Hey! North Korea's communist!

[the RIGHT=FREEDOM]

Hmmmmmm, care to explain commes?

[New Tolerance]

Stuff like this has been discussed 1 * 10 ^ infinite times in the last 72 hours, I suggest you read some of the other threads before repeat posting (again).

[amusing foibles]

Can someone please make a sticky about this?

[comrade_mufasa]

Maybe becouse it is not communist. It is a state capitalist dictatorship.

[the RIGHT=FREEDOM]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 09:19 PM
Maybe becouse it is not communist. It is a state capitalist dictatorship.
Ok, you've now proved that you know nothing about capitalism, thought thats not suprising.

The government controls everything and allows NO public dissent, two mainstays of communism.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

And you have stated to know nothing about either communism or capitalism. This thread is nothing but a provocation. Are you asking for a ban?

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by the RIGHT=FREEDOM+Feb 4 2005, 04:26 PM--> (the RIGHT=FREEDOM @ Feb 4 2005, 04:26 PM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 09:19 PM
Maybe becouse it is not communist. It is a state capitalist dictatorship.
Ok, you've now proved that you know nothing about capitalism, thought thats not suprising.

The government controls everything and allows NO public dissent, two mainstays of communism. [/b]
there is no government in communism. the people democraticly control everthing.

[Sirion]

The government controls the means of production= state capitalist trait
The people control the means of production = socialist/communist trait

See the difference? Communism cannot exist without democracy, not even without quite an amount of direct democracy om all levels of society. You say yourself that North Korea don't have this (you are correct, by the way), so you are contradicting yourself

[New Tolerance]

Ok, you've now proved that you know nothing about capitalism, thought thats not suprising.


Define capitalism, then we can talk about this.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by the RIGHT=FREEDOM+Feb 4 2005, 09:26 PM--> (the RIGHT=FREEDOM @ Feb 4 2005, 09:26 PM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 09:19 PM
Maybe becouse it is not communist. It is a state capitalist dictatorship.
Ok, you've now proved that you know nothing about capitalism, thought thats not suprising.

The government controls everything and allows NO public dissent, two mainstays of communism.[/b]
Actually, its you that dont no nothing about capitalism not communism. You might know something about "communism", but you dont know nothing about communism. Comrade mufasa is right, it is state capitalism [just like in former USSR]. its diferent from etathism [when capitalist state takes over the controll of the private capital in order to protect it]. Its when there is no private ownership of the capital, but yet, there is no socialism. if there is state, dictatureship of the bueraucracy, bueraucracy itself, and, as you said, government controling everything and no public dissent, or no democracy - there is no socialism.

internationalism, democracy, socialism > 3 terms that cant be separate

[Latifa]

Hmmmmmm, care to explain commes?

Why don't you just attempt to debate about things you actually know about, instead of just asking us to explain things to you =)

[the RIGHT=FREEDOM]

Originally posted by comrade_mufasa+Feb 4 2005, 09:31 PM--> (comrade_mufasa @ Feb 4 2005, 09:31 PM)
Originally posted by the [email protected] 4 2005, 04:26 PM

[email protected] 4 2005, 09:19 PM
Maybe becouse it is not communist. It is a state capitalist dictatorship.
Ok, you've now proved that you know nothing about capitalism, thought thats not suprising.

The government controls everything and allows NO public dissent, two mainstays of communism.
there is no government in communism. the people democraticly control everthing. [/b]
The absence of government is called anarchy sir, NOT communism.

[New Tolerance]

The absence of government is called anarchy sir, NOT communism.

Ever wonder, why Anachrists say that they want to end capitalism and replace it with communism?

I think you are referring to state socialism.

state Socialism <> communism

[Sirion]

State capitalism, actually.

[New Tolerance]

Well, that&#39;s probably what it is now.

Aside from that socialism, is not communism.

[bubb&#1071;ubbgoeswoo]

Communism would be classless,so thus no government.

[the RIGHT=FREEDOM]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 4 2005, 09:34 PM

Ok, you&#39;ve now proved that you know nothing about capitalism, thought thats not suprising.


Define capitalism, then we can talk about this.
Capitalism is an economic system in which means of production are corporately and pivately, owned.

Production of goods are proportionate to the profits gained in return for production of those goods.

The government is small and remains out of your life for the most part.

It&#39;s also a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, this also includes property rights (you own and manage your own property)

[New Tolerance]

Now define government. and why something like a corporation is different from something like the government.

[the RIGHT=FREEDOM]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 4 2005, 09:44 PM

The absence of government is called anarchy sir, NOT communism.

Ever wonder, why Anachrists say that they want to end capitalism and replace it with communism?

I think you are referring to state socialism.

state Socialism <> communism
None of the anarchists I know say that, nice try.

Socialism is communism light. The government is huge and regualtes almost all production of any goods.

It also babies it&#39;s citizens and spends however much to make sure no one is "poor."

[amusing foibles]

Hi, I&#39;m an Anarchist. I think that capitalism should be abolished and replaced with communism, where communism is a stateless, classless society as described in "The Communist Manifesto"

Happy?

[Sirion]

"Capitalism is an economic system in which means of production are corporately and pivately, owned.

Production of goods are proportionate to the profits gained in return for production of those goods.

The government is small and remains out of your life for the most part.

It&#39;s also a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, this also includes property rights (you own and manage your own property)"

Close, but no cigar. In Europe, many governments own many of the major corporations. Yet, these nations are capitalist, although some mistaught individuals still call them socialist.

You claim that the means of production is privately owned. This will also be the case in a socialist/communist scenario. The means of production will be owned by the people, and not the government. That is a huge difference, and involves a very well developed democracy.

Also, you fail to recognize the class diversion within capitalism, and your claim about individual rights shows that you don&#39;thave the slightest clue about what you are talking about. Under capitalism, you have the rights that are granted to you. Same thing under state capitalism.

My apologies.... it wasn&#39;t even close...

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by the RIGHT=FREEDOM+Feb 4 2005, 09:57 PM--> (the RIGHT=FREEDOM @ Feb 4 2005, 09:57 PM)
New [email protected] 4 2005, 09:44 PM

The absence of government is called anarchy sir, NOT communism.

Ever wonder, why Anachrists say that they want to end capitalism and replace it with communism?

I think you are referring to state socialism.

state Socialism <> communism
None of the anarchists I know say that, nice try.

Socialism is communism light. The government is huge and regualtes almost all production of any goods.

It also babies it&#39;s citizens and spends however much to make sure no one is "poor." [/b]
why are you pushing this. youre wrong, and when youre wrong you should ask. i think people gave you enough answers that you can exept as right.

[New Tolerance]

None of the anarchists I know say that, nice try.

Socialism is communism light. The government is huge and regualtes almost all production of any goods.

It also babies it&#39;s citizens and spends however much to make sure no one is "poor."

If you refuse to accept our conventional definition. Then we are all anachrists, does that make things more clear?

[Intifada]

What/who the hell are "commes"?

[the RIGHT=FREEDOM]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 4 2005, 09:56 PM
Now define government. and why something like a corporation is different from something like the government.
What the fuck? Are you for real?

A government is a ruling body of a state.

Hmmmmm, let&#39;s see. Corporations don&#39;t have their own armies, different branches of government, constitutions, elections to choose their leaders, must I continue.

That was by far the most nonsensical request I&#39;ve heard in quite some time, thannks, I needed to laugh.

You people, your defense of a long debunked economic system is truly amusing, but at least you not shouting "EVIL AMERIKKA&#33;" "DIE CAPTIALIST PIG IMPERIALISTS&#33;"

Don&#39;t go anywhere, I&#39;ll be back.

[New Tolerance]

Hmmmmm, let&#39;s see. Corporations don&#39;t have their own armies, different branches of government, constitutions, elections to choose their leaders, must I continue.


Corporations can certainly have armies, they can hire mercenaries can they not? Furthermore, an army isn&#39;t just a group of armed individuals, it&#39;s a tool that applies force. Wage and price control does this.

They have different branches of bureaucracy/management, how is different from different branches of government?

They have constitutions in the form of contracts with workers and other entities.

Your right, they don&#39;t choose their leaders, that&#39;s why they are undemocratic. Which means their constitutions can become rather meaningless at times.

[Lamanov]

state is the instrument which assures the position of the higher class. you know what classes are, do you ??

[Paradox]

EVIL AMERIKKKA&#33; DIE CAPITALIST PIG IMPERIALISTS&#33;

[NovelGentry]

Corporations don&#39;t have their own armies, different branches of government, constitutions, elections to choose their leaders, must I continue.

I take it you&#39;re not the CEO of Halliburton?

[Guest1]

Or blackwater "security" services?

[the RIGHT=FREEDOM]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:01 PM
"Capitalism is an economic system in which means of production are corporately and pivately, owned.

Production of goods are proportionate to the profits gained in return for production of those goods.

The government is small and remains out of your life for the most part.

It&#39;s also a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, this also includes property rights (you own and manage your own property)"

Close, but no cigar. In Europe, many governments own many of the major corporations. Yet, these nations are capitalist, although some mistaught individuals still call them socialist.

You claim that the means of production is privately owned. This will also be the case in a socialist/communist scenario. The means of production will be owned by the people, and not the government. That is a huge difference, and involves a very well developed democracy.

Also, you fail to recognize the class diversion within capitalism, and your claim about individual rights shows that you don&#39;thave the slightest clue about what you are talking about. Under capitalism, you have the rights that are granted to you. Same thing under state capitalism.

My apologies.... it wasn&#39;t even close...
Wrong, Most countries in Europe ARE socialist democracies. I pretty much gave you the dictionary defintion of captialism, you&#39;re twisting it for your own needs.

THIS, is the dictionary defintion of socialism:1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. France, Britiain, Sweeden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, all socialist democracies, the government does afford them some freedom, but has total control over the economy.

This little bit was interesting too: The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

You people are trying to redefine communism to fit your goals, shameful, your beloved comrades Stalin and Mao would be ashamed.

[Lamanov]

Stalin and Mao are not my comrades.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

So France, Britiain, Sweeden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, are all socialist with central planned economies.

First are you a retard (serious question), second how long have you lived on our planet (Earth), third ever heard of the private owned company Shell, Phillips, BP, Michellin. Are you a retard?

[New Tolerance]

THIS, is the dictionary defintion of socialism

The dictionary, gives the widely used definition, not necassarily the actual definition.

[Lamanov]

better yet :

the dictionary, used by people who are lazy to read a book

[the RIGHT=FREEDOM]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 4 2005, 11:22 PM
So France, Britiain, Sweeden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, are all socialist with central planned economies.

First are you a retard (serious question), second how long have you lived on our planet (Earth), third ever heard of the private owned company Shell, Phillips, BP, Michellin. Are you a retard?
Oh joy, I knew the juvinile insults would start, you leftists really can&#39;t live without them can you.

Their governments make their healthcare, medicare, college, and various other services that aren&#39;t free in the U.S. free over there, and of course, the quality is horrible.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by the RIGHT=FREEDOM+Feb 4 2005, 10:41 PM--> (the RIGHT=FREEDOM &#064; Feb 4 2005, 10:41 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by the [email protected] 4 2005, 04:26 PM

[email protected] 4 2005, 09:19 PM
Maybe becouse it is not communist. It is a state capitalist dictatorship.
Ok, you&#39;ve now proved that you know nothing about capitalism, thought thats not suprising.

The government controls everything and allows NO public dissent, two mainstays of communism.
there is no government in communism. the people democraticly control everthing.
The absence of government is called anarchy sir, NOT communism. [/b]
False, the term "Anarchy" is derived from a period in the English civil war marked by mob rule, not "no rule".

If you wish too discuss the modern anarchist ideologies, then be my guest, but I guarantee there are many people who are guaranteed too know far more than you. However, feel free to make an utter arse out of your self, if you want.

[Lamanov]

incorrect definition of communism :
- "1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people."

ok, so lets go trough this.
1. system of government
- there is no government in communism. there is a simple logical explanation behind this : state is the instrument used and created by the higher class to ensure and enforce exploatation upon the lower-working class. [please dont claim that there is no exploatation in capitalism]
- there is no exploatation in communism because there is no private properity [especially over production, which is essential to existance of exploatation]

2. plans and controls the economy
- socialism [later - communism] is a system of planned production which satisfies the needs of every member of society. now, you dont need a government to ensure the existance and work of planned and rational economy, now do you.

3. often authoritarian party holds power
- democracy is the political essence of communism. people choose their representatives trough the electoral system organised by the workers, not by any party. &#39;authoritarian&#39; part comes and goes in the beggining [proletariat dictatureship], right after the revolution, comes as a political instrument of the proletariat to seize power and destroys the reactionist resistance, when economy and market are organised on the basis of free work and equal distribution and as the reactionist threat passes dictatorship seizes to exist.

4. higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people
- is there a problem here ?

THIS IS PURELY MARXIST CRITIC OF YOUR &#39;DEFINITION&#39; SO PLEASE DONT BABBLE ABOUT US TWISTING ANYTHING

ONE MORE THING :

socialism-communism cannot be achieved by the low development of the productivity forces. this would mean, as Marx said, "socialisation of undevelopment". this happened in USSR and so on. there was low productivity and no competition on the market, which caused low quality of production. ok ? get it ? get it ?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Capitalism as defined by the Cambridge University Dictionary

capitalism [Show phonetics]
noun [U]
an economic, political and social system based on private ownership of property, business and industry, and directed towards making the greatest possible profits for successful organizations and people

The economies in Europe are despite the few social measures capitalist. The porpuse of the economies in Europe is to making the greatest possible profits for economical succesfull organisations, people and businesses. The economies of Europe are based on private ownership of property.

The capitalist countries have social measures, not because they care about the working class or because they are filled socialists, but to ensure their own existence.

When the bourgeoisie tried to abolish social securities, the working class revolted. This happend all over Europe. The dissatisfaction among the European working classes grew as the social securities fell away, thus the risc of revolution grew. The bourgeoisie had to keep and introduce some social measures to ensure their mere existence.

But to cheer you up. The bourgeoisie of Europe is on a tour again to abolish the social measures. And I cheer them on, the more the bourgeoisie fucks up, the sooner a revolution comes.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:03 AM
False, the term "Anarchy" is derived from a period in the English civil war marked by mob rule, not "no rule".

Actually it&#39;s derived from the Greek term "an archos", which means without government. During the Spartan occupation of Athens, many Athenians refused to recognize the Spartan puppet government. Thus the year was known as the year of anarchy.

[Veritas]

Originally posted by amusing [email protected] 4 2005, 10:01 PM
Hi, I&#39;m an Anarchist. I think that capitalism should be abolished and replaced with communism, where communism is a stateless, classless society as described in "The Communist Manifesto"

Happy?
an·ar·chy Audio pronunciation of "anarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

1) how does the contradict what she says
2) You should differ anarchism the political theory and anarchy the lack of order.

[Veritas]

Originally posted by Veritas+Feb 5 2005, 12:47 AM--> (Veritas &#064; Feb 5 2005, 12:47 AM)
amusing [email protected] 4 2005, 10:01 PM
Hi, I&#39;m an Anarchist. I think that capitalism should be abolished and replaced with communism, where communism is a stateless, classless society as described in "The Communist Manifesto"

Happy?
an·ar·chy Audio pronunciation of "anarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.[/b]

1. Statism without plutarchy = marxism ((state-) communism, state-socialism);

2. statism plus plutarchy = fascism (populism included);

3. socialism without statism = anarchy = anarchism;

4. plutarchy without statism = liberalism.

Anarchy (http://http://www.anarchy.no/intro.html#I).

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

www.anarchistfaq.org

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Veritas+Feb 5 2005, 02:04 AM--> (Veritas @ Feb 5 2005, 02:04 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 12:47 AM

amusing [email protected] 4 2005, 10:01 PM
Hi, I&#39;m an Anarchist. I think that capitalism should be abolished and replaced with communism, where communism is a stateless, classless society as described in "The Communist Manifesto"

Happy?
an·ar·chy Audio pronunciation of "anarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

1. Statism without plutarchy = marxism ((state-) communism, state-socialism);

2. statism plus plutarchy = fascism (populism included);

3. socialism without statism = anarchy = anarchism;

4. plutarchy without statism = liberalism.

Anarchy (http://http://www.anarchy.no/intro.html#I). [/b]
Repeat after me, you know the worlds, I have said it in almost all of our correspondig posts.

"There is no government in communist society"

Now you say it or back up your claims.

[Veritas]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;+Feb 5 2005, 01:15 AM--> (Non-Sectarian Bastard&#33; @ Feb 5 2005, 01:15 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 12:47 AM

amusing [email protected] 4 2005, 10:01 PM
Hi, I&#39;m an Anarchist. I think that capitalism should be abolished and replaced with communism, where communism is a stateless, classless society as described in "The Communist Manifesto"

Happy?
an·ar·chy Audio pronunciation of "anarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

1. Statism without plutarchy = marxism ((state-) communism, state-socialism);

2. statism plus plutarchy = fascism (populism included);

3. socialism without statism = anarchy = anarchism;

4. plutarchy without statism = liberalism.

Anarchy (http://http://www.anarchy.no/intro.html#I).
Repeat after me, you know the worlds, I have said it in almost all of our correspondig posts.

"There is no government in communist society"

Now you say it or back up your claims. [/b]
Did you check the link? These are not my words, but self proclaimed anarchists. They state communisim is statism. Not my claim, look at the link&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Then respond. I was told by a anarchist in this thread, that he was for communism. Here is an example from a pure anarchist site that disagrees. Just pointing that out. Gezz, lighten up&#33;

[amusing foibles]

Originally posted by Veritas+Feb 5 2005, 01:20 AM--> (Veritas &#064; Feb 5 2005, 01:20 AM)
Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 5 2005, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 12:47 AM

amusing [email protected] 4 2005, 10:01 PM
Hi, I&#39;m an Anarchist. I think that capitalism should be abolished and replaced with communism, where communism is a stateless, classless society as described in "The Communist Manifesto"

Happy?
an·ar·chy Audio pronunciation of "anarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

1. Statism without plutarchy = marxism ((state-) communism, state-socialism);

2. statism plus plutarchy = fascism (populism included);

3. socialism without statism = anarchy = anarchism;

4. plutarchy without statism = liberalism.

Anarchy (http://http://www.anarchy.no/intro.html#I).
Repeat after me, you know the worlds, I have said it in almost all of our correspondig posts.

"There is no government in communist society"

Now you say it or back up your claims.
Did you check the link? These are not my words, but self proclaimed anarchists. They state communisim is statism. Not my claim, look at the link&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Then respond. I was told by a anarchist in this thread, that he was for communism. Here is an example from a pure anarchist site that disagrees. Just pointing that out. Gezz, lighten up&#33; [/b]
In order to understand what I said, first you have to understand that the communism advocated by the Communist Manifesto is one in which the state has "withered away" and everyone is provided for "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" and there are no classes. This is almost identical, if not completly identical to the goal of Anarchism, and this is also the definition of communism that basically this entire site is running off of.

The difference between the two is that "Communism" (the ideology) proposes an intermediary stage between Capitalism and Communism in which the workers take power. This is called "Socialism."

Anarchists have a tendancy to believe that this won&#39;t work, and will only result in dictatorship and corruption, and that in the advent of a successful revolution Communism should be set up without the "worker&#39;s state."

But, in the end, they still want the same thing, which is communism.

Also, I don&#39;t like to be refered to as a "he," thanks.

And your link is dead / goes to microsoft.com on my browser (?).

[Veritas]

Originally posted by amusing foibles+Feb 5 2005, 01:35 AM--> (amusing foibles @ Feb 5 2005, 01:35 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 5 2005, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 12:47 AM

amusing [email protected] 4 2005, 10:01 PM
Hi, I&#39;m an Anarchist. I think that capitalism should be abolished and replaced with communism, where communism is a stateless, classless society as described in "The Communist Manifesto"

Happy?
an·ar·chy Audio pronunciation of "anarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

1. Statism without plutarchy = marxism ((state-) communism, state-socialism);

2. statism plus plutarchy = fascism (populism included);

3. socialism without statism = anarchy = anarchism;

4. plutarchy without statism = liberalism.

Anarchy (http://http://www.anarchy.no/intro.html#I).
Repeat after me, you know the worlds, I have said it in almost all of our correspondig posts.

"There is no government in communist society"

Now you say it or back up your claims.
Did you check the link? These are not my words, but self proclaimed anarchists. They state communisim is statism. Not my claim, look at the link&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Then respond. I was told by a anarchist in this thread, that he was for communism. Here is an example from a pure anarchist site that disagrees. Just pointing that out. Gezz, lighten up&#33;
In order to understand what I said, first you have to understand that the communism advocated by the Communist Manifesto is one in which the state has "withered away" and everyone is provided for "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" and there are no classes. This is almost identical, if not completly identical to the goal of Anarchism, and this is also the definition of communism that basically this entire site is running off of.

The difference between the two is that "Communism" (the ideology) proposes an intermediary stage between Capitalism and Communism in which the workers take power. This is called "Socialism."

Anarchists have a tendancy to believe that this won&#39;t work, and will only result in dictatorship and corruption, and that in the advent of a successful revolution Communism should be set up without the "worker&#39;s state."

But, in the end, they still want the same thing, which is communism.

Also, I don&#39;t like to be refered to as a "he," thanks.

And your link is dead / goes to microsoft.com on my browser (?). [/b]
First of all I apologize for the "he" thing. I will ask what is Hogo Chavez then? An anarchist or communist? Either way, when will he give up his power to the working class? He had all the earmarks of a communist takeover, but he does not want to give up the power he now holds. What is the communist to do in an event like this? He has done all the things he should. He has squeled any resistance, he has put workers in charge of major businesses, but he is yet to step down from power. This is the failure of communism again and again.

[Veritas]

Originally posted by Veritas+Feb 5 2005, 01:43 AM--> (Veritas @ Feb 5 2005, 01:43 AM)
Originally posted by amusing [email protected] 5 2005, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 5 2005, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 12:47 AM

amusing [email protected] 4 2005, 10:01 PM
Hi, I&#39;m an Anarchist. I think that capitalism should be abolished and replaced with communism, where communism is a stateless, classless society as described in "The Communist Manifesto"

Happy?
an·ar·chy Audio pronunciation of "anarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

1. Statism without plutarchy = marxism ((state-) communism, state-socialism);

2. statism plus plutarchy = fascism (populism included);

3. socialism without statism = anarchy = anarchism;

4. plutarchy without statism = liberalism.

Anarchy (http://http://www.anarchy.no/intro.html#I).
Repeat after me, you know the worlds, I have said it in almost all of our correspondig posts.

"There is no government in communist society"

Now you say it or back up your claims.
Did you check the link? These are not my words, but self proclaimed anarchists. They state communisim is statism. Not my claim, look at the link&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Then respond. I was told by a anarchist in this thread, that he was for communism. Here is an example from a pure anarchist site that disagrees. Just pointing that out. Gezz, lighten up&#33;
In order to understand what I said, first you have to understand that the communism advocated by the Communist Manifesto is one in which the state has "withered away" and everyone is provided for "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" and there are no classes. This is almost identical, if not completly identical to the goal of Anarchism, and this is also the definition of communism that basically this entire site is running off of.

The difference between the two is that "Communism" (the ideology) proposes an intermediary stage between Capitalism and Communism in which the workers take power. This is called "Socialism."

Anarchists have a tendancy to believe that this won&#39;t work, and will only result in dictatorship and corruption, and that in the advent of a successful revolution Communism should be set up without the "worker&#39;s state."

But, in the end, they still want the same thing, which is communism.

Also, I don&#39;t like to be refered to as a "he," thanks.

And your link is dead / goes to microsoft.com on my browser (?).
First of all I apologize for the "he" thing. I will ask what is Hogo Chavez then? An anarchist or communist? Either way, when will he give up his power to the working class? He had all the earmarks of a communist takeover, but he does not want to give up the power he now holds. What is the communist to do in an event like this? He has done all the things he should. He has squeled any resistance, he has put workers in charge of major businesses, but he is yet to step down from power. This is the failure of communism again and again. [/b]
Here&#39;s the link again.

http://www.anarchy.no/intro.html#I.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:20 AM
Did you check the link? These are not my words, but self proclaimed anarchists. They state communisim is statism. Not my claim, look at the link&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Then respond. I was told by a anarchist in this thread, that he was for communism. Here is an example from a pure anarchist site that disagrees. Just pointing that out. Gezz, lighten up&#33;
Something weird happens when I click the link, I get linked to microsoft.com <_<

Anyway why would you link something like that. Simply because the authors are anarchist? We self-proclaimed anarchists disagree on a lot. There are anarcho-primitivists, anarcho-christians, anarcho-communists, anarcho-capitalists. All of the people behind these theories claim themselves as anarchist.

Why would you link if you disagree on the piece.

Quit your complaining, this is how I debate.

[Veritas]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;+Feb 5 2005, 01:48 AM--> (Non-Sectarian Bastard&#33; @ Feb 5 2005, 01:48 AM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 02:20 AM
Did you check the link? These are not my words, but self proclaimed anarchists. They state communisim is statism. Not my claim, look at the link&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Then respond. I was told by a anarchist in this thread, that he was for communism. Here is an example from a pure anarchist site that disagrees. Just pointing that out. Gezz, lighten up&#33;
Something weird happens when I click the link, I get linked to microsoft.com <_<

Anyway why would you link something like that. Simply because the authors are anarchist? We self-proclaimed anarchists disagree on a lot. There are anarcho-primitivists, anarcho-christians, anarcho-communists, anarcho-capitalists. All of the people behind these theories claim themselves as anarchist.

Why would you link if you disagree on the piece.

Quit your complaining, this is how I debate. [/b]
Look above, I re-linked it. Also that brings me to another opinion. How can you ever succeed if you have no foundation? In order for success, there must be some unifying feature. What is it?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

What unifying goal is there? Anarcho-primivitsts, Anarcho-Christians have different goals then me. There is no unified Anarchist ideology with which all anarchists agree.

I am in support of Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho-Communism. My foundation is the working class and my goal is the liberation of the working class.

[Veritas]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 5 2005, 02:04 AM
What unifying goal is there? Anarcho-primivitsts, Anarcho-Christians have different goals then me. There is no unified Anarchist ideology with which all anarchists agree.

I am in support of Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho-Communism. My foundation is the working class and my goal is the liberation of the working class.
Sounds like a representative republic&#33;

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

how does anarchism sound like representative republicanism?

Underbuild your statements please.

[Veritas]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 5 2005, 02:15 AM
how does anarchism sound like representative republicanism?

Underbuild your statements please.
A group agrees that a certain action should be taken. They work with their own groups to come to that decision. They get with the other groups and the ultimate decision is made.
Representative Republic&#33;

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Ha :D

Yeah, but a republic still has a government. A selected group of people has authority over others. While we Anarcho-socialists want to establish a non-hierachial society.

Second. Individuals under a republic are obliged to decisions made by the government. This differ in anarchism, where all coorperation is voluntarily. THere are more differences, but to name the first two that came to mind.

[Livetrueordie]

Theres no hierarchy in communism a representative republic uses a hierarchy

Just to clarify Socialism and communism are two different things, and in my opinion anarchism is different then both, but some disagree.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;+Feb 5 2005, 01:42 AM--> (Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33; &#064; Feb 5 2005, 01:42 AM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 01:03 AM
False, the term "Anarchy" is derived from a period in the English civil war marked by mob rule, not "no rule".

Actually it&#39;s derived from the Greek term "an archos", which means without government. During the Spartan occupation of Athens, many Athenians refused to recognize the Spartan puppet government. Thus the year was known as the year of anarchy. [/b]
I wasn&#39;t aware that the word came from classical history, but suspected it might have (though I wrongly suspected it would have come from Latin). In the light of your statements I just read a little more into the subject, you "apparently" don&#39;t need the space, and it doesn&#39;t mean no government, as &#39;archos&#39; is basically ruler.

However in a context with modern day language and the formation of an ideology the term "Anarchy" comes from &#39;the Anarchy&#39; during the English civil war. The fact that the term comes from the classic civilisations is not remotly supprising on inspection, as during the medieval period the gentry believed that they were decended from the remenants of classic civilisation, and often attempted to construct links between their own culture and chivalric ideals, too the culture and ideals of former civilisation.

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

While the origins of this term may rest in Greek history (like a large portion of words in many European languages (along with Latin and indeed some Celtic languages), the modern usage of the word defiantly comes from this rather unpleasant and considerably less classical period of history. I actually had a rather interesting lecture on Monday (when studying the Spanish civil war of all things) which made specific reference to this, as an explanation of the popular anarchist ideology in Spain, during the 1930’s.

If you have anymore info on the classic origins of the word, and the political context, I would be fascinated too hear here it, it is a most intriguing subject.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by the [email protected] 4 2005, 11:27 PM

Their governments make their healthcare, medicare, college, and various other services that aren&#39;t free in the U.S. free over there, and of course, the quality is horrible.

I can&#39;t stop laughing.


Thats an outright lie.


I grew up in Finland buddy, the quality is not "horrible". Its actually quite more efficent than the American system, there is no beacractic mess of paperwork or even "long lines" to see the doctor, I see much more of this in the American system ironically (oh maybe thats because I belong to the lower middle class, I&#39;m not rich enough to deserve the wonders of the capitalist paradise&#33;), which I am swamped in now with messy things like medical insurance which has become more expensive since my dad is unemployed thanks to a bastard boss who was harrasing him at work.

And guess who has the best healthcare in the world?

Yes thats right&#33;

CUBA&#33;

WOW, THAT COMES AS A SHOCK, DOESN&#39;T IT?&#33;

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Interesting, but it doesn&#39;t seem like the term has been invented as a result of The Anarchy period in England. From Wikipedia:

The word anarchy comes from the Greek word αναρχία, meaning without a leader [1] (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D %237438); an- meaning "without", -arch- meaning "rule" or "ruler", and -ia corresponding to the English suffix "-y" in "monarchy". Anarchy is often confused to originate from the word Anarchos (the one who has no starting rule, the one without beginning) which was not used for persons but as a property of God. The contemporary English understanding of anarchy differs from how the term was originally defined and used by ancient Greeks. For example, Athenian democracy was not considered to be an anarchy, as long as majority rule was a valid principle there. There is a difference between the word arche (αρχή: origin, sovereignty [2] (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D %2315894)) and the word nomos (νόμος: custom, law [3] (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D %2371007)). Majority rule is an arche and not a nomos. A free citizen of Athens who was not ruled by anyone and had the right to vote was not called anarchos but eleutheros (free). The leader or ruler is called archegos (αρχηγός, from arche + ago, "to lead") and could be translated in English as "principal leader". It is also called archon (άρχων, from arche + on, "being") or archos (αρχός, from arche + -os, masculine ending) which is the correct translation of "ruler".

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