one is it, are they wrong, or is what they say the "real" definition of our movements?

What you call "political jargon" is a rejection of Bushisms and ruling class lies. It is neither complicated nor is it based on anything more than political reality. Either you don't know anything about the workers' movement, or you choose to ignore it. Which makes me wonder which side of the barricades you'll be on.

[Hiero]

On the laws topic, if this so called "comrade" Ivan really is a Marxist then you would know that Laws are designed to stop conflict between classess (most crime involves privat property). So have a classess society would infact lead to a lawless society. But to keep order obviously there would be a set of combined morals of the masses. So if someone breaks into you house and kills everyone i think that people can work out and say that wrong and then trial you infront of a people's like court.

Take note that "Comrade" Ivan is most likely in that first commie phase. You know when you first declare yourself a commie and think the revolution is going to happening any minutem, and you just cant wait to tell everyone you a commie. Once "comrade Ivan" takes note of the working class then he will calm down.

[Invader Zim]

Laws are codes of conduct institutionalized in the form of a system of laws under a state.

False.

A law is a commonly held idea of how people should conduct them selves in society, in many cases it is a rule created by the state, but that does not mean all laws are like that, hence the reason the term “law”, goes beyond simply the legal spectrum. Indeed, laws can be just principals, which society adheres too. Or as you so eloquently put it: - "commonly understood rights and wrongs."

Ethical and moral codes... or laws.

This quote just further shows your inability to think beyond the bourgeois methods of sedation you have been a victim of.

No, this shows, I'm not taken in by the trendies and fakes, who make sweeping statements, in order to for fill their desire to spout meaningless rhetoric, and get it thourghly wrong, mainly because they fail to not only understand the history which lead to the creation of the word, or the actual understanding of what definition the word entails.

I quite agree, that the ruling class has a self interest to portrays ideas which attack their belief structure in a negative light. This includes altering the meaning and commonly held concept of words, as you noted with the example of communism now being synonymous with Stalin, as far as the general public are concerned. This however does not mean that 99% of the time the dictionary is not correct. But please do continue.

Is it possible the bougie Liberal has so accepted his place amongst the forces of reaction and against those of progress, that he will now use what bourgeois society says about us as an argument?

Considering everything I have been saying in this thread, that is a remarkably asinine comment.

What happened to this:

Are you trying to suggest that because I reject the improper use of terminology by trendies, that I must support a commonly held fallacy? Do tell me that i have made an error, and you really are not that illogical!

What you call "political jargon" is a rejection of Bushisms and ruling class lies.

No, it is an attempt by the ignorant, to appear more "in the know" than they are, by using words taken from old texts written by dead men, and employing them in improper situations. In a rather futile attempt to appear either trendy or smart.

Which makes me wonder which side of the barricades you'll be on.

Ahh yes, my rejection of childish use of terminology which is both wrongly used or outdated, means that I obviously must be a "class enemy" or a member of the "bourgeoisie" or perhaps I am an "émigré", or maybe next I will be a member of the “KKK”, I wait to see your arrogant and above all foolish inventions become more and more foolish as time goes on.

God, get over your self, you judgmental hypocrite.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 02:45 PM
You should also do a bit of reading into "Nihilism", because Nihilism is not a completely lawless basless society, at least no more than the ideas of anarchism held by most of this site. Indeed Nihilism is a revolutionary ideology based on materialism and achieved by terrorism, where people hold no regard for subjective ideals such as beauty, etc, or any political, social or religious authority if they stood in the way of "Freedom". Bakunin actually developed nihilistic thought, in opposition to Marx's ideals.
I think Nihilism has alot to offer anarchists in a philosophic sense. The rejection of subjectivity, the acceptence of meaninglessness. I think they serve to make anarchists appreciate anarchy alot more.

[Wiesty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 08:42 PM
Communism does not equal Anarchism.
I was not attacking the classes state. But the lawless anarchist state.
I used the most gruesome examples to try to get a point through.
The Sickle and Hammer does not stand for Anarchism you moron. It stands for the Soviet Union. The workers and peasants. No relevance to Anarchist bs.
right there moron
the hammer and sickel is not the cccp now, make up your mind
the cccp symbol is a hammer and sickel on a globe surronded by wheat or somtin a star on the top and a rising sun from the bottom.

make up your mind idiot

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 08:00 AM
Laws are codes of conduct institutionalized in the form of a system of laws under a state.

False.
This one could be language differences spanning an ocean. Here, law is understood to mean rules in the context of a legislative system. Whatever.

In our political and social science departments, we are taught that laws are codified taboos, morals and mores.


This quote just further shows your inability to think beyond the bourgeois methods of sedation you have been a victim of.

No, this shows, I'm not taken in by the trendies and fakes, who make sweeping statements, in order to for fill their desire to spout meaningless rhetoric, and get it thourghly wrong, mainly because they fail to not only understand the history which lead to the creation of the word, or the actual understanding of what definition the word entails.
Oh? You mean to say that all those 12 year old skater boys wearing the social movement as a fashion statement are not trendies? Wow... alright then, since those are real social activists, I concede, and take your definition and theirs. :lol:


I quite agree, that the ruling class has a self interest to portrays ideas which attack their belief structure in a negative light. This includes altering the meaning and commonly held concept of words, as you noted with the example of communism now being synonymous with Stalin, as far as the general public are concerned. This however does not mean that 99% of the time the dictionary is not correct. But please do continue.
99%? No my boy, the political distortions which are almost total take up a much smaller portion of the dictionary. Of course you probably already know this, since you make it your business to propagate them.


Is it possible the bougie Liberal has so accepted his place amongst the forces of reaction and against those of progress, that he will now use what bourgeois society says about us as an argument?

Considering everything I have been saying in this thread, that is a remarkably asinine comment.
Whatever you say :D


What happened to this:

Are you trying to suggest that because I reject the improper use of terminology by trendies, that I must support a commonly held fallacy? Do tell me that i have made an error, and you really are not that illogical!
You snipe and hide. One minute implying the real definition of Anarchism is chaos and murder and that we are deluding everyone for implying otherwise, the next saying you do not accept the distortions of the ruling class.

Which is it bougie?


What you call "political jargon" is a rejection of Bushisms and ruling class lies.

No, it is an attempt by the ignorant, to appear more "in the know" than they are, by using words taken from old texts written by dead men, and employing them in improper situations. In a rather futile attempt to appear either trendy or smart.
Anarchism defined differently than your ruling class interpretation of it as chaos is a word used improperly? :blink:


Which makes me wonder which side of the barricades you'll be on.

Ahh yes, my rejection of childish use of terminology which is both wrongly used or outdated, means that I obviously must be a "class enemy" or a member of the "bourgeoisie" or perhaps I am an "émigré", or maybe next I will be a member of the “KKK”, I wait to see your arrogant and above all foolish inventions become more and more foolish as time goes on.

God, get over your self, you judgmental hypocrite.
I certainly am judgemental when it comes to ruling class lies. Once again, how is defining Anarchism as the historical Anarchist movement up to today defines it outdated? Isn't your definition the one that is outdated considering you tied it to the English civil war?

I never said you were a class enemy, I merely think you spend an awful lot of time redefining the terms of major issues in favour of the ruling class. From Liberalism, to Anarchism, you always seem to be quite determined to see ruling class definitions replace radical analysis. When we disagree, we are "trendies" and "fakes" "inventing" definitions.

What is this game? <_<

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 03:48 AM
Besides, Anarchism was there before communism. So how could it be a "rip off"?
Wasn&#39;t there primitive communism back when man first existed in nomadic tribes. Maybe it resembled a bit of both Anarchy and Communism. Because they only took from the land what they needed to survive, so really they had no possessions. However, I&#39;m sure they had a leader of some sort.

As to all this law debate: laws are collective morals. However, there are always outliers, which some people like to ignore (I won&#39;t list any names of the people who ignore outliers, I&#39;ve done that enough). Without written laws those "psychopaths," as I like to call them, would have no deterent from committing heinous acts. You need written deterrents, or I agree with ComradeIvan, people would and could go around killing people for more power.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Sounds like Detroit&#33; :lol:


Sadly you hit that one on the head perfectly...

detroit is a sad fucking city and i hate my damn state&#33;

[Invader Zim]

Alright che y i&#39;m going to reply to anything you say of value...

One minute implying the real definition of Anarchism is chaos and murder and that we are deluding everyone for implying otherwise,

A lie, I never said anyshuch thing, I attempted to explain why a common misconception among the public exists. I never said that misconception was accurate to the reality of the modern political spectrum.

Isn&#39;t your definition the one that is outdated considering you tied it to the English civil war?


I never tied anarchism to anything.

I merely think you spend an awful lot of time redefining the terms of major issues in favour of the ruling class.

Thankfully what you think is both asinine and more importantly irrelevant.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Communism is an ideology that has many different takes on it. Marxism just happened to be one of those takes.

Only to the bougeoisie.

In the real world, there is ony one definition of Communism and that is all there will ever be.

Sure, it&#39;s possible for someone like yourself to be confused about what communism actually is; just look at young Ivan here.

You may practise what you think is Communism however you will be mistaken.


The dictionary seems to think there is. But that&#39;s primarily because all branches of "communism" we&#39;ve seen have been totalitarian governments.



:lol:

You sound like a broken record.

You have no idea what communism is do you?


Laws are just collective morals. Communism would be a direct democracy where everyone should get a say. I wouldn&#39;t want to live in a lawless society, or like Comrade Ivan said, people could and probably would, go around murdering people.




Who said there would not be any "laws"?

Perhaps you should review my statement again as you seem to be confused.


Actually, it was initially supposed to represent Soviet SOCIALISM. Marxist doctrine didn&#39;t take into account the backwardness of Russia, and it&#39;s primarily agricultural heritage. That&#39;s where Trotskyism comes in (that and going from a monarchy directly to socialism). That is why the Soviets chose it, to symbolize that farmers would be included into the Marxist-LENIN ideological state. It is only after they created it (in a socialist society I may add; not a communist one), that other parties began to use it to symbolize communism as you say.




Your adolescent grievence towards me has led you to become even more confused in an attempt to "show me up".

Once again son, the symbol represents the Communist Party, which practises what is called "socialism".

The remaining portion of this post is simple babble.


I&#39;m not aware as to what the anarchist method to achieving communism would be. If you could explain that that might help. Or maybe someone else could explain it?I don&#39;t particularly like the way you explain things; as I think is obvious. You might decide to hold my fucking hand again

Try "Anarchism of Dummies".

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

In the real world, there is ony one definition of Communism and that is all there will ever be.

Let me add, paraphrasing someone famous (Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx)? Sartre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre)?); to wit: future communist society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) is a &#39;horizon&#39; for us -- beyond which we cannot see, from inside bourgeois society. Until we reach that august and civilized state of human existence, we will not be able to envision any other possibility for human existence.

Hell, I certainly can&#39;t conceive of any other possibility&#33; Sheer impossible fantasy, maybe (no wonder bourgeois society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie) immerses itself in this stuff. Anything but the prospect of its own extinction. No wonder the religiosity of its followers...)


As Porky Pig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porky_Pig) would say, "Th&#39;-th&#39;-th&#39;-th&#39;-th&#39;-th&#39;-that&#39;s All, Folks&#33;"

[captain anarchy]

as a world of anarchy may be a world of chaos i like the veiw of anarchy for one reason that reason is in anarchy everyone is the same as everyone else no one has power over anyone unless someone forfits their power over them self. and it can be peaceful it just takes effort and as we all know people in power abuse their power so no one over any one is true freedom.

[Hiero]

Communism is an ideology that has many different takes on it. Marxism just happened to be one of those takes.

People who normally say are people who a would-be communist. Like people back in the 1800 and star to 1900 who Lenin called Would-be marxist. These people dont agree with commmunism are different but in some ares similiar to communist. Yet they want to be known as communist so they say thing&#39;s like that, just like the idealist, Social democrats, agnostic and theist.

[LSD]

as a world of anarchy may be a world of chaos i like the veiw of anarchy.

I&#39;m afraid you may have misinterpreted Anarchism as well.

The point wsa that anarchism does not promote chaos. Nobody wants chaos.

As had been reiterated several times, anarchism merely seeks to create communist society without the "transitional stage" of Leninism and classical Marxism.

This does not mean no society, it certainly does not mean"chaos".


and it can be peaceful it just takes effort and as we all know people in power abuse their power so no one over any one is true freedom.

Indeed.

We may actually be agreeing with each other, but the "anarchy [is] chaos" line thre me.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:55 AM
Anarchism is just complete bullshit,
have you ever lived under an Anarchist society?

It sounds like a pointless attack


and any Anarchist who lived in an Anarchist society would very quickly begin to realize how shitty it is.

You can&#39;t prove it, you just resort to ridicoulous insults.


Think about how cool this is all you anarchist freaks.

More personal attacks directed against a group of people you don&#39;t even know personally (unless you know every single anarchist which I doubt)


I come into your house at night, round up your whole family shoot them in front of your eyes while a group of my buddies tie you down and steal all your shit. After words we slit your throat and leave you there to die.

I emphasized the most important things of this part of the message.
You&#39;re just lovely :lol: :lol: :rolleyes:


WHOA&#33; SOUNDS PRETTY DAMN COOL HUH?

Blah blah blah.


Then the real bullshit begins.

That of course if your previous dreams of entering my house and stealing and shooting my family and killing me do not count as "real bullshit".
You need to seek professional help.


Groups that have lots of cash

We&#39;re not anarcho-cappies.


and have lots of people with them (like a gang or something) buys up a bunch of guns and various other arms.

You mean, like you and your rich friends? In an Anarchist society?????


They come into a town take the whole town over and make the whole town work for them.

Because people will be so stupid as to say one day "hey, lets make our country anarchist and destroy the state and not protect us&#33; We&#39;re actually so stupid that we wont even try to have guns to initiate the revolution&#33; And not only that, we will leave the rich bastards with their money so that they can hire some mercenaries or even come and enslave us by themselves&#33; And not only that, but we wont fight back&#33; And in fact, they wont restorew capitalism but all of a sudden we will be back in a slave society or maybe a monarchy&#33; We won&#39;t even try to organize, since we are soooooo stupid&#33;"


This happens all over the Anarchist territory and what you have is a bunch of little states run by blood thirtsy, money hungry people where there is just war all the time between them for more money.

Like it used to be...what you miss out is that people have realized many things and wont come back to such an ancient system.


Wow, Would be real awesome to have your city destroyed by gang fights every day, your neighbors killed, your stuff and house used by the gang during the way therefore also being destroyed eventually. You and your own family probaly being forced to fight or work for the gang under the threat of death if you didnt obey.

I noticed you claim that THAT would be the actual Anarchist society, when in fact that&#39;s the opposite of it and you think it&#39;s inevitable that it will become a good old dictatorship.
In fact this kind of things happen in many places, and they don&#39;t live in an anarchist society.


All you anarchists should really think about what it would really be like before saying it is so great.

You&#39;ve described a fascistic dictatorship actually.


Wow, I just read some of that Anarchist stuff.
All sounds like a cheap rip off of Communism to me.
pathetic.

What do you mean with "Communism"? Marxism? Rip off? Rip off of what exactly? You mean like Proudhon is a rip off of Marx??

[Invader Zim]

have you ever lived under an Anarchist society?

I assume that you attack Nazism. But have you lived in a Nazi society?

You&#39;ve described a fascistic dictatorship actually.

Not really, fascists usually attempt to enforce very strigent laws, what he describes is simply the break down of a capitalist society, under the false impression that is what anarchism is.

[ComradeIvan]

So the money can be taken away from some people. But that doesn&#39;t mean people still can&#39;t get access to weapons and mercs and money.
A group of friends or a gang that lived the pathetic anarchist revolution could easily start dealing drugs, arms, or many other differents things to make money. Its called Gangs and Mafias. It happens and it will happen under an anarchist society as well. What I described is very well what could happen under a lame anarchist society.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 02:17 AM
So the money can be taken away from some people. But that doesn&#39;t mean people still can&#39;t get access to weapons and mercs and money.
A group of friends or a gang that lived the pathetic anarchist revolution could easily start dealing drugs, arms, or many other differents things to make money. Its called Gangs and Mafias. It happens and it will happen under an anarchist society as well. What I described is very well what could happen under a lame anarchist society.
Yes&#33;

We must eradicate the puny anarchists&#33;

We will force them to grovel at the feet of the true "peace loving" leaders of the world&#33;

(in other words, me)

I&#39;ve always wanted a house boy to carry around the train of my glorious red cape of the people.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 01:17 PM
A group of friends or a gang that lived the pathetic anarchist revolution could easily start dealing drugs, arms, or many other differents things to make money. Its called Gangs and Mafias. It happens and it will happen under an anarchist society as well. What I described is very well what could happen under a lame anarchist society.
Let us look at why your latest hypothetical scenario is flawed, ComradeIvan.

Drugs would be legitimately made for personal use (as long as people don&#39;t drive and work under the influence these drugs, I suspect), most likely both privately and publicly. Why, oh why, would gangs want to deal with drugs if people can already access them from their friends and local storehouse? In other words, there is no money to be made by mafias and gangs.

With arms, I would imagine that there would be a careful process in which to protect the production and access of arms. Of course, there would very well be some leftover guns from years dating back in the hands of reactionaries. And, would this be a terrific problem? It would be suicide for them to try anything to harm the safety of the citizens of a stable anarchist society (remember, anarchist societies can only function with the support of the people), who would be well-protected and well-placed to capture and trial those who harm any other human being.

[Guest1]

Not to mention that you can&#39;t hire a merc with little slips of paper that no one uses anymore. They&#39;re not gonna die for a suitcase full of green paper that is worthless, especially not if they can get all they need for free. In otherwords, big armies that can actually do much harm are just not plausible.

In the absence of money, you actually have to convince people to die for you.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 10:48 PM
I assume that you attack Nazism. But have you lived in a Nazi society?
That&#39;s not comparable. There is much literature, photographs, eye witness accounts, testimonies and endless evidence to prove and validate an attack on it&#39;s principles and consequences.

There is also evidence to support that anarchism is not bullshit, and in fact it works. However, people haven&#39;t read it, bury it or ignore it, and in this case the only logic or rationale that will get comradeivan to see how misguided he is, is by posing this kind of question.

He hasn&#39;t lived in an anarchist society, just like me and just like El, but the difference is, we have taken the time to learn about it, looked at the evidence and made logical conclusions about it. ComradeIvan on the other hand has never read anything about anarchism, so he is not qualified to attack it.


Not really, fascists usually attempt to enforce very strigent laws, what he describes is simply the break down of a capitalist society, under the false impression that is what anarchism is.

What are you trying to prove or defend with ComradeIvan?

[Invader Zim]

That&#39;s not comparable.

Its entirley comparable, in both cases we only have the testomony of capitalist society and historians, to make a judgment of they&#39;re worth.

There is also evidence to support that anarchism is not bullshit,

Where? To my, admittedly limited, understanding of Anarchist history, only twice has a major experiment been attempted. Both failed, the Spanish civil war because anarchism was betrayed, and in the Paris Commune, which was externally attacked. Neither lasted nearly long enough to create a realistic experiment. Perhaps other examples exist, but I am not aware of them.

ComradeIvan on the other hand has never read anything about anarchism, so he is not qualified to attack it.

I quite agree, my problem in this thread is not that he made inaccurate comments, but how other members reacted to them.

What are you trying to prove or defend with ComradeIvan?

Neither.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 09:56 AM
That&#39;s not comparable.

Its entirley comparable, in both cases we only have the testomony of capitalist society and historians, to make a judgment of they&#39;re worth.
Not true, George Orwell gives a pretty good idea of what Anarchist Spain looked like, and there&#39;s alot of Communists who can verify the shit that went on in Germany. It is you who chooses to only refer to Capitalism&#39;s "ministries of truth".


There is also evidence to support that anarchism is not bullshit,

Where? To my, admittedly limited, understanding of Anarchist history, only twice has a major experiment been attempted. Both failed, the Spanish civil war because anarchism was betrayed, and in the Paris Commune, which was externally attacked. Neither lasted nearly long enough to create a realistic experiment. Perhaps other examples exist, but I am not aware of them.
Actually, Spain should have fallen to the Fascists within 12 hours of franco&#39;s coup. Thanks to the Anarchist unions, the coup was crushed that day, and the civil war began. It lasted four years, during which time the entire country should have collapsed and the conomy should have gone to shit according to Capitalist "common sense", as the government completely disappeared early on.

Instead, production and efficiency when up in the areas that were collecivized, which were very big. The only reason it failed, was they eventually cut a deal with the Stalinists and Capitalists to dismantle it in favour of a common front.

Four years was enough to prove it could sustain itself though.


ComradeIvan on the other hand has never read anything about anarchism, so he is not qualified to attack it.

I quite agree, my problem in this thread is not that he made inaccurate comments, but how other members reacted to them.
Some people did overreact, but at least they&#39;re trying to counter lies and reactionary notions. You don&#39;t even oppose these ideas a tiny bit?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 9 2004, 01:36 PM

People who normally say are people who a would-be communist. Like people back in the 1800 and star to 1900 who Lenin called Would-be marxist. These people dont agree with commmunism are different but in some ares similiar to communist. Yet they want to be known as communist so they say thing&#39;s like that, just like the idealist, Social democrats, agnostic and theist.
I&#39;m a little lost as to what you&#39;re saying. I think your writting contains too many typos to get a clear idea of what your rebuttal is. But here&#39;s what I assume you&#39;re trying to tell me: that I&#39;m a "would-be" communist? Who ever said I was a communist? I&#39;m definately leftist, yes. I don&#39;t think I ever said I was a communist; and if I did, well to be quite honest, I probably was at the time, but my views are constantly changing. If you&#39;ve ever been to politicalcompass.org, I only scored like -8. A few months ago I scored -6.? (I can&#39;t remember the exact decimal, it was in the -6&#39;s). So I&#39;m slowly changing my stance. But people on this forum make me wonder why bother. I mean people demean me for my opinions here; when the topics we&#39;re arguing on are still very much in the air (ie. human nature, animals with feelings, this thread). What a great society that would be if we were communist, and people still think they&#39;re better than one another. Wait, wouldn&#39;t that be a hierarchy? I don&#39;t know about you, but I think Marxism tries to dsregard that form of hegemony. But, I&#39;m not going to sit and explain my thought process, that would be an ongoing process and would, hence, never end. But, maybe I misunderstood, your practically incomprehensible posting. If I did, please inform me.

[ComradeChris]

Only to the bougeoisie.

In the real world, there is ony one definition of Communism and that is all there will ever be.

Sure, it&#39;s possible for someone like yourself to be confused about what communism actually is; just look at young Ivan here.

You may practise what you think is Communism however you will be mistaken.

I&#39;m not practicing anything except capitalism for the time being. Quite frankly, I&#39;m more of a primitivist. I think I wouldn&#39;t have minded the Khmer Rouge that much. I think it would be pretty neat to live in a nomadic tribe/group/commune (whatever word you want to tag onto it). Scientists are creating more ways of destruction, then they are of preserving life. It&#39;s only a matter of time before we all die anyway. I believe that modern society, primarily politics (this forum included), just adds unneeded stress upon an aready frigile balance of life. That&#39;s my belief, go to town on that all you want, I really couldn&#39;t give a rat&#39;s (rat could also be replaced with a few people on this forum) ass.


You sound like a broken record.

You have no idea what communism is do you?

Why would you say that? Marx believed that there had to be a middle stage called socialism before communism was reached. It is people who believe in the anarchist way of achieving communism that aren&#39;t obviously true communists, since people are inclined to believe that Marxism is the only communism.

And why do I sound like a broken record. Hell, I&#39;ve only ever listened to one record. Steve Martin: funny, funny man. Did you listen to records in your youth?


Who said there would not be any "laws"?

Perhaps you should review my statement again as you seem to be confused.

It doesn&#39;t seem to imply that any laws would exist. How do you plan on detering psychopaths without organized enforcement from a STATE? Oh wait; nevermind. You&#39;re the person who ignores outliers. :rolleyes:



Your adolescent grievence towards me has led you to become even more confused in an attempt to "show me up".

Once again son, the symbol represents the Communist Party, which practises what is called "socialism".

The remaining portion of this post is simple babble.

I&#39;m not trying to show you up. Only to show you for the power-mongering idiot you are. You try to enforce beliefs on people that aren&#39;t even truths yet. And in the process ignore definitions. But whatever, choose your hegemony.

You&#39;ve called a lot of my postings babble and the sort. And you say I&#39;m a broken record??

I don&#39;t think that the Russians changed their name to The Union of Soviet Communist Republic. Correct me if I&#39;m wrong. The Hammer and Sickle was first implemented to symbolize SOCIALISM.



Try "Anarchism of Dummies".

Who&#39;s it by?

[Vinny Rafarino]

If only I had ignored you longer....



I&#39;m more of a primitivist. I think I wouldn&#39;t have minded the Khmer Rouge that much.

:lol:

We&#39;re done.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 12 2004, 03:45 AM
If only I had ignored you longer....




:lol:

We&#39;re done.
You didn&#39;t ignore me. You were on me like a dog in heat. I only talked to you to refute your belief forcing system. Other then that, I hope if we ever meet in person, one of us is at the other end of a gun to end that horrible situation. It doesn&#39;t matter if it&#39;s your or me. After meeting you, suicide is all I&#39;d think about.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 11 2004, 09:56 PM
Not true, George Orwell gives a pretty good idea of what Anarchist Spain looked like, and there&#39;s alot of Communists who can verify the shit that went on in Germany. It is you who chooses to only refer to Capitalism&#39;s "ministries of truth".


Actually, Spain should have fallen to the Fascists within 12 hours of franco&#39;s coup. Thanks to the Anarchist unions, the coup was crushed that day, and the civil war began. It lasted four years, during which time the entire country should have collapsed and the conomy should have gone to shit according to Capitalist "common sense", as the government completely disappeared early on.

Instead, production and efficiency when up in the areas that were collecivized, which were very big. The only reason it failed, was they eventually cut a deal with the Stalinists and Capitalists to dismantle it in favour of a common front.

Four years was enough to prove it could sustain itself though.


Some people did overreact, but at least they&#39;re trying to counter lies and reactionary notions. You don&#39;t even oppose these ideas a tiny bit?
Not true, George Orwell gives a pretty good idea of what Anarchist Spain looked like

Not that agree with them, but many on this site claim that Orwell is a reactionary.


It lasted four years, during which time the entire country should have collapsed and the economy should have gone to shit according to Capitalist "common sense",

During a civil war, you cannot hope to use Spain’s economy as an example of success even at a very local level, because firstly the economy did collapse, despite your statement. However how far that can be attributed to the blockades inflicted by Franco&#39;s forces and other fascist nations, rather than poor economic management on the part of the Republican movement.

Instead, production and efficiency when up in the areas that were collecivized, which were very big.

Of course it did, do you even know what system was in place before the civil war? Many of the peasants were unemployed for half the year, so increasing efficiency and production is not really saying much. No, the real test is to compare the collectives efficiency and output with other area&#39;s and nations of the day. With the economic and political situation in Spain and the rest of Europe, you cannot hope to make a fair test, the anarchists are at a huge disadvantage.

Four years was enough to prove it could sustain itself though.

They didn&#39;t exist for four years, the civil war period in which the collectives existed was not in place until the war had begun, though some small rural communities collectives were already in place. The vast collectivisation areas in non-fascist held area&#39;s involving millions of people, did however only take place during the war years... Which didn&#39;t even last four years, indeed just over 3 years. The actual collectivisation only was in place for 2 years though, on any kind of mass scale.


I now have access to one of the largest libraries in Europe, so I promise to do some more reading, and let you know my opinion on the subject then.

Some people did overreact,

The first sensible thing you have said all thread, well done.

but at least they&#39;re trying to counter lies and reactionary notions.

Indeed, and in some cases with success, others however, are creating lies of their own.... not that I would want to name any names. <_<

You don&#39;t even oppose these ideas a tiny bit?

Apart from the fact that the original attack was an attack on neither, rather a common misinterpretation, which could have been corrected without attack.


Precisely, what you must do is calmly explain the common mistake, and try and educate the person... not have a hissy fit.

Maybe in your warped mind, because I never implied any such thing.

Not so. The majority of the Anarchist movement is one of building a real society, by default.

I don’t doubt it.

I said that is what is commonly thought of as anarchy, and therefore anarchism, is the manifestation of a "The Anarchy" like society, I never said that it was correct.

Are you trying to suggest that because I reject the improper use of terminology by trendies, that I must support a commonly held fallacy?

I attempted to explain why a common misconception among the public exists. I never said that misconception was accurate to the reality of the modern political spectrum.


I never tied anarchism to anything.

Are you still under the impression that I agree with the misconceptions of anarchist society? I realise that you are clearly not on top form at the moment, but to have ignored all of the above makes me think your taking the piss.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 03:56 PM
There is also evidence to support that anarchism is not bullshit,

Where? To my, admittedly limited, understanding of Anarchist history, only twice has a major experiment been attempted. Both failed, the Spanish civil war because anarchism was betrayed, and in the Paris Commune, which was externally attacked. Neither lasted nearly long enough to create a realistic experiment. Perhaps other examples exist, but I am not aware of them.

Apart from Fascism, Anarchism is the only political theory that has been applied in practice and worked according to it&#39;s principles, and worked well. Like CyM said, in many parts of Spain production actually increased. All workplaces etc were collectivised, including the Barcelona phone exchange that was being operated by C.N.T workers, and which was later attacked in 1937 by communists who wanted to "take control of certain anarchist industries." Orwell describes Barcelona in 1936:


It was the first time I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists...Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen. Every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized...There were no private motor cars, they had all been commandeered, and all the trams and taxis and much of the other transport were painted red and black. The revolutionary posters were everywhere, flaming from the walls in clean reds and blues...In outward appearance it was a town in which the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist

Taken from an Essay by Russell Bither-Terry


CNT committees administered local areas, vested with legislative, executive and judicial powers. The committee in an area took over the distribution of food and clothing. In order to prevent the committee from gaining too much power villagers replaced committee members frequently. In addition to the land, rural Spaniards collectivized many other enterprises. "Except in rare cases, barbers, bakers, carpenters, sandal-makers, doctors, dentists, teachers, blacksmiths, and tailors also came under the collective system." In place of money many communes instituted coupons which could be exchanged for those goods that were in limited quantity. The amount for which a coupon could be exchanged depended on the size of the worker&#39;s family. In Alcora, workers had to get a card punched each day at work. The card was necessary to receive coupons, ensuring that all would contribute.

Now CyM said that the collectives failed because "they eventually cut a deal with the Stalinists and Capitalists to dismantle it in favour of a common front." I don&#39;t buy that.

The Communists and anarchists alike needed aide, that was a fact, and the onloy place to get it was Soviet Russia.


Soviet military aid was not without a cost, however. In return the Republic had to submit to the Soviet agenda: "the communists managed to exercise a great deal of power and influence because of the republicans&#39; overwhelming dependence on Soviet aid.59" Russia&#39;s control maintained control of the arms even after their delivery.60 The Soviets used their control of arms to empower those who sought to reverse the changes of the revolution and weaken those who wished to continue in a revolutionary direction.

The authotarians feared loosing control and so used their Soviet influence to assert their control...


The Communists, dominant largely because of Soviet policy, reversed the changes which the anarchists had instituted. From October 1936 to May 1937 the republic moved control of industry from workers&#39; committees to the state. It also worked for a conventional army in place of the militias. The Communists continued to support private property. Minister of Agriculture Vicente Uribe, a Stalinist, "made a speech directed to the individualist small proprietors, declaring that the guns of the Communist Party and the government were at their disposal."

There are many essays with eye witness accounts and backed up references about what happened in Spain. Spain was a success in anarchist terms, but it could not defend itself against the increased support of the authotarians and their agenda to undermine what the anarchists had achieved, ultimatly allowing the fascists to get the upper hand.

Quotes taken from...

&#39;Anarchism in Spain&#39; (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/inter_pol.html)

and

&#39;Homage to Catalonia&#39; (http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/)

Another interesting essay...

&#39;Remembering Spain&#39; (http://www.cat.org.au/a4a/spain.html)

Other contemporary examples are the Anti-capitalist movement and Dissent. Both of which organise massive scale direct action and local campaigns using anarchist principles.

[Subversive Pessimist]

I would like to recommend Does revolutionary Spain show that libertarian socialism can work in practice? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI8.html)

[Invader Zim]

Apart from Fascism, Anarchism is the only political theory that has been applied in practice and worked according to it&#39;s principles, and worked well.

Well obviously not well enough, because it wasn&#39;t strong enough to survive the pressures put upon it. Hense the reason I think it should be given more time.


The Communists and anarchists alike needed aide, that was a fact, and the onloy place to get it was Soviet Russia.

Well that suggests that they were not self-sufficent enough to survive.

Spain was a success in anarchist terms, but it could not defend itself against the increased support of the authotarians and their agenda to undermine what the anarchists had achieved, ultimatly allowing the fascists to get the upper hand.

Then how can you view it as any kind of success? They lost, that has to be a reflection on the society.

Quotes taken from...

&#39;Anarchism in Spain&#39;

A good artical.

Have you read: -

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws99/ws56_spain.html

I think it gives excelent insight into how life worked. I also think it shows that Anarchism could never work indefinatly, it is very centered around rural communites, with little provision for the considerably larger cities of today. It is for example a fact that the UK can not support its own population and that only produces around 60% of its own food. The rest is imported, if the UK were to turn anarchist and operate in the same manner, where would we get the other 40% from?

Unless you suggest world revolution... I could see that working.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 03:55 PM
Well obviously not well enough, because it wasn&#39;t strong enough to survive the pressures put upon it. Hense the reason I think it should be given more time.
What do you mean "given more time." The anarchists did as well as they could, it is not a refutation of the theory.

Nobody in that situation could have achieved anything more, especially when your so called allies are being equipped by an entire country and using that equipment to crush you. I say again, it is not a refutation of the theory.


Well that suggests that they were not self-sufficent enough to survive.

No one in that situation could have been as self-sufficent as the anarchists were, and it isn&#39;t a refutation of the theory just because the anarchists did not have entire nations helping them.


Then how can you view it as any kind of success? They lost, that has to be a reflection on the society.

No, it&#39;s a question of guns, they had more&#33; I view it as a success because the theory worked. It was applied, at it worked. The arguments about human nature, the idea that things can&#39;t be done without leaders was proven wrong.

Regardless of that, the communists lost anyway.


it is very centered around rural communites, with little provision for the considerably larger cities of today.

Barcelona was a very large city, and they managed to do ok there?


The rest is imported, if the UK were to turn anarchist and operate in the same manner, where would we get the other 40% from?

Maybe we wouldn&#39;t? Maybe we would have to create new forms of food manafacturing, maybe we would simply have to go without certain things?


Unless you suggest world revolution... I could see that working.

World revolution [or revolution in the west] is of course preferable and I believe possible, at least if the conditions are right.

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

Wow, Would be real awesome to have your city destroyed by gang fights every day, your neighbors killed, your stuff and house used by the gang during the way therefore also being destroyed eventually. You and your own family probaly being forced to fight or work for the gang under the threat of death if you didnt obey.
This guy has watched WAY too many Mad Max (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max) movies.
Alex and his droogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange) need some beddy-bye moloko...

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

Wrong. The hammer and sickle represent the Communist party, moron.
Actually, the hammer and sickle (crossed) represented the union of the workers and the peasants in the soviet state. Note the past tense.

And I guess I should add that it&#39;s actually ludicrous for parties and individuals to be proudly brandishing today this still potent symbol of another period and another struggle.

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

You I can understand making this common mistake. There is no classless state, the state ceases to exist without classes.
One of the most annoying things about language and polemic is that people often come to loggerheads over a word which means something different to each side. I think state means the usual two things here: State as a political entity of class rule, and &#39;state&#39; as a &#39;state of affairs&#39; or &#39;state of being&#39;...
I think someone might disagree, but I would say they&#39;re just confused.

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 10 2004, 02:12 PM
Not to mention that you can&#39;t hire a merc with little slips of paper that no one uses anymore. They&#39;re not gonna die for a suitcase full of green paper that is worthless, especially not if they can get all they need for free. In otherwords, big armies that can actually do much harm are just not plausible.

In the absence of money, you actually have to convince people to die for you.
This is kind of a bumsteer, because following the narrow logic of this shitty thread, the point was that you could offer something to mercenaries to get them to rape and pillage alongside you -- women, drugs, souped-up cars...
Land, even. No problem scaring up marauders in a Mad Max world.

Of course, a stateless society implies a classless society -- which is classless because there is no need to rape and pillage: because there is no scarcity.
This situation is just plain impossible in a stateless society -- which is, BTW, the true failing of the logic of Anarchism: because we will require a state for quite some time after the Revolution...

It is such a shame that capitalist society is still producing so many "ComradeIvans".
I blame the Soc-Dems, myself.
;P

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 07:47 AM
Indeed, and in some cases with success, others however, are creating lies of their own.... not that I would want to name any names. <_<
We have already established that you are creating no new lies, they are all old tried and true bourgeois lies.


Sorry, but dont redefine anywords, I just use their real meanings, you know like it says in the dictionary, and not your pseudo leftist jargan.

No, this shows, I&#39;m not taken in by the trendies and fakes, who make sweeping statements, in order to for fill their desire to spout meaningless rhetoric, and get it thourghly wrong, mainly because they fail to not only understand the history which lead to the creation of the word, or the actual understanding of what definition the word entails.

No, it is an attempt by the ignorant, to appear more "in the know" than they are, by using words taken from old texts written by dead men, and employing them in improper situations. In a rather futile attempt to appear either trendy or smart.

The actual term anarchy was used to describe the lawless society during the English civil war, to be more exact it was called "The Anarchy". It suggests the break down of government and of law and order.

The society commonly thought of as "anarchy" is the one which subscribes to "The Anarchy". As such his statements were completely valid, his only mistake was a misunderstanding of what you consider to be anarchism.
Does than not seem to you to be a hostile defense of his reactionary ideas, and an implication that we had a "special" definition we used amongst ourselves, political jargon that we invented, whereas the real meaning is what he was referring to?

It does to me. Trendies eh? Just cause we understand political definitions beyond just dictionary meanings?

Then we&#39;ll go on to where you attempt to redefine what he actually said. This was what I said, that it is irrelevant how we achieve classless stateless society, his attack was on classless stateless society period. Thus it was rediculous to raise up that they were different in method in this thread. Again, what I said:


The term "Comrade", and the workers flag are not exclusive to anarchist ideologies, if you think your so smart as to attack others then you should really get it right.

No, but his attacks were aimed at the ideas of stateless society, which is what the workers&#39; movement is about, be it Marxist or Anarchist. He claims to be a Marxist, thus his hypocracy is obvious.

Comunism doesnt = anarchism. Not by any stretch, the ideal end society work on very similar principals, its true and they are almost indistinguishable, but the method of achieving this aim is completely different, indeed Anarchists have totally different logic and ideals to communists.

You yourself just said they are indistinguishable. The method of achieving the society is entirely irrelevant to this debate, which is a debate on whether any form of stateless society can ever function. Thus in this debate, it can indeed be said that an attack on Anarchism in the manner shown above, is an attack on Marxism as well. The argument made was that society must always mean the subjugation of human by human, at the risk of chaos and murder. Which is obviously rejected by both Anarchists, and Marxists. But obviously not bougie Liberals...

Your response follows:


You yourself just said they are indistinguishable.

Indeed, but method is entirley different.

The method of achieving the society is entirely irrelevant to this debate,

No, its entirley relevant, the nature of change is the decisive factor defining communism and anarchism.

it can indeed be said that an attack on Anarchism in the manner shown above, is an attack on Marxism as well.

Apart from the fact that the origional attack was an attack on niether, rather a common misinterpritation, which could have been corrected without attack.
How the hell did we go from someone attacking Anarchism&#39;s lack of rulers and regular police forces to the difference between Anarchist and Marxist methods of arriving at classless society? By your slithering of course.

I&#39;m getting tired of this, bougie. My head hurts.

Do Anarchism and Marxism result in the same end society? If so, does criticising the end result of Anarchism mean criticising the end result of Marxism? If so, does it become, as someone here said, hypocritical to call yourself a Marxist?

Do you admit that our definition of Anarchism, opposed to the definition most people are used to and the definition in the dictionary because it defines common usage, is the correct political definition? In otherwords, our definitions aren&#39;t those of "trendies"? :lol:

Answer these questions, and then we&#39;ll be done here. This whole thread you&#39;ve been alternating between reactionary positions and confused ones on them. Likely to get a rise out of the radicals here.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 14 2004, 12:15 AM
Do Anarchism and Marxism result in the same end society? If so, does criticising the end result of Anarchism mean criticising the end result of Marxism? If so, does it become, as someone here said, hypocritical to call yourself a Marxist?

Do you admit that our definition of Anarchism, opposed to the definition most people are used to and the definition in the dictionary because it defines common usage, is the correct political definition? In otherwords, our definitions aren&#39;t those of "trendies"? :lol:

Answer these questions, and then we&#39;ll be done here. This whole thread you&#39;ve been alternating between reactionary positions and confused ones on them. Likely to get a rise out of the radicals here.
Those questions were meant to be answered. Or are the answers uncomfortable? :huh:

[Invader Zim]

We have already established that you are creating no new lies, they are all old tried and true bourgeois lies.


you haven&#39;t established anything, except that you find it tricky to understand plain English.

Ohh and well done you can quote me, with out disproving anything I have said, quite the reverse in fact. You have done more for my argument in this thread, than I can have ever hoped for. :rolleyes:

It does to me. Trendies eh? Just cause we understand political definitions beyond just dictionary meanings?

Don&#39;t kid your self, you dont understand anything.

Do you admit that our definition of Anarchism, opposed to the definition most people are used to and the definition in the dictionary because it defines common usage, is the correct political definition? In otherwords, our definitions aren&#39;t those of "trendies"?

No, because your version is in the dictionary, at least in part.

The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.


Give it up che y, your caught.

If so, does it become, as someone here said, hypocritical to call yourself a Marxist?

I&#39;m not a marxist numnuts, and have never claimed so... So perhaps if I was a Marxist..?

But then again I never critisised Marxism or, anarchism, at least not in this thread.




Give it up che y, your clutching at straws, determined to have not got it completely and utterly wrong... and you say your head hurts? You must get that all the time. :lol:

I suggest you see a specialist.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 05:59 AM
We have already established that you are creating no new lies, they are all old tried and true bourgeois lies.


you haven&#39;t established anything, except that you find it tricky to understand plain English.

Ohh and well done you can quote me, with out disproving anything I have said, quite the reverse in fact. You have done more for my argument in this thread, than I can have ever hoped for. :rolleyes:
Those quotes show you refused the very things you are now proclaiming you agree with. You called the definitions of Anarchism and Marxism we attempted to provide to this highly misguided individual, the creations of trendies and fakes.

That doesn&#39;t sound like agreement to me. Show us what is it about our definitions that you consider fake.

No more dancing, say it.


Do you admit that our definition of Anarchism, opposed to the definition most people are used to and the definition in the dictionary because it defines common usage, is the correct political definition? In otherwords, our definitions aren&#39;t those of "trendies"?

No, because your version is in the dictionary, at least in part.

The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.

Give it up che y, your caught.
:huh:

Nothing wrong with that (except that it is incomplete), but taken from the site you took it from, you dropped the definition we oppose:

Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell)

:lol:

That kind of subtle insertion into an otherwise perfectly fine definition (rejection of coercion) was exactly what got us into this in the first place.


If so, does it become, as someone here said, hypocritical to call yourself a Marxist?

I&#39;m not a marxist numnuts, and have never claimed so... So perhaps if I was a Marxist..?
Idiot. You attacked someone for saying that "comrade" shouldn&#39;t have the Communist flag or "comrade" in his name with such views. I explained that Marxism has the same end result as Anarchism, so an attack on one&#39;s end is an attack on the other&#39;s. I wasn&#39;t talking about you.

Illustrated by this quote that you conveniently skipped, with your response to that members attack on our "comrade" first, then my response to you:


The term "Comrade", and the workers flag are not exclusive to anarchist ideologies, if you think your so smart as to attack others then you should really get it right.

No, but his attacks were aimed at the ideas of stateless society, which is what the workers&#39; movement is about, be it Marxist or Anarchist. He claims to be a Marxist, thus his hypocracy is obvious.

There you go again with the redefining the debate. Doesn&#39;t it tire you to run in circles so much? <_<


But then again I never critisised Marxism or, anarchism, at least not in this thread.
Which is why I wasn&#39;t talking about you, though your insistance on defending reactionary definitions and ideas placed you in the line of fire earlier.


Give it up che y, your clutching at straws, determined to have not got it completely and utterly wrong... and you say your head hurts? You must get that all the time. :lol:

I suggest you see a specialist.
No, I think I should just stop reading your posts at all, but then I&#39;d be leaving these fine people to bare your drivel alone.

[Invader Zim]

You called the definitions of Anarchism and Marxism we attempted to provide to this highly misguided individual, the creations of trendies and fakes.


No, I called the false use of the term "liberal", and a number of others the actions of trendies fakes, etc. Don’t worry, that includes you, and indeed defines you.

I never once said that the term Marxism was misused by anyone. I said that Anarchism was misused by the majority of people, and that you lot had it correct. Though some of you do have a habit of getting it wrong, in this occasion your absolutely correct.

Show us what is it about our definitions that you consider fake

As I’ve said in this thread numerous times, I don’t consider your definition of anarchism to be fake. Do try and keep up.

You attacked someone for saying that "comrade" shouldn&#39;t have the Communist flag or "comrade" in his name with such views.

I think your confusing me with someone else, does that happen often? Perhaps you should speak to someone about that, it cant be healthy. What I said was that the term "comrade" was not exclusive to anarchist ideologies. How you managed to foolishly work out that I am a Marxist from that, is rather interesting.

There you go again with the redefining the debate. Doesn&#39;t it tire you to run in circles so much?

You quote your self, and tell me that’s an example of me redefining things? Right... ok, that’s really logical. :rolleyes:

Which is why I wasn&#39;t talking about you

Ohh I’m sorry, your complete incoherence, makes it tricky for me to try and work out exactly what you are saying at all. So do forgive me...

No, I think I should just stop reading your posts at all, but then I&#39;d be leaving these fine people to bare your drivel alone.

What ever son shine, now back up your garbage instead of trying to repeatedly evade what I have been saying, or apologise and then fuck off. Your choice.

[OptikalIlluzion]

I think counter-arguments have already been made towards this. But I must comment because I cannot resist.

First, you come into my house, shoot up my family, and &#39;steal my shit&#39;. What is the exact motive of this? Material possessions? Money? By the context of the post, I&#39;ll assume that&#39;s what you are getting at. Anarchists believe in the elimination of money and private property. Though there are personal items that belong to the person and that person only (toothbrushes, diaries, pictures, things like this), other things belong to the community. There&#39;d be no point in stealing, let alone murdering people, as chances are, you either already have access to these things, or you&#39;ll face a backlash for your actions. Anarchist societies will not sit by and let thugs murder people who have done nothing, and many would hunt your ass down, vigilante-style.

Then you say these guys with lots of money buy guns. Whoops. One major thing here. Most systems under anarchist idealogies do not believe in money or paper currency. Instead, they believe good merit and work will determine how people are rewarded. As for taking over the town, please... You think that a bunch of anarchists, revolutionaries, and rebels, who have fought against established governments with trained armies and police forces (and won, no less) would sit back and let a bunch of wannabe thugs rule them? Hell no, they wouldn&#39;t. I&#39;m sure they&#39;d give you a fair chance to back off, but as soon as you attack them, they will resist you as if you were the government/army.

Feel free to challenge any of us anarchists with more scenarios. More than likely we have the answer/solution to the theory.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 04:24 AM
I think counter-arguments have already been made towards this. But I must comment because I cannot resist.

First, you come into my house, shoot up my family, and &#39;steal my shit&#39;. What is the exact motive of this? Material possessions? Money? By the context of the post, I&#39;ll assume that&#39;s what you are getting at. Anarchists believe in the elimination of money and private property. Though there are personal items that belong to the person and that person only (toothbrushes, diaries, pictures, things like this), other things belong to the community. There&#39;d be no point in stealing, let alone murdering people, as chances are, you either already have access to these things, or you&#39;ll face a backlash for your actions. Anarchist societies will not sit by and let thugs murder people who have done nothing, and many would hunt your ass down, vigilante-style.
Anarchist is just the amount of government control, being none. Therefore no laws, no restrictions. Since it only includes the amount of government control, you can have individualistic anarchy....and that&#39;s about it. Because you need a government to redistrubute the goods. But there is no government :o . Therefore it is as competative as capitalism is.

[Guest1]

You have no understanding of what Anarchism is.

We have tried to explain to you what it is, yet you go and invent your own definition.

Do you want to learn? We would be happy to repeat once more if you are truly willing to learn and drop the bullshit. If however, you continue to address us as if you were an expert on the issue with no willingness to understand what it is, then we will treat you as a reactionary no better than those in the OI.

Sorry, this is not my day, and you pushing this one more time after all this... well I don&#39;t have the time for that crap.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 20 2004, 03:07 AM
You have no understanding of what Anarchism is.

We have tried to explain to you what it is, yet you go and invent your own definition.

Do you want to learn? We would be happy to repeat once more if you are truly willing to learn and drop the bullshit. If however, you continue to address us as if you were an expert on the issue with no willingness to understand what it is, then we will treat you as a reactionary no better than those in the OI.

Sorry, this is not my day, and you pushing this one more time after all this... well I don&#39;t have the time for that crap.
By all means, explain how a lawless, governmentless system would be equal. We all have those days when people question our ideologies. I mean unless you&#39;re a fascist who justs eliminates his opposition, I think constantly questioning is good; especially before we step into some lawless state.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 03:52 PM
By all means, explain how a lawless, governmentless system would be equal.
Define laws and define government. They aren&#39;t just black and white things. Anything could be considered a law and anything could be considered a government.

[Guest1]

We&#39;ve explained to you that just because there are no rulers, does not mean there are no rules. Furthermore, we&#39;ve explained to you that Marxism ends with the same system as well. Communism is a stateless, classless society.

It is the same.

There will be organization, and the collectives will work together to ensure smooth functioning. As for equality, absolute equality is a goal of neither Marxists nor Anarchists. Relative equality on the other hand, can easily be ensured by the use of computers and statistics. It has been suggested here that maybe a computerized card system would be implemented, which would be used for every transaction of goods. Flags would go up for those who take much, and give little, and their collective would be contacted. Then it is up to the collective to speak to the person for an explanation, and take action if necessary.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20 2004, 04:47 PM
Define laws and define government. They aren&#39;t just black and white things. Anything could be considered a law and anything could be considered a government.

law n.
1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.

2. a) The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law.
b) The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system: a breakdown of law and civilized behavior.
3. A set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system: tax law; criminal law.
4. A piece of enacted legislation.

5. a) The system of judicial administration giving effect to the laws of a community: All citizens are equal before the law.
b) Legal action or proceedings; litigation: submit a dispute to law.
c) An impromptu or extralegal system of justice substituted for established judicial procedure: frontier law.

6. a) An agency or agent responsible for enforcing the law. Often used with the: “The law... stormed out of the woods as the vessel was being relieved of her cargo” (Sid Moody).
b) Informal. A police officer. Often used with the.

7. a) The science and study of law; jurisprudence.
b) Knowledge of law.
c) The profession of an attorney.
8. Something, such as an order or a dictum, having absolute or unquestioned authority: The commander&#39;s word was law.
9. Law
a) The body of principles or precepts held to express the divine will, especially as revealed in the Bible.
b) The first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures.
10. A code of principles based on morality, conscience, or nature.

11. a) A rule or custom generally established in a particular domain: the unwritten laws of good sportsmanship.
b) A way of life: the law of the jungle.

12. a) A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.
b) A generalization based on consistent experience or results: the law of supply and demand.
13. Mathematics. A general principle or rule that is assumed or that has been proven to hold between expressions.
14. A principle of organization, procedure, or technique: the laws of grammar; the laws of visual perspective.

Most of those definitions come from authority. Except for the "laws of nature" but thats a phrase coined by humans, and for every law, there is something to break it.


gov·ern·ment n.
1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
5. A governing body or organization, as:
a) The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
b) The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
c) The persons who make up a governing body.
6. A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
7. Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.
8. Political science.
9. Grammar. The influence of a word over the morphological inflection of another word in a phrase or sentence.

I really don&#39;t know why you wanted a definition of government. But government talks about controlling people. So even under Anarchism government (which is an oxymoron), the mob rules. And Anarchy literally breaks into an = Greek suffix denoting a negative (no), and Archon = ruler of Ancient Athens, but also translates directly into ruler. So no ruler. So any RULES that are imposed would be completely contradictory. Because in any society you have to give up rights and freedoms, and even Che y Marijuana said, there would be freedom limits. So you&#39;re already imposing rules on an oxymoronic theory.

[Guest1]

How old are you kid?

I really think Che-Lives is not the place for you. How is not having rulers, but having rules oxymoronic?

When you&#39;re in a group of friends, do you say "hey, I was going to rape you, but thank god George Bush told me not to"?

Communism can have rules without rulers.

Don&#39;t be a retard, Communism is not about freedom to kill people, or freedom to take without giving, because that imposes on others&#39; freedoms. Freedom in the bourgeois sense of the word is a lie. There is no "absolute freedom", Communism believes in freedom from the bourgeois state and its coercive structures, and capital with its wage slavery. That&#39;s basically it, it gives you the ability to have alot more freedom, but not the selfish sense of freedom that allows you to kill. Or at least, to kill without consequence, assuming you get to that point. Mob rule? You are no better than the bosses, and your hatred of workers is shown by your characterization of workers&#39; democracy as distopia.

You&#39;ve got a choice, kid. You are either a Marxist and believe in the ability of workers to rule themselves, or you&#39;re a brainwashed little kid who&#39;s gonna grow up someday, take down the che poster from his room, buy some stocks, and forget all about the people he said he cared all about. I&#39;ve seen people like you before, give it up kid, it isn&#39;t "cool" to be a Communist. Communism is an ideology, not a shirt you can buy and forget all about when your dad&#39;s money gets you that cushy management job.

So what&#39;ll it be? Are you a Marxist? Or can Communism never work?

[Invader Zim]

Just close the fucking thread and shut up.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 21 2004, 04:56 AM
How old are you kid?

I really think Che-Lives is not the place for you. How is not having rulers, but having rules oxymoronic?

When you&#39;re in a group of friends, do you say "hey, I was going to rape you, but thank god George Bush told me not to"?

Communism can have rules without rulers.

Don&#39;t be a retard, Communism is not about freedom to kill people, or freedom to take without giving, because that imposes on others&#39; freedoms. Freedom in the bourgeois sense of the word is a lie. There is no "absolute freedom", Communism believes in freedom from the bourgeois state and its coercive structures, and capital with its wage slavery. That&#39;s basically it, it gives you the ability to have alot more freedom, but not the selfish sense of freedom that allows you to kill. Or at least, to kill without consequence, assuming you get to that point. Mob rule? You are no better than the bosses, and your hatred of workers is shown by your characterization of workers&#39; democracy as distopia.

You&#39;ve got a choice, kid. You are either a Marxist and believe in the ability of workers to rule themselves, or you&#39;re a brainwashed little kid who&#39;s gonna grow up someday, take down the che poster from his room, buy some stocks, and forget all about the people he said he cared all about. I&#39;ve seen people like you before, give it up kid, it isn&#39;t "cool" to be a Communist. Communism is an ideology, not a shirt you can buy and forget all about when your dad&#39;s money gets you that cushy management job.

So what&#39;ll it be? Are you a Marxist? Or can Communism never work?
I&#39;m 19. I have the feeling you&#39;re not much older. Do you not know that RULE is the root of RULEr. Anarchism is individualistic. And I don&#39;t know how you can achieve communism (which people say here that&#39;s only acheivable the ways Marx envisioned) the "Anarchist" way. It&#39;s a bunch of bullshit. But I mean, hide behind false meaning. But maybe you&#39;re like to give it another name. Because there will be people ruling over someone in your "perfect" Anarchist society. Which opposed to comrade neonate, is only an IDEAL at this time. Nobody has explained many of the things that will occur in an Anarchist State very well, beyond that it is a contradiction in itself. Do you not like me because I question your silly belief?

Who ever said Communism is about killing people? I&#39;m talking about anarchism. And I belief in Leninism, in that there should still be a government, but everything will be a direct democracy (but not that the government is elite to the people). Because in times of crisis, someone needs to take control.

:lol: Take down the CHe poster? The only political idol I have is Trotsky. But nice assumption. And you say I don&#39;t belong here? Everyone of you people I&#39;m arguing with just assumes things about me. That sounds very childish to me. :rolleyes:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 10:48 AM
Do you not know that RULE is the root of RULEr.
How? If you are refering to the community being a ruler, then I suppose, semantically, you could be right.


Anarchism is individualistic.

How have you come to that conclusion?


And I don&#39;t know how you can achieve communism (which people say here that&#39;s only acheivable the ways Marx envisioned) the "Anarchist" way.

What "don&#39;t you know"?


It&#39;s a bunch of bullshit.

This kind of thing isn&#39;t tolerated on the board. You have the right to disagree, but respect the fact that many people don&#39;t think this.


Because there will be people ruling over someone in your "perfect" Anarchist society.

Once again you have asserted something to be fact without proving it. Why would there be rulers in an anarchist society?


Which opposed to comrade neonate, is only an IDEAL at this time.

that&#39;s not true. There are many collectives, organisations and entire movements which use anarchist principles, and it works.


Nobody has explained many of the things that will occur in an Anarchist State very well, beyond that it is a contradiction in itself.

No&#33; The problem lies with your refusal to accept what is being said. People have tried to give you a clear understanding, based on what you have said and asked, but you appear to have ignored it. In this thread and the &#39;Anarchism or Socialism&#39; thread.

Ask specific questions and they will be answered specifically.


Do you not like me because I question your silly belief?

Stop this nonesense.


And I belief in Leninism, in that there should still be a government, but everything will be a direct democracy (but not that the government is elite to the people).

How do you propose to stop this leninist government form becoming elite.


Because in times of crisis, someone needs to take control.

Prove it.

[Invader Zim]

Why would there be rulers in an anarchist society?


Well taking history as an example, in the Spanish civil war the anarchists had influencial and important figures who can be described as "leaders", I suppose.

Prove it.

Well in times of strife on numerous, all the ones I can think of, people look to a strong minded individual to lead them from their troubles. An example would be Hitler, among many others, but I would say he is the one ho springs to mind first.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 12:06 PM
Why would there be rulers in an anarchist society?


Well taking history as an example, in the Spanish civil war the anarchists had influencial and important figures who can be described as "leaders", I suppose.
It all comes down to semantics, and how we define leader. A leader is something completely different to a ruler in any case. These people could have been regarded as leaders, but they had no specific power or authority over anyone, and that&#39;s what&#39;s important.


Prove it.

Well in times of strife on numerous, all the ones I can think of, people look to a strong minded individual to lead them from their troubles. An example would be Hitler, among many others, but I would say he is the one ho springs to mind first.

That&#39;s an instance it has happened, in fact there are many examples of this happening, but it is not proof that it will happen all the time. It also doesn&#39;t answer why it happens? To assume that humans will always do this is to say that it is some how inherent in humans to always look for strong leaders. It would follow logically then that if it were inherent it would be so in all humans, in which case we couldn&#39;t have strong leaders, because genetically we would be, i don&#39;t know? to afraid? For want of a better expression.

All these examples show are historical development creating conditions and situations where we have allowed and has been created, strong central charactors who have dominated societies.

There is no reason, scientifically, philosophically or otherwise to suggest that human beings cannot collectivly deal with a crisis and taht we need someone to "take control."

[Invader Zim]

It all comes down to semantics, and how we define leader. A leader is something completely different to a ruler in any case. These people could have been regarded as leaders, but they had no specific power or authority over anyone, and that&#39;s what&#39;s important.

Agreed.

but it is not proof that it will happen all the time.

Indeed.

It also doesn&#39;t answer why it happens?

I dont believe in human nature, so i&#39;m at a loss as to why it happens.

There is no reason, scientifically, philosophically or otherwise to suggest that human beings cannot collectivly deal with a crisis and taht we need someone to "take control."

Yet, that is often what happens... quite a mystery.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 12:35 PM
Yet, that is often what happens... quite a mystery.
A very common argument used by capitalists and leninists alike is that most human beings simply could not understand the complexities of society and therefore must be governed over by those who do understand. That simply says that one group of people are to stupid to deal with issues that concern them, and therefore need someone else, more enlighted, to do it for us.

All this disempowers us, and then we teach our children to be disempowered, who in turn teach their children, and while we are doing this we are trying to srap out an existence by submitting our ability to work to those who can exploit it. We become machines, objects to create welath and power.

Did you see the documentry on BBC2 last night &#39;The Power of Nightmares.&#39; The maker has only gone a little into the whole series, but what he plans to show, by using fascinating and daming evidence, how those in power have created this war on terror as a new form of domination, to control and to stay in power. They trick us and they lie, and we buy it.

We see ourselves as different, as "normal" peole. Politicians aren&#39;t "normal" they are the elite, the people we should respect, the people we should thank for their help. Whenever a crisis happens we panic. We are not capable enough to deal with it, we know our place.

Therefore, when we dont have law and order, we need a strong leader to take a strong stance and deal with our problems, so we can continue to live, happily in our little bubble, unaware or not bothered about the apparent complexities of our lives.

The development of consumerism also contributes to our like of interest in the running of our lives and political dissatisfaction leads to apathy in the political arena.

But that can change.

[ComradeChris]

How? If you are refering to the community being a ruler, then I suppose, semantically, you could be right.

As Enigma said (paraphrasing), history has shown this time and time again. Somebody will be in control. People like Che y Marijuana, already have THEIR ideas of how it should be run.


How have you come to that conclusion?

There are no laws, so people can decide their own morals. You cannot have complete equality, unless someone is their to distribute goods. But then that leads back to dictation. Please, if you would be so kind explain this contradiction.
And if there isn&#39;t a distribution of goods, then people will be fending for themselves, making it an individual effort, much like capitalism.


What "don&#39;t you know"?

Like I said, no one has yet laid it out for me, step by step like Marx how to achieve this "Anarchist" Communism. Marx, seems to have done that, by passing through capitalism, into socialism, then communism.


This kind of thing isn&#39;t tolerated on the board. You have the right to disagree, but respect the fact that many people don&#39;t think this.

I&#39;m trying to be inquisitive, before I step into something (ie. Anarchism) and realize, &#39;what the hell is going on here.&#39; The idea that people, like Che y Marijuana, seem to think that if people are younger (by trying to bring age into the debate, and then saying I don&#39;t belong here), they should be excluded from this discussion. Sounds very dictorial for an anarchist doesn&#39;t it? Which leads me to believe my statement, that it is indeed a pipe dream.


Once again you have asserted something to be fact without proving it. Why would there be rulers in an anarchist society?

People here have told me I don&#39;t listen. How about you tell me how you plan to run a society where NOBODY dictates anything? therefore not enacting someone to rule. If that can be explained, hell, you may have yourselves an Anarchist here.


that&#39;s not true. There are many collectives, organisations and entire movements which use anarchist principles, and it works.

Maybe in primitivism (which I kind of like). But I&#39;ve never heard of any countries under anarchism (as an ideology), only countries in Anarchy (in the negative sense), where the electorial process has stopped, and people fight for their lives. But if you could kindly name some of these existing communes, by all means.


No&#33; The problem lies with your refusal to accept what is being said. People have tried to give you a clear understanding, based on what you have said and asked, but you appear to have ignored it. In this thread and the &#39;Anarchism or Socialism&#39; thread.

Ask specific questions and they will be answered specifically.

Accept this contradiction you call an ideology? I have asked questions. All of which have lead me to the belief that it is a contradiction. It has, if anything, made it less unclear as to the direction which an anarchist state would go.


How do you propose to stop this leninist government form becoming elite.

Simple. Always question authority, which I&#39;m doing now. And that form of questioning would come through a direct democracy&#33; I said that in the very same sentence which YOU seemed to ignore. Very hypocritical of you. *tsk tsk* :rolleyes:


Prove it.

How do you propose to organize defence of this anarchist state? I&#39;ve already asked you that, which, time and time again, you ignore.


Stop this nonesense.

The non-sence we should be stopping, is this idea that an anarchist society will actually be an anarchy&#33;


You&#39;ve got a choice, kid. You are either a Marxist and believe in the ability of workers to rule themselves, or you&#39;re a brainwashed little kid who&#39;s gonna grow up someday, take down the che poster from his room, buy some stocks, and forget all about the people he said he cared all about. I&#39;ve seen people like you before, give it up kid, it isn&#39;t "cool" to be a Communist. Communism is an ideology, not a shirt you can buy and forget all about when your dad&#39;s money gets you that cushy management job.

Sorry, I only replied to half of this quote from Che y Marijuana earlier. I don&#39;t own a single piece of clothing that would indicate that I like communism. I was however thinking of getting a large hammer and sickle on my back, so, also opposed to Che y Marijuana&#39;s assumption, that I will never forget my ideology. But that&#39;s the intellect of a Anarchist I get. You assume you know everything, and what you believe is true.


So what&#39;ll it be? Are you a Marxist? Or can Communism never work?

I&#39;m probably more Marxist than you are. I say do it how Marx intended to do it; passing through socialism. Not this miraculous "Anarchist way" which isn&#39;t sounding too much like Marxism at all. Sometimes things take longer than expected. Even if not through a revolution, capitalism will eventually fall.

[Invader Zim]

A very common argument used by capitalists and leninists alike is that most human beings simply could not understand the complexities of society and therefore must be governed over by those who do understand.

I disagree, its true a few people aren&#39;t exactly gifted in certain area&#39;s, but they in my view are a minority. I have faith in people, as i&#39;m sure you do.

That simply says that one group of people are to stupid to deal with issues that concern them, and therefore need someone else, more enlighted, to do it for us.

It depends on how far you want to take it. I think most people are capable of managing them selves, and others, should that be necessary, but others have more of a natural aptitude. Though because they manage others does not mean that they govern others.

Capitalist society on the other hand completely ignores this, and actually builds up the status of the manager, and considers these individuals to be almost higher entities than the rest of us. This is reflected by their position in society, pay, work load, standard of living and most importantly control. Its disgusting.

All this disempowers us, and then we teach our children to be disempowered, who in turn teach their children, and while we are doing this we are trying to srap out an existence by submitting our ability to work to those who can exploit it. We become machines, objects to create welath and power.

I quite agree. A socialist society I tik needs management, what it does not need is rulers.

Did you see the documentry on BBC2 last night &#39;The Power of Nightmares.&#39;

Sorry, I missed it, I dont own a TV anymore.

But that can change.

I disagree, it MUST change.

[PatinhoDoCommunista]

i have just a brief statement to make, you know how western lies are spread about communism, same counts for anarchism comradeivan

[Latifa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 04:24 AM
I think counter-arguments have already been made towards this. But I must comment because I cannot resist.

First, you come into my house, shoot up my family, and &#39;steal my shit&#39;. What is the exact motive of this? Material possessions? Money? By the context of the post, I&#39;ll assume that&#39;s what you are getting at. Anarchists believe in the elimination of money and private property. Though there are personal items that belong to the person and that person only (toothbrushes, diaries, pictures, things like this), other things belong to the community. There&#39;d be no point in stealing, let alone murdering people, as chances are, you either already have access to these things, or you&#39;ll face a backlash for your actions. Anarchist societies will not sit by and let thugs murder people who have done nothing, and many would hunt your ass down, vigilante-style.

Then you say these guys with lots of money buy guns. Whoops. One major thing here. Most systems under anarchist idealogies do not believe in money or paper currency. Instead, they believe good merit and work will determine how people are rewarded. As for taking over the town, please... You think that a bunch of anarchists, revolutionaries, and rebels, who have fought against established governments with trained armies and police forces (and won, no less) would sit back and let a bunch of wannabe thugs rule them? Hell no, they wouldn&#39;t. I&#39;m sure they&#39;d give you a fair chance to back off, but as soon as you attack them, they will resist you as if you were the government/army.

Feel free to challenge any of us anarchists with more scenarios. More than likely we have the answer/solution to the theory.
I love the idea of anarchism. Can we all stop posting here, as the retard who started this thread was only trying to get some attention anyway?

[PatinhoDoCommunista]

your right , how can one call himself a communist when attacking comrades on useless subjects to provocate.

[Guest1]

Thing is, now he&#39;s switching tactics, having been faced with the fact that Marxism is supposed to lead to the exact same society.

"Comrade", you are in fact a year older than me, but your ways of communication are very immature. You have also not understood the things you have read too well. Even Trotsky and Lenin still believed in a stateless society. The only difference is how they wanted to get there.

Some Marxists think that a dictatorship of the proletariat requires a strong centralized state, others believe it can be achieved through direct democracy exclusively for workers, without a state. Through federated collectives, like the federation of communes the Paris Commune was intended to lead to, that is how the society would function.

If you live in a collective, you give all your work for free to anyone who does the same, maybe with a sort of card being swiped at every transaction for keeping track of the flow of goods. If you haven&#39;t been the source of any transactions, you haven&#39;t given, why should you receive anything?

So your freedom isn&#39;t hurt by people saying "work or we stop giving you our work". Anarchists believe in neither absolute freedom nor absolute equality. From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs. That isn&#39;t absolute equality. Absolute equality is just mumbo-jumbo. I hate peanut butter, others might not.

Those cards, could be hooked up to a computer network to analyze all those transactions, which would also be hooked up to all the production stats. Now this would serve in two ways: 1. At the local level, it would raise red flags to the community about over-consumers or under-producers, and allow them to look at those statistics and confront the person and find out exactly what is happening and what they are going to do about it 2. At the global level, it would give consumption statistics to the global community and allow them to decide together how to adjust for production and consumption trends.

This is how it could work. Now what&#39;s wrong with that?

[ComradeChris]

Thing is, now he&#39;s switching tactics, having been faced with the fact that Marxism is supposed to lead to the exact same society.

Different methods of getting there. Do the ends justify the means? I don&#39;t think so in this anarchist case.


"Comrade", you are in fact a year older than me, but your ways of communication are very immature. You have also not understood the things you have read too well. Even Trotsky and Lenin still believed in a stateless society. The only difference is how they wanted to get there.

Well good for me. I&#39;m a year older than someone, who&#39;s trying to bring age into a debate. I don&#39;t see how my methods are immature, if you could please list some of the things I did that were immature as examples of what you mean by this, I will do my best to stop. However, if you&#39;re referring to insults, I try only to insult in retaliation. THe only other time if someone&#39;s arguments are so stupid and repetitive that it warrents them being told.


Some Marxists think that a dictatorship of the proletariat requires a strong centralized state, others believe it can be achieved through direct democracy exclusively for workers, without a state. Through federated collectives, like the federation of communes the Paris Commune was intended to lead to, that is how the society would function.

I like communism. It this "Anarchist" way of getting there that seems very contradictory. Once you have a proletariat dictatorship, you can slowly wittle away the power the government has (hopefully it wouldn&#39;t be any more than the people anyway).


If you live in a collective, you give all your work for free to anyone who does the same, maybe with a sort of card being swiped at every transaction for keeping track of the flow of goods. If you haven&#39;t been the source of any transactions, you haven&#39;t given, why should you receive anything?

I agree with you fully. That&#39;s not anarchism. Who exactly says that they&#39;ve taken too much? Somebody has to take charge.


So your freedom isn&#39;t hurt by people saying "work or we stop giving you our work". Anarchists believe in neither absolute freedom nor absolute equality. From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs. That isn&#39;t absolute equality. Absolute equality is just mumbo-jumbo. I hate peanut butter, others might not.

Absolute equality of distribution. That&#39;s what communism tries to do. Why should a computer technician, who only makes lives a little more lavished, get more than a farmer, who busts his ass to keep a society alive? I really don&#39;t know what you&#39;re saying, but it illudes that it&#39;s not equality. :rolleyes:


Those cards, could be hooked up to a computer network to analyze all those transactions, which would also be hooked up to all the production stats. Now this would serve in two ways: 1. At the local level, it would raise red flags to the community about over-consumers or under-producers, and allow them to look at those statistics and confront the person and find out exactly what is happening and what they are going to do about it 2. At the global level, it would give consumption statistics to the global community and allow them to decide together how to adjust for production and consumption trends.

Yes yes, that&#39;s fine and dandy. But I&#39;m sure that&#39;s not what everyone wants. Someone will say, this is how it&#39;s going to be, and people will be coerced into doing so. I mean, how do you determine production? Like you can&#39;t compare as I said in my previous example computer technicians and farmers. Once again, doesn&#39;t seem equal.


This is how it could work. Now what&#39;s wrong with that?

The things I listed. And that somebody would still obviously LEAD these task forces against under-producers, and over-consumers. It sounds basically like capitalism in theory, where if you do more, you get more.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ComradeChris
Absolute equality of distribution. That&#39;s what communism tries to do.

Where&#39;d you get that idea?

People would get what they need -- what they can actually use -- without regard to some kind of imaginary equality.

I need a bottle of aspirin; the woman down the street needs a six-week course of cobalt radiation therapy.

Are we going to "split the difference" in the name of "equality"? She and I each get half a bottle of aspirin and 3 weeks of cobalt radiation therapy? :lol:

The formula is "to each according to his/her need" and people do have different needs.


Once you have a proletarian dictatorship, you can slowly whittle away the power the government has...

Has never happened...and there&#39;s really no material reason why it should.

If you have your hands on state power and all the material goodies that go with that, why should you ever want to give that up?

"Good intentions" will not suffice...everybody always has "good intentions" (at least in their own eyes).


Somebody has to take charge.

Not necessarily; the social pressures on someone widely known to be "hoggish" and "wasteful" would be considerable.

They might show up at the community distribution center one morning to be greeted with a chorus of "Hey, it&#39;s Comrade Hog&#33;" :lol:


Someone will say, this is how it&#39;s going to be, and people will be coerced into doing so.

Someone so foolish as to say "this is how it&#39;s going to be" when people feel otherwise will inspire hysterical laughter perhaps...but not fear.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Im the Vanguard of the Masses]

Anarchism is not bullshit Anarchists are all around us orgainizing their communities give out food doing copwatch and building a revolutionary movement. Maybe you should read a book about anarchist theory before you critique it can i suggest Peter Kroptikins Anarchism. Anarchism does not mean chaos there would be laws and a decision making body of both community and worker collectives which function on the basis of direct democracy. While all you marxist leninist armchair revolutionarys are sitting back talking about the coming revolution The anarchist are organinzing the new system in the framework of the old. All of these so called vangurad marxist lenninst partys are a joke that are comprimised of between 5- 200 people who claim that their represent the workers when all they do is sell their tired old books and papers.

Marxism leninism is bullshit marxs theory of so called scientific materialism is the stupiedist doctrine i have ever heard. There is nothing scientific about this theory marx started out with an a prior assumption and then supposdly proved it that is not how science is done. Furthermore Histroy does not operate like marx says the roman society had a through middle class of artisans lawyers politicians etc. While i have some admiration for marxs conclusions that capitialism is expolitive it seems his theory is flawed as far as the dialect goes. And it is ludicrious like marx assumes that the state would at any point abolish itself. The state was never designed to serve the people rather is was set up by a minority to protect their parasitic interests in regards to the rest of the community.
socialism without the abolition of the state is tyranny

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by ComradeChris+Oct 21 2004, 01:34 PM--> (ComradeChris @ Oct 21 2004, 01:34 PM) As Enigma said (paraphrasing), history has shown this time and time again. Somebody will be in control. People like Che y Marijuana, already have THEIR ideas of how it should be run. [/b]
And as I responded:


Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected]
That&#39;s an instance it has happened, in fact there are many examples of this happening, but it is not proof that it will happen all the time. It also doesn&#39;t answer why it happens? To assume that humans will always do this is to say that it is some how inherent in humans to always look for strong leaders. It would follow logically then that if it were inherent it would be so in all humans, in which case we couldn&#39;t have strong leaders, because genetically we would be, i don&#39;t know? to afraid? For want of a better expression.


ComradeChris
There are no laws, so people can decide their own morals.

But you&#39;re assuming that those morals will be the "wrong" kind, that people will want to go out and murder and rape, simply because there are no set defined moral laws.

There are already set defined moral laws, which is what you want, but people still go out and murder and rape. Moral laws will not stop people from commiting these crimes, so regardless of whether they exist they will happen. Unless, there is a specific reason why they happen, and a specific way to deal with it.

Your angle appears to be human nature. You are saying that human nature leads people to commit these crimes. If you aren&#39;t saying that, what are you saying?

The problem with this human nature bullshit is, human nature doesn&#39;t exist. It is not in our human genes to murder and rape people. If you believe it is, I would very much like to see the evidence, as i&#39;m sure the thousands of scientists studying genetics would as well.

It is my belief, as an anarchist, that people commit "morally" reprehensable crimes because a) societal conditioning or b) medical defects. If it&#39;s the first then by moving towards a communist/anarchist society those conditionings will disappear. Marx did say "being is consciousness."

If it is the second then setting up moral laws like we do now, isn&#39;t going to solve that problem, as it isn&#39;t solving it now. Studying, analysing and helping people is what will stop people from commiting these "crimes." If these things happen for medical reasons then locking them in a prison is not only absurd, it is completely counter productive. It won&#39;t solve anything. The point of anarchism/communism must be progression.

We want a new society, not a remodel of this one.


You cannot have complete equality, unless someone is their to distribute goods. But then that leads back to dictation. Please, if you would be so kind explain this contradiction. And if there isn&#39;t a distribution of goods, then people will be fending for themselves, making it an individual effort, much like capitalism.

I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a contradiction I think you are trying to argue that these two points are all inclusive. You are saying you cannot have one without the other. I disagree.

The only way you have dictation is if the person distributing the food has central contol and power over what they are doing. If you remove the concept of power and decentralisation distribution to federated co-operation then there is no basis for control, there is no possible way that someone can become the "dictator." Dictatorship only exists when there is power to be had.

If you remove the ability to have power, then they cannot become a dictator.


Like I said, no one has yet laid it out for me, step by step like Marx how to achieve this "Anarchist" Communism.

Can I see where Marx laid out step by step how to achieve communism? As far as i&#39;m aware all he did was create a theory on how to achieve communism.

There is no definate way to ever know how you will achieve communism. Karl Marx didn&#39;t have the ability to predict the future. What he did was analyse society and draw conclusions from it. Very sound conclusions I might add, but they were not a concrete plan.

Lenin applied Marx&#39;s conclusions into practice and failed, and he failed because he ignored the significance of the state. Marx and Lenin both assumed that the state could be controlled by the more "intellectual" of the working class, who would then use it on "behalf" of the proletariat.

The concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, when applied into reality, actually did the opposite of what it wanted to achieve. It created dictatorship of the party, and to a large degree, Lenin believed that was acceptable. It didn&#39;t work.

You ask for a step by step outline. No one can give you one, but there are several things we must to differently if we are ever going to achieve communism, and they are things that have worked.

a) Use libertarian principles of organisation
b) involve members of the organisation directly in its organisation rather than having them as followers.
c) remove pover structures so that decisions are not arrived at by order, but by consensus.
d) Federating the movement, meaning that each city or town has its own Federation or group of people that act independently of each other, but are also take up operation nationally through co-operation. This not only removes power structures it set a foundation for when revolution happens.
e) When revolution does happen it means that the necessity to maintain the main power structure, the state, becomes obselete. A federation of people, united and organised as collectives exist and operate, which makes centralism and the dictatorship of the party unnessary.

How do we achieve revolution? Well, the same way everyone is trying. By working within united front campaigns, trade unions and through propogating our ideas among people. What I think is unique to anarchism is its culture of confrontation. To achieve confrontation on the scale we want to achieve it, we must constantly engage ourselves with being confrontational, either through direct action or simple definace. When the time is right, if we are already prepared, organised and fighting we can achieve what ever we want.


People here have told me I don&#39;t listen. How about you tell me how you plan to run a society where NOBODY dictates anything?

By working with people. Telling someone what to do is effective, I agree. But it is counter productive to what we, as communists, want to achieve. We don&#39;t want a society where we tell people what to do, we want a society where we work together to decide how to organise our lives.

Having control or authority over someone stands against freedom in all respects. Freedom is the ability to control yourself and you cannot do that if someone else controls you. The ability to act for yourself is the basis for all freedom. That is what we want.

Organising society can be done through co-operation with each other. If we need to send food A to place X then those responsable for sending food places just send it. No one need control it, no one need tell people what to do, it is simply an act of administration.


Simple. Always question authority, which I&#39;m doing now. And that form of questioning would come through a direct democracy&#33; I said that in the very same sentence which YOU seemed to ignore.

You cannot question the authority of the party, it&#39;s counter-revolutionary and you will be shot or imprisoned as a subversive. Direct democracy cannot exist if you have leaders.


How do you propose to organize defence of this anarchist state? I&#39;ve already asked you that, which, time and time again, you ignore.

First of all anarchist state is an oxymoron, anarchists, like communists, want to abolish the state.

Defending collectives, cities etc would be done through workers militias. That would be workers organised into defensive teams.


The non-sence we should be stopping, is this idea that an anarchist society will actually be an anarchy&#33;

That doesn&#39;t make sense.

[redstar2000]

ComradeChris, a "Marxist"-Leninist completely ignorant on the subject of anarchism, attacks it as "bullshit".

In the Vanguard of the Masses, an "anarchist" completely ignorant about Marxism, attacks it as "unscientific".

These two guys should have their own thread; it&#39;s a "death match" made in Hollywood.

The Battle of the Ignoramuses&#33; :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 02:47 PM
ComradeChris, a "Marxist"-Leninist completely ignorant on the subject of anarchism, attacks it as "bullshit".

In the Vanguard of the Masses, an "anarchist" completely ignorant about Marxism, attacks it as "unscientific".

These two guys should have their own thread; it&#39;s a "death match" made in Hollywood.

The Battle of the Ignoramuses&#33; :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
I have no idea what you&#39;re referring to. Was a movie made about a situation like this?

[ComradeChris]

I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a contradiction I think you are trying to argue that these two points are all inclusive. You are saying you cannot have one without the other. I disagree.

The only way you have dictation is if the person distributing the food has central contol and power over what they are doing. If you remove the concept of power and decentralisation distribution to federated co-operation then there is no basis for control, there is no possible way that someone can become the "dictator." Dictatorship only exists when there is power to be had.

If you remove the ability to have power, then they cannot become a dictator.

I agree, it&#39;s not power. As I said, do it the communist way, where you slowing ween the masses away from power, rather than doing a revolution very quickly. As you can see, very quick revolutions, dissipated very quickly. As I said, rape, murder are just some of the more heinious examples I could think of. But since there obviously isn&#39;t going to be equal distribution of goods, I&#39;m sure theft will still occur. It sounds like a capitalist society without the money the way Che y Marijuana described it.


Can I see where Marx laid out step by step how to achieve communism? As far as i&#39;m aware all he did was create a theory on how to achieve communism.

I meant the stages. Capitalism--&#62;Socialism --&#62; Communism. Or I like Trotskyism method where you can go from a dictator to socialism for instance.
To me it seems Anarchists want to go right from their current situation to communism. It&#39;ll be a violent struggle. I think Newton&#39;s law can be applied to situations like this: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. " If you do things very quickly, they will dissipate quickly, as we&#39;ve seen throughout history when it comes to the anarchist states that have been listed.


You cannot question the authority of the party, it&#39;s counter-revolutionary and you will be shot or imprisoned as a subversive. Direct democracy cannot exist if you have leaders.

If you don&#39;t question, authority becomes corrupt. They do what THEY thing is best, and stop listening to the masses. I feel you can have a figure head with a direct democracy. That figure head, would just decide what legislation would go to the people to vote on. I have a whole plan in my head. I think it would be a pretty effective (~100% employment; therefore very small working hours: I&#39;m thinking maybe 3-4 hours per workday), environmentally friendly, and all inclusive society. It would still abolish money, and people could do whatever they wanted to in their free time. You&#39;re still have "Western" pleasures and would be equal, yet you could still have choices (Plasma or LCD tv&#39;s :lol: ). But, that&#39;s my thoughts, and of course, I&#39;d share them with any people who cared to listen. I&#39;ve told many of my friends my ideas on this and they think it would be awesome. I also have plans for a career in a Democratic society, when I go into politics. I&#39;m always making plans, within plans, within plans. I even take into account things like crime, automobile accidents, etc. Sorry, that&#39;s a little off-topic. But I get excited when I think about bettering a society.


First of all anarchist state is an oxymoron, anarchists, like communists, want to abolish the state.

Defending collectives, cities etc would be done through workers militias. That would be workers organised into defensive teams.

Who organizes? Someone would have to step in in times of emergency. Which is why I think you still need a (obviously) non-corrupt government, who will only ver work for the good of the people. Not someone like Stalin, who gives more to some families, while totally excluding others; and still claims it was socialist. And Collectives just seem like another word for state.


That doesn&#39;t make sense.

Sure it does. Somebody would rule in an anarchist state (or collective as you would call it). Therefore, I just think different, less misleading term should be used.

[ComradeChris]

Where&#39;d you get that idea?

People would get what they need -- what they can actually use -- without regard to some kind of imaginary equality.

I need a bottle of aspirin; the woman down the street needs a six-week course of cobalt radiation therapy.

Are we going to "split the difference" in the name of "equality"? She and I each get half a bottle of aspirin and 3 weeks of cobalt radiation therapy?

The formula is "to each according to his/her need" and people do have different needs.

I think your example would be absolute equality. Equality to get what one needs. But I mean, if you just got what you NEEDED, life wouldn&#39;t be worth living. You need to have some fun. You obviously misunderstood me. Like I said in my previous post, I have an environmentally friendly way, people could pretty much do as they pleased, as long as they worked. If people took "shit" jobs, they would be appeased by working less hours, etc.


Has never happened...and there&#39;s really no material reason why it should.

If you have your hands on state power and all the material goodies that go with that, why should you ever want to give that up?

"Good intentions" will not suffice...everybody always has "good intentions" (at least in their own eyes).

Because as I said, and can be seen through history, fast revolutions, lead to fast dissipation. I honestly have a value conflict with you there. I would gladly give up power for the common good.


Not necessarily; the social pressures on someone widely known to be "hoggish" and "wasteful" would be considerable.

They might show up at the community distribution center one morning to be greeted with a chorus of "Hey, it&#39;s Comrade Hog&#33;"

I don&#39;t get the meaning of that. But from my understanded, you think people will become short-sighted of long term effects (or something of that nature)? That&#39;s why I say, always question authority.


Someone so foolish as to say "this is how it&#39;s going to be" when people feel otherwise will inspire hysterical laughter perhaps...but not fear.

People have done it throughout history. Absolute monarchies, bad tyrants, fascists, etc.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 09:47 AM
ComradeChris, a "Marxist"-Leninist completely ignorant on the subject of anarchism, attacks it as "bullshit".

In the Vanguard of the Masses, an "anarchist" completely ignorant about Marxism, attacks it as "unscientific".

These two guys should have their own thread; it&#39;s a "death match" made in Hollywood.

The Battle of the Ignoramuses&#33; :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
calling someone ignorant is not a sound substitute for an argument. Instead, why don&#39;t you explain why you believe in scientific materialism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by RedCeltic
Calling someone ignorant is not a sound substitute for an argument. Instead, why don&#39;t you explain why you believe in scientific materialism.

This is an extremely "messy" thread almost overflowing with half-baked notions that demonstrate an ignorance of near monumental proportions.

So, I lost patience. :(

You know that I don&#39;t "believe in" scientific materialism any more than I "believe in" anything else.

It&#39;s a tool (or set of tools) that one can use to "make sense" of what&#39;s happened in human affairs and what&#39;s going on right now (though it has no "magical" ability to "see the future" in useful detail).

For example...

Marxism Without the Crap (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082912812&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Are There "Laws" of History? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082851437&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

The "Tools" of Marxism (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082947254&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

There is another reason that this kind of thread "pisses me off". When an ignorant "Marxist" and an equally ignorant "anarchist" exchange insults in the manner of a couple of rival religious sects, the social consequence of that behavior acts as a further obstacle to the eventual merging of anarchist and communist theory.

I&#39;ve seen this happen in real meetings, not just on the internet -- and I think it is sectarian bullshit of the first order.

So even my patience "has its limits".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Comr[email protected] 22 2004, 04:23 PM
As I said, do it the communist way,
You mean the Marxist way.


where you slowing ween the masses away from power, rather than doing a revolution very quickly.

First of all what power are you talking about? And secondly you cannot have a revolution without the support of the masses, but when you have that it may be quick or it may be drawn out, who can tell?


As you can see, very quick revolutions, dissipated very quickly.

What do you mean by a quick revolution?


But since there obviously isn&#39;t going to be equal distribution of goods, I&#39;m sure theft will still occur.

You becoming infuriating. You keep saying this but you aren&#39;t telling me why? I have told you how distribution would be dealt with, why wouldn&#39;t it be equal?


I meant the stages. Capitalism--&#62;Socialism --&#62; Communism. #

It&#39;s already been tried and it didn&#39;t work.


To me it seems Anarchists want to go right from their current situation to communism.

That&#39;s not possible, and no one believes that it is. You cannot go straight from capitalism to communism, there is neccesary a certain level of transformation, but as we have seen the classical marxist way does not work. You cannot maintain a state that then apparently withers away. It&#39;s materially impossible.

You cannot maintain a state, give it more powers and enforce it while at the same time preparing for it to wither away.


as we&#39;ve seen throughout history when it comes to the anarchist states that have been listed.

Stop saying anarchist state, it doesn&#39;t make any sense.

Name one anarchist revolution that failed because it was "to quick."


If you don&#39;t question, authority becomes corrupt.

Authority is inherently corrupt, regardless of whether its question of not.


I feel you can have a figure head with a direct democracy.

What is the purpose of this figure head?


That figure head, would just decide what legislation would go to the people to vote on.

What if this figure decides the wrong one? What if the "masses" decide they want a different piece of legislation? what if the "masses" vote for the wrong piece and this figure head doesn&#39;t like it?


I&#39;ve told many of my friends my ideas on this and they think it would be awesome.

Yes, it would indeed be "awesome" but the problem is, how do you get there?


I also have plans for a career in a Democratic society, when I go into politics. I&#39;m always making plans, within plans, within plans.

So you would like to be this figure head?


I even take into account things like crime, automobile accidents, etc. Sorry, that&#39;s a little off-topic. But I get excited when I think about bettering a society.

Bingo&#33; You get excited when you think about bettering society&#33;

It has absolutly nothing to do with you, or your plans. This is the crux of what is the problem here. You want to be the leader so you can make society better. Unfortunatly the worlds bettering does not boil down to your plans, it boils down to the will of the working class.

It is the working class who make their world better and it is their plans that will get them there.

Not yours&#33;


Who organizes?

It is a collective responsability in the long term, but in the short term organisation would come down to those who knew what they were doing. Former soliders, police officers or those people who have spent all their spare time in the old world studying strategics and playing war hammer.

Remember, we are going to be milkman, factory workers, bus drivers, postwomen, people who work for the benefits office, steel workers and coal miners, students and teachers. Defending a collective in times of revolution will require us to listen to those who know what they are talking about. In the heat of the moment, logic dictates it is them that does the organising.


Someone would have to step in in times of emergency.

Step into what and why?


Which is why I think you still need a (obviously) non-corrupt government,

Idealist (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=idealist) fantasy.


Not someone like Stalin, who gives more to some families, while totally excluding others;

How do you think Stalin managed to get to where he was?


And Collectives just seem like another word for state.

They are two completely different concepts. A state is the centralised structures and institutions organised to protect a ruling class and organise a society for the benefit of an economic system, namly capitalism in this instance.

Collectives are the organisation of communities where people live and who work together to benefit everyone.


Somebody would rule in an anarchist state

So you keep repeating, over and over again.

The reason people are getting frustrated with you is because you don&#39;t argue, you simply state something as fact, wihtout proof. It isn&#39;t logical and it&#39;s boring. If you believe something, you have to back it up with evidence to support it. You have to have a structured, thought out argument.

Im sorry, but simply saying the same thing over and over again does not make it true.

[RedCeltic]

This is an extremely "messy" thread almost overflowing with half-baked notions that demonstrate an ignorance of near monumental proportions.

So, I lost patience.

That&#39;s understandable RedStar... I&#39;m sort of in the odd situation however of knowing this particular anarchist personally (which is how he found out about che-lives.) He has had members of the Socialist Workers Party over his house, and has argued over the validity of Marx&#39;s position on history with many marxists and most just tell him he doesn&#39;t know what he&#39;s talking about without ever explaining their position to him.

[ComradeChris]

You mean the Marxist way.

That&#39;s correct I did. I respond to these in too much of a hurry.


First of all what power are you talking about? And secondly you cannot have a revolution without the support of the masses, but when you have that it may be quick or it may be drawn out, who can tell?

You can have a revolution without the majority (usually when I say masses Imean majority). I&#39;m talking about political power. The quick revolutions never seem to last. Then again, one of my favourite quotes is: "Every revolution has planted within it the seeds of its own destruction." Here&#39;s hoping that the only revolution that lasts is the revolution into communism.


What do you mean by a quick revolution?

Very violent quick coups. Mainly all revolutions to this date. But if things are done slowly, we slowly and slowly become more equal.


You becoming infuriating. You keep saying this but you aren&#39;t telling me why? I have told you how distribution would be dealt with, why wouldn&#39;t it be equal?

Don&#39;t worry, same could be said about you. Che y Marijuana said something about cards, and those who produce less get less, etc. Which is all relative to the job too. That&#39;s where I got it from. You&#39;re Anarchist ally there.


It&#39;s already been tried and it didn&#39;t work.

So has anarchism, the ones you listed all dissipated. But, foreign powers (primarily the US), who were already significantly more powerful then the revolutionizing nations intervened in all these socialist states.


That&#39;s not possible, and no one believes that it is. You cannot go straight from capitalism to communism, there is neccesary a certain level of transformation, but as we have seen the classical marxist way does not work. You cannot maintain a state that then apparently withers away. It&#39;s materially impossible.

You cannot maintain a state, give it more powers and enforce it while at the same time preparing for it to wither away.

The wrong people were in power then (Stalin being the primary example). He lived more like a Czar than supposedly the average person in a supposedly more equal society. So what is your intermediate step in Anarchism. If it&#39;s anarchy, as you&#39;ve provided for me, all the failures of anarchy.


Stop saying anarchist state, it doesn&#39;t make any sense.

Name one anarchist revolution that failed because it was "to quick."

Exactly, and any complete destruction of a societal bases would probably be too quick. But I like how you use my term there, but claim you didn&#39;t know what it meant earlier. :rolleyes:


Authority is inherently corrupt, regardless of whether its question of not.

That&#39;s were we&#39;ll have to agree to disagree. I feel that I could easily not abuse my power if it were given to me, to ensure that the end-state was communism.


What is the purpose of this figure head?

To make quick decisions if need be. I thought I said that...oh well.


What if this figure decides the wrong one? What if the "masses" decide they want a different piece of legislation? what if the "masses" vote for the wrong piece and this figure head doesn&#39;t like it?

The people would propose the legislation passed. They just basically put it into lawful terms, etc. Then the people would vote on things like, should gay marriages be considered a family (if there is even a family unit), etc.


Yes, it would indeed be "awesome" but the problem is, how do you get there?

I think it would actually be easier done in an electorial society. I mean, once the government controls the businesses, you can lower taxes, for the poorer classes, while putting huge tax hikes on the rich. Once everything is relitively equal, there is no longer a need for money, remove it.


So you would like to be this figure head?

I don&#39;t think I&#39;m eloquently spoken enough. But I would definately like to play some part in it. As would I&#39;m sure anyone here.


Bingo&#33; You get excited when you think about bettering society&#33;

It has absolutly nothing to do with you, or your plans. This is the crux of what is the problem here. You want to be the leader so you can make society better. Unfortunatly the worlds bettering does not boil down to your plans, it boils down to the will of the working class.

It is the working class who make their world better and it is their plans that will get them there.

Not yours&#33;

Someone has to better it. I mean humanitarians probably would get the same thrill of helping people. I&#39;m just one man, and by no means would I claim it as my own. You don&#39;t get excited when you think of a communist society?? AS I said before, plans are just plans. Marx had plans, he headed a few groups, but was never really a LEADER of any sort of mass movement. And if the working class doesn&#39;t it like it, we don&#39;t do it, plain and simple. You have huge misconceptions. :rolleyes:


It is a collective responsability in the long term, but in the short term organisation would come down to those who knew what they were doing. Former soliders, police officers or those people who have spent all their spare time in the old world studying strategics and playing war hammer.

Remember, we are going to be milkman, factory workers, bus drivers, postwomen, people who work for the benefits office, steel workers and coal miners, students and teachers. Defending a collective in times of revolution will require us to listen to those who know what they are talking about. In the heat of the moment, logic dictates it is them that does the organising.

First of all, police are symbolic of a state (or so I&#39;ve been told). War hammer rocks. And once again my point, a few people would still be leading the masses in that situation. But you just don&#39;t see it obviously. Because those people who "know what they are doing" will just become the elite. Even you yourself said you can&#39;t trust authority. Very hypocritical.


Step into what and why?

Take control, lead, etc. I mean you can&#39;t be having democratic elections during a war so the masses can decide where and when to attack.


Idealist fantasy.

Funny, right now communism is an ideal. But I&#39;d still ike to strive for it ;) .


How do you think Stalin managed to get to where he was?

A lot like Hitler did, had his opponents assaulted. At that time leaders didn&#39;t get anywhere without blood on their hands. Another idealistic change I&#39;d like made :rolleyes: .


They are two completely different concepts. A state is the centralised structures and institutions organised to protect a ruling class and organise a society for the benefit of an economic system, namly capitalism in this instance.

Collectives are the organisation of communities where people live and who work together to benefit everyone.

Unless of course, according to someone along the line they under-produce, red flags will go up, and they don&#39;t get any benifit. Like you even said, the people who "know" more, would have authority.


So you keep repeating, over and over again.

The reason people are getting frustrated with you is because you don&#39;t argue, you simply state something as fact, wihtout proof. It isn&#39;t logical and it&#39;s boring. If you believe something, you have to back it up with evidence to support it. You have to have a structured, thought out argument.

Im sorry, but simply saying the same thing over and over again does not make it true.

You yourself said, people who know better would organize, lead, whatever term you want to use&#33; You stated something as fact too, that anarchist states have been tried and succeeded. They haven&#39;t succeeded, they all collapsed, as they are destined to continue doing, if you keep going about it this "Anarchist" way. I have your word and mine. It&#39;s really funny when the person you&#39;re debating with helps you with you&#39;re argument. It&#39;s not proof, just very likely to occur. You&#39;re right words are fickle aren&#39;t they. Saying anarchism will work over and over again doesn&#39;t make it true either. See what I mean words are fickle? Always double-edged.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 01:48 PM
You can have a revolution without the majority (usually when I say masses Imean majority). I&#39;m talking about political power. The quick revolutions never seem to last. Then again, one of my favourite quotes is: "Every revolution has planted within it the seeds of its own destruction." Here&#39;s hoping that the only revolution that lasts is the revolution into communism.
No you can&#39;t, that&#39;s an insurrection, not a revolution. A revolution has to be a mass movement.


Very violent quick coups. Mainly all revolutions to this date. But if things are done slowly, we slowly and slowly become more equal.
You&#39;re talking about reform, not revolution, and it doesn&#39;t work. Furthermore, revolution is not a coup. Revolution is the working class taking control of their lives, and smashing the structures of Capitalism and the state.

That could start out as a not so bloody event, but how do you think the bourgeoisie will respond?

Send the proletariat flowers and chocolate? :lol:

No, they&#39;ll bring out the army and do whatever it takes to crush them. Revolution isn&#39;t bloody cause we want it to be, revolution is bloody by unfortunate circumstance. This is reality. Now we can either say it&#39;s not our kind of thing and get slaughtered, or we can stand up and defend ourselves when it comes to it, and save the revolution.


Don&#39;t worry, same could be said about you. Che y Marijuana said something about cards, and those who produce less get less, etc. Which is all relative to the job too. That&#39;s where I got it from. You&#39;re Anarchist ally there.
I never said anything about people who produce less getting less.

I said that anyone who abuses the system, by not giving much but taking alot, could be found out if a card system is used. That&#39;s one idea of how distribution could be handled in an Anarchist society, and certainly not a "tenet" of Anarchism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ComradeChris
I feel that I could easily not abuse my power if it were given to me, to ensure that the end-state was communism.

Here is a basic lesson in Marxism for you.

If you were granted despotic power, you would indeed have "every good intention" of not abusing that power but using it only for "good things".

All well and good.

Now consider how a despot actually lives in the real world.

Your reality is very different from that of others. You will quickly find yourself surrounded by flatterers -- people who want something from you and who will repeatedly proclaim that the sun shines out of your ass in order to get it.

After a while, you start believing it. In fact, anyone who even suggests that the sun does not shine out of your ass is asking for guest privileges at a scenic gulag.

Naturally, no sensible person will tell you anything but what they think you want to hear...your picture of the real world becomes more and more distorted and so do your actions. What you think of as "benign" will be seen by most people as tyranny.

You will still think of yourself as an "enlightened despot" reigning over a truly progressive society "on the road to communism"...behind your back, corruption is spreading like the plague. Your state apparatus is characterized by bureaucratic intrigues, infighting, and the scramble for personal advantage. The material conditions for restoring capitalism are falling into place.

After you die, your successors will put up some nice statues of you...and proceed at once to openly restore capitalism (with looting of state property on a massive scale).

As Marx pointed out: being determines consciousness.

What you do determines who you are.

No matter how good your intentions might be.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[ComradeChris]

No you can&#39;t, that&#39;s an insurrection, not a revolution. A revolution has to be a mass movement.

Now I don&#39;t see anything specifically stating a number for have a revolution. Only a change in government:

rev·o·lu·tion n.

1. a) Orbital motion about a point, especially as distinguished from axial rotation: the planetary revolution about the sun.
b) A turning or rotational motion about an axis.
c) A single complete cycle of such orbital or axial motion.
2. The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another.
3. A sudden or momentous change in a situation: the revolution in computer technology.
4. Geology. A time of major crustal deformation, when folds and faults are formed.

The other parts of the definition aren&#39;t even relevant.

Once again with insurrection:

in·sur·rec·tion n.
The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.

Nothing to do with numbers. The two words could probably be used almost interchangably however.


You&#39;re talking about reform, not revolution, and it doesn&#39;t work. Furthermore, revolution is not a coup. Revolution is the working class taking control of their lives, and smashing the structures of Capitalism and the state.

I&#39;m talking about constant change. You can still have a revolution. But once people realize that "hey, these people are looking out for the common good, and not their pocket books" they&#39;ll be more likely to respond positively.


That could start out as a not so bloody event, but how do you think the bourgeoisie will respond?

Like I said, the bourgeois have to be portrayed as what they are: thieves of both resources and our own luxeries. People don&#39;t see them like that. Information is the best way, and least costly (I&#39;m referring to lives, not money; money doesn&#39;t mean shit to me).


Send the proletariat flowers and chocolate?

Potted or cut flowers? I like chocolate :D .


No, they&#39;ll bring out the army and do whatever it takes to crush them. Revolution isn&#39;t bloody cause we want it to be, revolution is bloody by unfortunate circumstance. This is reality. Now we can either say it&#39;s not our kind of thing and get slaughtered, or we can stand up and defend ourselves when it comes to it, and save the revolution.

And if you can dissuade the army away from the bourgeois using words rather than force, which would you rather do? I&#39;d rather not have to kill people unless need be. I admit drastic times call for drastic measures. But if you can convince the people defending the bourgeois that there life will be better afterwards (which in true communism it would be) that would be better then killing them. For some reason violence is given a bad reputation, go figure :rolleyes: .


I never said anything about people who produce less getting less.

Well, what exactly is insinuated when those warning flags go up? They get more? Or they get None (even though none is still less :lol: )?


I said that anyone who abuses the system, by not giving much but taking alot, could be found out if a card system is used. That&#39;s one idea of how distribution could be handled in an Anarchist society, and certainly not a "tenet" of Anarchism.

That is just an example of control/leadership. Which I&#39;m saying is contradictory to the term Anarchism.

[ComradeChris]

Here is a basic lesson in Marxism for you.

If you were granted despotic power, you would indeed have "every good intention" of not abusing that power but using it only for "good things".

All well and good.

Now consider how a despot actually lives in the real world.

Who said I&#39;d be a despot? I plan on running in Canadian politics.


Your reality is very different from that of others. You will quickly find yourself surrounded by flatterers -- people who want something from you and who will repeatedly proclaim that the sun shines out of your ass in order to get it.

Compliments are all well and good, don&#39;t let them get to your head. Everyone in society is worthy of compliments. In fact I think politicians least of all.


After a while, you start believing it. In fact, anyone who even suggests that the sun does not shine out of your ass is asking for guest privileges at a scenic gulag.

I don&#39;t see eye to eye with everyone; you don&#39;t have to. Like I said, no matter who the authority is, you have to question it. I think you have a misrepresentation of me.


Naturally, no sensible person will tell you anything but what they think you want to hear...your picture of the real world becomes more and more distorted and so do your actions. What you think of as "benign" will be seen by most people as tyranny.

Then vote me out. Everything would be direct democracies. I&#39;d be just as happy working where ever.


You will still think of yourself as an "enlightened despot" reigning over a truly progressive society "on the road to communism"...behind your back, corruption is spreading like the plague. Your state apparatus is characterized by bureaucratic intrigues, infighting, and the scramble for personal advantage. The material conditions for restoring capitalism are falling into place.

Not really, just a man with an idea that will hopefully better society. If it doesn&#39;t work or people don&#39;t like it, you don&#39;t get the votes, therefore don&#39;t get into leadership positions.


After you die, your successors will put up some nice statues of you...and proceed at once to openly restore capitalism (with looting of state property on a massive scale).

Nope, a nice burial would be nice. But I really don&#39;t care. I&#39;m dead, piss on my body for all I care :lol: .


As Marx pointed out: being determines consciousness.

What you do determines who you are.

No matter how good your intentions might be.

You&#39;re judging me on your false assumptions of me. If I ever turned out like that, be by my side, I&#39;d hand you the gun.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

You&#39;re missing the point CC. It&#39;s not about the nature of you or any other politician as an individual - it&#39;s a simple fact - the view from the throne is a good deal different from what "the rest of us" (used loosely) are seeing in the day to day struggles of our lives. In order for a wo/man "with an idea," if it is a legitimately radical idea, to manifest it, they must do so in a radical manner. One can not use the tools and the institutions of the status-quo to subvert it. One might as well wash dishes with a hammer.

[refuse_resist]

Not that agree with them, but many on this site claim that Orwell is a reactionary.
Wasn&#39;t he part of the Marxist party?

I heard he fled Spain for his life and took off to France after the Stalinists were going around killing them because they claimed they were secret fascist or something like that.

I know this is slighty off subject but I was just curious about it. :P

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 9 2004, 04:10 AM
You&#39;re missing the point CC. It&#39;s not about the nature of you or any other politician as an individual - it&#39;s a simple fact - the view from the throne is a good deal different from what "the rest of us" (used loosely) are seeing in the day to day struggles of our lives. In order for a wo/man "with an idea," if it is a legitimately radical idea, to manifest it, they must do so in a radical manner. One can not use the tools and the institutions of the status-quo to subvert it. One might as well wash dishes with a hammer.
Like I said, everything would be a direct democracy, it wouldn&#39;t matter who the leader was. And I&#39;m really confused about this thrown business. I plan on running in Canadian, LAWFUL, elections (and one of my platforms would be abolishion of our Constitutional Monarch). If there were corrupt people in our socialist--&#62;communist party cabinet, I&#39;d be the first to commission to remove them. You don&#39;t need that kind of reputation.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 09:54 AM
Wasn&#39;t he part of the Marxist party?

I heard he fled Spain for his life and took off to France after the Stalinists were going around killing them because they claimed they were secret fascist or something like that.

I know this is slighty off subject but I was just curious about it. :P
Wasn&#39;t he part of the Marxist party?


Perhaps, though certainly not in his later years. He grew to hate soviets after the betrayal of Spain.

I shall have to read Homage to catalonia again, I really need to read 1984 again while i&#39;m at it.

[komon]

anarchism has never been tried or applied(and if,only as a reaction to faschisme)
i think it is better than what&#39;s doesn&#39;t work and won&#39;t......you will not need to kill(or steal from) your fellow neighbour....
i believe that order bring chaos.....
but chaos could bring order.....
is that anarchism?.
.....i don&#39;t care ....and i&#39;ll stay myself.

[no_logo]

I find it ironic and sad that the existence of people like ComradeIvan somewhat negates the possible practice of Anarchism.

I also thought i&#39;d mention that there&#39;s no "money" for the powermad bloodthirsty people to take from a family once they tie them down, and if you kill the family, then they can&#39;t really work for you. Also, if this man is going around looting and plundering, who is going to support him? when he walks into a village there will surely be far more people to deal with living there than there would be in this small band of barbarians...

Further to the point, such a mad mass murderer would have no recourse for power in an anarchist society... he would be solitary unless he could readily find more of his kind... generally i would say that the vast majority of humans are not cold-blooded killers, and if they are, it is a sad truth with or without anarchy...

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

it is a sad truth with or without anarchy...

Indeed - what we are left with is a sad truth. We can either create heirarchical systems, in which the cold-blooded nutters inevitably rise to positions of power, or we can disempower them by creating horizontal forms of organization that prevent nutters from gaining power over other people.

[Wiesty]

allthough u are ignorant,

i like the ideal but in a sence dont believe in it

people do need control and leaders

can u imagine the crime and chaos of an anarchist nation? no law enforcement? no rules?

its a good idea of libertarianism, but it just could not work

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Wiesty:
www.anarchistfaq.org

Please, read through it, and I&#39;ll answer any questions you have about anarchism that aren&#39;t covered there.
It will be much easier to have meaningful debate once you understand the topic.


(Sorry about comming off as so bitter, but this sort of ill informed spewing gets old, and I decided against sleeping last night.)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Wiesty+Dec 5 2004, 03:42 PM--> (Wiesty &#064; Dec 5 2004, 03:42 PM) allthough u are ignorant [/b]
then...


"Wiesty"
can u imagine the crime and chaos of an anarchist nation? no law enforcement? no rules?

This remark is explained in great detail in this thread.


people do need control and leaders

You have to ask yourself why you think this and whether or not it&#39;s true? What evidence is there to support it?


its a good idea of libertarianism, but it just could not work

Do you think communism could work?

[Wiesty]

of coarse i think communism could work, but u need a smart leader to run it
and it dosent work because no one wants a perfect society where everyting is equal, like a friend of mine said, some people are leaders some are followers thats why it cant be all equal.

i think communism could work with changes.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:59 PM
of coarse i think communism could work, but u need a smart leader to run it
and it dosent work because no one wants a perfect society where everyting is equal, like a friend of mine said, some people are leaders some are followers thats why it cant be all equal.


Do you know what communism is?

people are leaders some are followers

Why do you think that?

[between]

if anarchy ever work, it will be with help of education and change in our culturel hierarchical system....there is no need for control only for conciousness ,i mean together as individual is the best way to go.i was looking this board for quiet a while now and it appear really interresting to see, that even people who call themself anarchists seem to always wan to stay in control (an even use the tools for,like censure or arrogance)...that why anarchy won&#39;t work.

[CaptinAnarchy124]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:38 PM
if anarchy ever work, it will be with help of education and change in our culturel hierarchical system....there is no need for control only for conciousness ,i mean together as individual is the best way to go.i was looking this board for quiet a while now and it appear really interresting to see, that even people who call themself anarchists seem to always wan to stay in control (an even use the tools for,like censure or arrogance)...that why anarchy won&#39;t work.
I have never met a true anarchist that has actually wanted to take power for themselves. And I would like to say that George Orwell was a "Democratic Socialist" to "Syndicalist". He fought with a Syndicalist group during the 1936-39 Spanish revolution, and I believe he always despised Communists in the tradition sense (Russian "Communists" like Lenin and Trotsky).

[Wiesty]

of coarse i know what it is, whats with all the questioning all of a sudden on communism,
i had a comment about saying people need control or things get out of hand, i see no problem in that

[CaptinAnarchy124]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 03:52 PM
anarchism has never been tried or applied(and if,only as a reaction to faschisme)
i think it is better than what&#39;s doesn&#39;t work and won&#39;t......you will not need to kill(or steal from) your fellow neighbour....
i believe that order bring chaos.....
but chaos could bring order.....
is that anarchism?.
.....i don&#39;t care ....and i&#39;ll stay myself.
What are you talking about? Anarchist theory has been working and been proved to work far better than Capitalist or so called "Communist" states. It worked before the Russian Revolution with the "Soviets" (Soviets were traditionally not people who supported the USSR, but communes and collectives of people working for purely democratic unions). It worked for about 100 years in the Kibbutz in Israel. It worked during the Spanish Revolution from 1936-39. It is working in Chiapas right now where the Zapatista society is working strongly around Anarchist principles (excluding the military there).

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by CaptinAnarchy124+Dec 5 2004, 06:41 PM--> (CaptinAnarchy124 @ Dec 5 2004, 06:41 PM)
[email protected] 5 2004, 05:38 PM
if anarchy ever work, it will be with help of education and change in our culturel hierarchical system....there is no need for control only for conciousness ,i mean together as individual is the best way to go.i was looking this board for quiet a while now and it appear really interresting to see, that even people who call themself anarchists seem to always wan to stay in control (an even use the tools for,like censure or arrogance)...that why anarchy won&#39;t work.
I have never met a true anarchist that has actually wanted to take power for themselves. And I would like to say that George Orwell was a "Democratic Socialist" to "Syndicalist". He fought with a Syndicalist group during the 1936-39 Spanish revolution, and I believe he always despised Communists in the tradition sense (Russian "Communists" like Lenin and Trotsky). [/b]
Actually, he fought with the Party of Marxist Unity (POUM), which was an anti-Stalin Leninist party. See his book Homage to Catalonia IMO, the best label for Orwell would be "democratic socialist."

[between]

anarchy against label ;)

[leftist resistance]

I think anarchism would work if the society is made up of good,responsible people.

But the problem is that some people would also want to seize power(not everyone would be a true anarchist)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 07:47 PM
of coarse i know what it is, whats with all the questioning all of a sudden on communism,
i had a comment about saying people need control or things get out of hand, i see no problem in that
But actually from what you&#39;re saying it seems as if you don&#39;t understand what communism is.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 04:59 AM
I think anarchism would work if the society is made up of good,responsible people.
But it is, it just doesn&#39;t look as if it is.


But the problem is that some people would also want to seize power(not everyone would be a true anarchist)

Why?

[Wiesty]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Dec 6 2004, 02:06 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Dec 6 2004, 02:06 AM)
[email protected] 5 2004, 07:47 PM
of coarse i know what it is, whats with all the questioning all of a sudden on communism,
i had a comment about saying people need control or things get out of hand, i see no problem in that
But actually from what you&#39;re saying it seems as if you don&#39;t understand what communism is. [/b]
what do u mean what im saying? im not saying anything about it, we are talking about anarchism

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Wiesty+Dec 6 2004, 01:53 PM--> (Wiesty @ Dec 6 2004, 01:53 PM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2004, 02:06 AM

[email protected] 5 2004, 07:47 PM
of coarse i know what it is, whats with all the questioning all of a sudden on communism,
i had a comment about saying people need control or things get out of hand, i see no problem in that
But actually from what you&#39;re saying it seems as if you don&#39;t understand what communism is.
what do u mean what im saying? im not saying anything about it, we are talking about anarchism [/b]
Anarchism is principally communism.

You said:


of coarse i think communism could work, but u need a smart leader to run it and it dosent work because no one wants a perfect society where everyting is equal, like a friend of mine said, some people are leaders some are followers thats why it cant be all equal.

The point of communism is to create equality, and in a communist soicety there are no "leaders" and ther are no "followers." It is communal.

[Wiesty]

of coarse there are leaders, even though it creates equality amongst the classes, some people are sittin dirt poor while others like castro or stalin etc. or even people with job perks, were sitting filthy rich. maybe there was equality amongst the working class, but above there, it wasnt that equal.

[ComradeChris]

The point of communism is to create equality, and in a communist soicety there are no "leaders" and ther are no "followers." It is communal.

I assume you&#39;re speaking of Marxist communism? I&#39;ll let you answer that because if not, my planned argument is negligable :lol: .

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 09:51 PM
of coarse there are leaders
You&#39;re not making any sense.

I&#39;m telling you a fact, i&#39;m not giving you my opinion. In a communist society ther are no leaders. Society is organised so that work is distruibuted equally (as in those who can do a cetain job it). There is adminstration but those positions are not life long and they dont have any political or economic power.


even though it creates equality amongst the classes,

And how do you think that&#39;s possible if there are leaders?


some people are sittin dirt poor while others like castro or stalin etc. or even people with job perks, were sitting filthy rich.

Those people and countries aren&#39;t/weren&#39;t communist.


maybe there was equality amongst the working class, but above there, it wasnt that equal.

Then it wasn&#39;t communism.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2004, 09:08 AM
Anarchism is principally communism.

You said:


of coarse i think communism could work, but u need a smart leader to run it and it dosent work because no one wants a perfect society where everyting is equal, like a friend of mine said, some people are leaders some are followers thats why it cant be all equal.

The point of communism is to create equality, and in a communist soicety there are no "leaders" and ther are no "followers." It is communal.
If you&#39;re referring to Marxist communism, which I asked earlier and you did not reply (and will only assume so, because Marxism seems to be the predominant form of Communism on this forum), the way of achieving communism is completely different. It returns us to the age old question: Does the ends justify the means? And even if they do, how successful will it really be? I mean all other violent anarchist states (actually all Anarchist states) have failed. Someone said other countries have tried it Marx&#39;s way and that doesn&#39;t work either. However, those countries weren&#39;t the "western" industrialized countries that Marx made a criteria for his Communism. In fact a place like America would be the ideal place for a Marxist communist state. Maybe the end result is the same, but be that the case, I strongly suspect you will see the same results as history has shown.

[vivalache22]

Weather anarchism is right or wrong, the fact is what&#39;s really fucked up is America capiolizes on it. Making T-Shirts and Bags with anarchy symbols. You think a real acarchist would carry that shit. It&#39;s just like the Che T-Shirt I&#39;d rather spend my money to help build a school in Africa for the poor kids with aids. I know I love Che, I don&#39;t need a T-shirt to remind me...

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 03:52 PM
Weather anarchism is right or wrong, the fact is what&#39;s really fucked up is America capiolizes on it. Making T-Shirts and Bags with anarchy symbols. You think a real acarchist would carry that shit. It&#39;s just like the Che T-Shirt I&#39;d rather spend my money to help build a school in Africa for the poor kids with aids. I know I love Che, I don&#39;t need a T-shirt to remind me...
America capitalizes on everything. That&#39;s about the only thing they do well (well...maybe they&#39;re good at blowing other countries to rubble); which is why I detest them and their ideologies. Most people here hate me, but I think Anarchism can work both ways, only under different names. If you take it on the far right, people have coined the term libertarianism. They would still keep money (so it seems, as they&#39;re basically about eliminating government for primarily trading purposes) and it seems that corporations would basically run the society in the end. This can&#39;t be Anachism as there is obviously a government if there is still money. On the far left, people claim the end result of Anarchism to be Communism. However, people think communism would be a big change, an even greater change would be skipping the middle step in Marxist Communism: Socialism. Which is why it could possibly only work in small numbers and no national changes could be made without overcoming fierce resistance. This leftist form of Anarchism I think would be better uncer the term "Direct Democracy." I&#39;m not sure what it would be call if you were in the middle of the spectrum. This can be more easily understood if you look at the political spectrum in place on politicalcompass.org. While people have tried to use it against me, I haven&#39;t seen a better explained spectrum, and everyone who knocks it has yet to come up with an alternative.

[Guest1]

The spectrum is correct, their use of the term "Anarchism" isn&#39;t. "Libertarianism" could be left or right, but Anarchism is an exclusively Socialist ideology. Much like the Nazis attempted to co-opt the term "Socialism", capitalists are now attempting to co-opt "Anarchism". The site may not be aware of this reality, so it isn&#39;t their fault.

You on the other hand, have now been told several times.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 4 2005, 04:20 PM
The spectrum is correct, their use of the term "Anarchism" isn&#39;t. "Libertarianism" could be left or right, but Anarchism is an exclusively Socialist ideology. Much like the Nazis attempted to co-opt the term "Socialism", capitalists are now attempting to co-opt "Anarchism". The site may not be aware of this reality, so it isn&#39;t their fault.

You on the other hand, have now been told several times.
What are you talking about??? I&#39;ve nev er heard anyone on the left coin the term Libertarianism. In fact in an article in Time magazine they were discussing it as exclusively right-winged. :rolleyes:

And I&#39;ve told you...collectivization (socialism, communism, even some monarchies) implies government. Government implies leadership. You&#39;re the one with the incorrect use of the term "Anarchism&#33;"

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And I&#39;ve told you...collectivization (socialism, communism, even some monarchies) implies government.

How so? Collectivisation means the people own the means of production, as opposed to to goverments or corporations.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 11:04 AM

And I&#39;ve told you...collectivization (socialism, communism, even some monarchies) implies government.

How so? Collectivisation means the people own the means of production, as opposed to to goverments or corporations.
Somewhere along the line people are going to be directing people. I mean how many forms of collectivization have you seen, that have last more than a couple years, without someone directing the distribution?

I&#39;m referring to the redistribution aspect of it. When people need something (food, shelter, medicine, etc) how are you going to distribute that? "Well, this persons dying, lets assemble everyone and vote as to whether we should give him/her the medicine." Is that what you&#39;re going to do everytime something minute needs to get done? People will assume leadership roles, and I understand that. But I was referring to usage of terms; and Anarchism isn&#39;t a correct use of the term, the ideology is supposed to represent. I&#39;m all for the fact that people can mutually own things in a direct democracy. But democracy implies leadership too (whether majority rule, or mob rule).

[Guest1]

You misunderstand the term leadership as well. As for the term "libertarianism", you are correct that I shouldn&#39;t have Capitalized it, as American english is retarded and considers "Libertarianism" to be exclusive to the party, rather to its actual history as seperate from it. Libertarianism, as is used on that same site you showed, is just an axis. Unfortunately, as with the beginning of the previous sentence, I had to capitalize it, cause it&#39;s at the beginning of a sentence.

Anyways, Anarchism is a form of libertarian Socialism, and the "Libertarian Party" in the US is a form of libertarian Capitalism.

Leadership is not an issue in Anarchism, if someone steps up with an idea, it&#39;s not a problem (though it is if they&#39;re always the ones doing it). What is a problem is if that person is sanctioned to step up with an idea, or if with that idea, that person is given hierarchichal authority and power.

If you want to look at a real world working model of collective production and distribution model that does not need centralization or authority, you have to keep in mind that societies cannot be maintained in a vaccum. War and betrayal has cut previous experiments short, which were largely successful otherwise. The more global nature of future outbursts should be interesting, in that it will reduce such threats.

But if you wanna see them actually working, you must isolate them from those influences, war and betrayal (by some Communist parties in most cases), in my case the example comes from the internet. Which is obviously not a perfect example, but it gives glimpses into the future the technological development Marx spoke of would yield. Take a look at it, read up anything about opn-source this year, and you will see that even wall-street is calling "open-source" and "free-software" (geek-speak for collectively produced software that does away with notions of property) leaps and bounds ahead of "corporate" software (private property and market-based production models). And much more efficient. 2005 is being named the year of open-source, and the gift economies of the internet, in the form of open-source software production and file-sharing networks, are thriving like never before.

There is no hierchichal leadership guiding development on the net, though many would like there to be one. It is that very lack of one that makes it so efficient now.

Read up on FireFox to see just how efficient.

[ComradeChris]

Leadership is not an issue in Anarchism, if someone steps up with an idea, it&#39;s not a problem (though it is if they&#39;re always the ones doing it). What is a problem is if that person is sanctioned to step up with an idea, or if with that idea, that person is given hierarchichal authority and power.

Certain people are still going to have more influence over others. Some anarchist (I believe in this thread even) previously even said under certain situations there would be leaders. Their example was military leadership. I presented the idea of medical hierarchy.


There is no hierchichal leadership guiding development on the net, though many would like there to be one. It is that very lack of one that makes it so efficient now.

DOn&#39;t you need to buy websites? Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but that implies ownership, and if someone owns something they usually have control over it. That&#39;s what I get out of what you said.


If you want to look at a real world working model of collective production and distribution model that does not need centralization or authority, you have to keep in mind that societies cannot be maintained in a vaccum. War and betrayal has cut previous experiments short, which were largely successful otherwise. The more global nature of future outbursts should be interesting, in that it will reduce such threats.

I have a book of primarily sourced documents of the Spanish Civil War (which someone told me to look up). I&#39;m also travelling to Spain this summer (assuming it&#39;s everything the university describes it to be) and will hopefully be able to get even more first hand references of attempted Anarchism.


You misunderstand the term leadership as well. As for the term "libertarianism", you are correct that I shouldn&#39;t have Capitalized it, as American english is retarded and considers "Libertarianism" to be exclusive to the party, rather to its actual history as seperate from it. Libertarianism, as is used on that same site you showed, is just an axis. Unfortunately, as with the beginning of the previous sentence, I had to capitalize it, cause it&#39;s at the beginning of a sentence.

The article in Time that I was referring to, only had the term libertarianism as right winged. There wasn&#39;t any words preceding or following the term.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 07:34 PM
Certain people are still going to have more influence over others. Some anarchist (I believe in this thread even) previously even said under certain situations there would be leaders. Their example was military leadership. I presented the idea of medical hierarchy.
Influence is not institutionalized power. There are ways to deal with and prevent too much "influence" from accumulating in the hands of a few, but it isn&#39;t as much of a threat as a leadership position that implies you know better, or have more authority.


DOn&#39;t you need to buy websites? Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but that implies ownership, and if someone owns something they usually have control over it. That&#39;s what I get out of what you said.
As I said, it is a developing system. I&#39;m not talking about websites. I&#39;m talking about using the internet itself to develop collective means of production and distribution. Everytime the MPAA and the RIAA fail to convince someone that downloading music or movies over the net is stealing, they are making it easier and easier for people to dismiss intellectual property as rediculous, and by extension making it easier to dismiss tangeable property as rediculous. We&#39;re not there yet, but it&#39;s pavingt he way. The use of the interent to develop FireFox and Linux is already showing how inefficient private and market production models is, and the wonders we can achieve when we harness technology to its fullest extent by using collective production models.


I have a book of primarily sourced documents of the Spanish Civil War (which someone told me to look up). I&#39;m also travelling to Spain this summer (assuming it&#39;s everything the university describes it to be) and will hopefully be able to get even more first hand references of attempted Anarchism.
Cool, it was humanity at its best and worst at the same time. The best in terms of workers taking up arms and building together, and the worst as in the church, Stalin, the liberals, the Fascists, destroying it all in a river of blood.


The article in Time that I was referring to, only had the term libertarianism as right winged. There wasn&#39;t any words preceding or following the term.
Time is an American article :) In most other places around the world, libertarianism is associated with libertarian socialism.

[ComradeChris]

Influence is not institutionalized power. There are ways to deal with and prevent too much "influence" from accumulating in the hands of a few, but it isn&#39;t as much of a threat as a leadership position that implies you know better, or have more authority.

I&#39;m just curious, could you describe some of these methods for eliminating too much influence or authority?


Cool, it was humanity at its best and worst at the same time. The best in terms of workers taking up arms and building together, and the worst as in the church, Stalin, the liberals, the Fascists, destroying it all in a river of blood.

Someone was talking about how they set up anarcho-syndicalist-communes. I think that&#39;s the correct term, or I&#39;ve just been watching too much Monty Python :lol: . However, that ideology does intrigue me from what I&#39;ve heard about it. Do you know much about it?


Time is an American article :) In most other places around the world, libertarianism is associated with libertarian socialism.

True enough. I&#39;ve heard the term other places before as well as exclusively right wing. Until this conversation with you, I&#39;ve never heard it as a leftist term.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 02:07 PM
I&#39;m just curious, could you describe some of these methods for eliminating too much influence or authority?
Proper involvement from all, a vigilent community that tells someone to shut up if they&#39;re hogging the mic. A circle style meeting, where everyone gets a turn to speak. People going around encouraging everyone to get involved.

This is for non-formal, non-authoritative influence. These are just some ideas, each group finds their own ways.


Someone was talking about how they set up anarcho-syndicalist-communes. I think that&#39;s the correct term, or I&#39;ve just been watching too much Monty Python :lol: . However, that ideology does intrigue me from what I&#39;ve heard about it. Do you know much about it?
Yeah, that&#39;s the correct term. I take alot from Anarcho-Syndicalism actually, and I&#39;m glad you&#39;re interested in it.

There was a good site for it, but it seems to be down :(


True enough. I&#39;ve heard the term other places before as well as exclusively right wing. Until this conversation with you, I&#39;ve never heard it as a leftist term.
Well, I&#39;m glad we&#39;ve come to an agreement then.

Listen, I&#39;d like to appologize if I&#39;ve treated you unfairly since you came here. We&#39;ve just heard alot of these arguments before, and it just got on our nerves.

Obviously you&#39;re just here to learn, and are curious. We all make mistakes, and we should be more open to that, and that was our mistake.

I&#39;m glad you stuck it out, and I&#39;d like to welcome you a bit too late to the site.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 8 2005, 06:32 AM
Well, I&#39;m glad we&#39;ve come to an agreement then.

Listen, I&#39;d like to appologize if I&#39;ve treated you unfairly since you came here. We&#39;ve just heard alot of these arguments before, and it just got on our nerves.

Obviously you&#39;re just here to learn, and are curious. We all make mistakes, and we should be more open to that, and that was our mistake.

I&#39;m glad you stuck it out, and I&#39;d like to welcome you a bit too late to the site.
Apology accepted. I&#39;d like to apologize too. I can sometimes get hot headed in an argument and honestly don&#39;t mean any offence. I&#39;d rather learn something from an ally than some right-winged magazine. I don&#39;t really know why I&#39;ve been arguing so fiercely about frivilous things either...probably just have too much time on my hands :lol: . But if you could provide a link to the anarcho-sindicalist&#39;s ideology I&#39;d appreciate that.


Proper involvement from all, a vigilent community that tells someone to shut up if they&#39;re hogging the mic. A circle style meeting, where everyone gets a turn to speak. People going around encouraging everyone to get involved.

This is for non-formal, non-authoritative influence. These are just some ideas, each group finds their own ways.

So kind of like Ancient Athens where everyone (in our case including all those that were excluded before; and there wouldn&#39;t be slaves) participates avidly in the government? I guess there also wouldn&#39;t be the strategos or archons either; so people wouldn&#39;t inherently have more say in the public. Sounds good enough. However, wouldn&#39;t this only work in a situation where people want to be involved? I mean if we look at today&#39;s society pretty much 1/2 the people don&#39;t vote. But I guess even that would change because people usually have the mentality, "well all the politicians are the same," type of thing. SOrry I&#39;m just trying to express my thoughts. Tell me if they contradict the ideology of anarchism.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 01:17 PM
Apology accepted. I&#39;d like to apologize too. I can sometimes get hot headed in an argument and honestly don&#39;t mean any offence. I&#39;d rather learn something from an ally than some right-winged magazine. I don&#39;t really know why I&#39;ve been arguing so fiercely about frivilous things either...probably just have too much time on my hands :lol: . But if you could provide a link to the anarcho-sindicalist&#39;s ideology I&#39;d appreciate that.
Well, the best site is down now, but there&#39;s the Industrial Workers of the World (http://www.iww.org), which is a union that basically represents Anarcho-Syndicalism in action (in terms of how to organize for the revolution). They believe in abolishing wage slavery, the collective ownership of the means of production. It&#39;s mostly the methodology of leading up to the revolution that makes Anarcho-Syndicalism interesting. They put alot of emphasis on industrial action, (radical) union organizing, and unity amongst the working class. They also believe in organizing all together (one big union), with cluster industries tied together, to increase our efficiency in using our numbers and eventually shut down the entire system by general strikes and later on factory takeovers and revolution.

The clustering industries is interesting. Taking industries that are closely tied together in the process of production and tying together the union locals from those industries in close cooperation.

So for example, a metal refinery on strike, tied with the mining operations providiing it with raw metal, as well as being tied with other metal refineries from other companies.

Total solidarity.

They also believe that union organizing in itself will be the seeds of organizing for the future society. As these unions organize the working class, they develop efficient methods of radical organizing that rejects influence from the bourgeoisie and the state, and are in a natural position to organize collective production and distribution when the moment comes. As a result, Anarcho-Syndicalism&#39;s goals put alot of emphasis on workplace organizing of production, distribution, etc...


So kind of like Ancient Athens where everyone (in our case including all those that were excluded before; and there wouldn&#39;t be slaves) participates avidly in the government? I guess there also wouldn&#39;t be the strategos or archons either; so people wouldn&#39;t inherently have more say in the public. Sounds good enough. However, wouldn&#39;t this only work in a situation where people want to be involved? I mean if we look at today&#39;s society pretty much 1/2 the people don&#39;t vote. But I guess even that would change because people usually have the mentality, "well all the politicians are the same," type of thing. SOrry I&#39;m just trying to express my thoughts. Tell me if they contradict the ideology of anarchism.
Don&#39;t worry about it, I&#39;m very glad you&#39;re interested, and these questions are valid questions, comrade to comrade :)

You are right that participation is important, and that is why decentralization is important. Decisions are delegated to the collectives that are involved in their outcome unless it is a major issue that everyone needs to get involved in. For example, production in the car factory is left to that collective. They vote and decide what to do, though of course with cooperation with all other collectives that are related to it. City-wide collective decisions, like emergencies and the like, or very important issues that affect all, are done by a general assembly of sorts that everyone is encouraged to go to. Though no one is forced.

By breaking down the decisions like this, everyone who works is already there, and involved int he decisions as a part of their jobs.

Does that make sense to you?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 10 2005, 03:09 AM

So kind of like Ancient Athens where everyone (in our case including all those that were excluded before; and there wouldn&#39;t be slaves) participates avidly in the government? I guess there also wouldn&#39;t be the strategos or archons either; so people wouldn&#39;t inherently have more say in the public. Sounds good enough. However, wouldn&#39;t this only work in a situation where people want to be involved? I mean if we look at today&#39;s society pretty much 1/2 the people don&#39;t vote. But I guess even that would change because people usually have the mentality, "well all the politicians are the same," type of thing. SOrry I&#39;m just trying to express my thoughts. Tell me if they contradict the ideology of anarchism.
Don&#39;t worry about it, I&#39;m very glad you&#39;re interested, and these questions are valid questions, comrade to comrade :)

You are right that participation is important, and that is why decentralization is important. Decisions are delegated to the collectives that are involved in their outcome unless it is a major issue that everyone needs to get involved in. For example, production in the car factory is left to that collective. They vote and decide what to do, though of course with cooperation with all other collectives that are related to it. City-wide collective decisions, like emergencies and the like, or very important issues that affect all, are done by a general assembly of sorts that everyone is encouraged to go to. Though no one is forced.

By breaking down the decisions like this, everyone who works is already there, and involved int he decisions as a part of their jobs.

Does that make sense to you?
Yes, that makes sence. Sorry to put this in reformist terms, so basically there would by jurisdictions, but every jurisdiction (or place) that votes is completely a direct democracy. That&#39;s exactly what I want.

And it seems as though efficiency in a direct democracy is also questioned, but breaking it down into places of work (and as part of their jobs as you say) would eliminate that misconception of inefficiency.

Hey, one more favour to ask. I&#39;m always (as you can see) referring to things in reformist terms. Is there anyway to help me lose that mindset?

[Ele'ill]

look what comradeivan has accomplished with one post, I lost track of this thread at page 3. Maybe he is a genius for being able to move the masses with such vigor. He sparked a tree of thought with his own ignorance, so in a sense his innocence declared a flawless victory over his malicious posts. Good work comradeivan and no your original post wasn&#39;t that bad.

[Citzen Smith]

Im a communist, and agree that the anarchist system does not work. However, ur idea of anarchism is totally wrong. The anarchist system does not stand for anarchy in the modern context of the word, rather the destruction of any system which forces people to respond to a person above them in social standing or power. It in fact does away with social standing and power altogether. The Mad Max Apocalypse world that you suggest is not anarchism, but rather what i beleive would happen if someone tried to create an anarchistic state. However, we have no idea what would happen in anarchist state because its never been tried. Anyway, your argument is not about whether or not anarchisim is wrong in theory, but in practise. Your sweeping statements about anarchism are theoretically wrong, even if they are in my opinion realistically correct.

[S.J.]

Anarchism as a system of governing? The idea of a anarchist group is a complete oxymoron. Wont work so just go sit in the corner by yourself.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 11:44 AM
Yes, that makes sence. Sorry to put this in reformist terms, so basically there would by jurisdictions, but every jurisdiction (or place) that votes is completely a direct democracy. That&#39;s exactly what I want.
Good to hear :)


And it seems as though efficiency in a direct democracy is also questioned, but breaking it down into places of work (and as part of their jobs as you say) would eliminate that misconception of inefficiency.
Exactly. Decentralization is efficient. Centralized direct democracy obviously would be far too complicated to work. But if the decisions are broken down more locally, it becomes much more efficient than what we have now, or a centralized bureaucracy.


Hey, one more favour to ask. I&#39;m always (as you can see) referring to things in reformist terms. Is there anyway to help me lose that mindset?
Don&#39;t worry about the terms, just try more to keep in mind the meanings in Capitalist society vs. the meanings amongst a political group (such as revolutionaryleft/che-lives). The word jursidiction may be a little clunky, but I know what you mean. I personally use terms like collective.

As for political terminology, a good way is to look through the Che-Lives dictionary, over here. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=21255) That&#39;s got a pretty good explanation of the basic political terms for the revolutionary left.

Other than that, it&#39;s just asking questions and keeping an open mind, don&#39;t worry about it. You&#39;re smart and you&#39;ll kick that habit in no time. It took me a while to do it :P

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 05:48 PM
The idea of a anarchist group is a complete oxymoron.
Would you please explain why that is an oxymoron, instead of merely making the allegation?


(An anarchist group) Wont work so just go sit in the corner by yourself.

http://www.surreyanarchy.org.uk/ ;)