Log in

View Full Version : ACP



anomaly
22nd May 2005, 06:14
I would have to agree with my fellow comrade, jsm, for his thread, which will appear right below mine. He is absolutely right, the time is now. But are pathetic boycotts by a few of us really going to inflict damage upon the great power that is capitalism? No. The only way we can properly combat the capitalists is to match their power. If we match their power, by uniting, we can take over the state. With state power, especially power over a rich state, world socialism is on the horizon.

Unite, though, is too vague a word. I propose an Anti-Capitalist Party (ACP), one made up of disillusioned liberals, socialists, moderate and radical greens, communists, and anarchists. The combined might of all these groups will render the ACP a power a power to be reckoned with, and give us enough power to properly combat the capitalists and take over the the state (any state, really). To do this, I must gain the loyalty of all the said groups. I of course realize that anarchists don't like the idea of a state at all, but in your wisdom, you anarchists must also realize that a transition from capitalism to anarchism is completely unrealistic and truly impossible. Therefore, to appease all members of the party and all ideologies, I suggest putting forward the idea of economic evolution. We must first establish a socialism state, with a democratic government and a state run economy. With the addition of democracy, later transitions can be smoothe and peaceful. After state socialism, we aid foreign revolutionary groups and establish world socialism. After that, only a world majority vote is needed, one in which the anarchists and communists gain power, to begin a peaceful transition to anarcho-communism. The diminishing government can aid in the establishment of communes and true free trade between communes. Only united can we, the radical left, destroy capitalism. Individual attempts have proven quite unsuccessful. I ask for your acceptance of this idea, and your collective power, a power so great that even capitalism, mighty as it has become, is powerless to stop us.

After we gain power in a single state, we must form a government. I suggest a democracatic republic, somewhat like the US model (do not think of this as the current corrupted US governemnt, but rather the government in principle). At the local level I suggest complete and total democracy, above this a village or town representative, above this a state or province representative, above this the executive authority. Such a bureacracy will not turn sour, as many others have, for one simple reason: the pure democracy on the local level. Truly, the needs of the people will be addressed. Of course, all higher positions will be chosen by the people, and through the mechanisms of democracy, will work for the people and run an economy for the majority (the workers), or be removed from office. The ACP must be the only party in the state, however. This will ensure quick action by the government, to ensure the advance of the working class, the advance of the people. The one party will have two divisions, a revisionist and radical division. In the revisionist division will be socialists and disillusioned liberals and moderate greens. In the radical division will be radical greens, anarchists and communists. Such division within the party calls for control, for leadership of the party. Therefore, I propose a small council control and oversee the party itself, while having no effect in governement. The council will control things like PR, ideology of the party, and party stances, like the official stance on a war. Disagreements with the council may be expressed in the senate or by the executive, but the council does not neccesarily have to listen to these complaints. The council will not be decided by a democratic vote, instead, it will involve a line of succession, with the original leaders of the revolution or original leaders of the ACP first being on the council, then each one stepping down at any time they decide and they themselves deciding their replacement.

The dictatorial attributes of the government and ACP will serve to keep the radical left in power, and to effectively keep the minority, the capitalists, in line. The democratic attributes will help to ensure easy and peaceful transition between socialism, world socialism, and anarcho-communism (the withering away of the state and formation of a classless moneyless society, for those wondering what exactly I mean by this). I ask now for your support, for your unification. Drop your petty ideologies, and make your first obligation the advance of the working class, the advance of the proletariat, and the destruction of capitalism. Now then, how to begin this. I suggest that any of you who express approval of my ideas email any radical parties you know of and inform them of this idea. More emails may prove a bit more effective than my one. Any of you who express disapproval of my ideas, state your criticisms. This is, I believe, our last chance, as capitalist needs may soon render present democratic governemnts meaningless, and all power will be in the hands of capitalist organisations like the WTO. Join this mighty alliance, and unite the green, the black, and the red flags, and together, collectively, if you will, we shall destroy capitalism!

anomaly
25th May 2005, 01:25
Anybody got any thoughts on my proposal here?

JC1
25th May 2005, 02:32
So .. youre proposal to unite the left is too create another party ? * Yawns *

RedStarOverChina
25th May 2005, 04:28
There is no way leftists are gonna reach a general agreement upon things. However a temporary unification is essential. I hope other comrades come to this realization and stop attacking eachother in the face of great enemies.

anomaly
27th May 2005, 22:29
Redstar is right. Communism, socialism, and anarchism are all too narrow an ideology to have any real power. State power is what we're after, and I say it is time to stop pushing our individual petty ideologies and start helping the working class. That is what my proposal is all about.

Lamanov
27th May 2005, 22:57
As for the "ACP", it's similar to my idea of a joint-vanguard, but still not the same.
It's not realistic to think that all of the "left" can come together.

It's impossible that anti-authoritarians and such so-called leftists [stalinists and maoists] would come together. Besides that there's a disagreement in the left about the "vanguard-party" [such as ACP would be, i suppose] question, and much marxists and anarchists would be against that concept.

I have a more realistic proposition:
formation of a joint vanguard
This basicly is an alliance of independant revolutionary-left groups with, if not same, similar ideologies, who work together synchronised in goal of accieving global revolution and emancipation of proletariat. In it's basis, as I think most of the left is, it would be an alliance of all anti-authoritarian, revolutionary, pro-democratic [proletarian-democratic] tendencies within the left... all who call themselves marxists [not stalinists and maoists] council-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, syndicomists, anarcho-communists, trotskyists, etc.

As for your transitional system proposal, I would disagree (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35340), [as most here i suppose]. I'm against the authoritarian role of the so-called "vanguard party", and against up-down authority system.

slim
28th May 2005, 15:30
What nation will the ACP start operating in?

Colombia
28th May 2005, 21:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:30 PM
What nation will the ACP start operating in?
It will not start in one nation alone, but in a group of nations. History has shown that socialism in one country is nearly impossible.

What your question should be is what nation will the ACP need in order to survive. An answer to that would be an industrialized nation such as the UK.

anomaly
28th May 2005, 23:27
Originally posted by Colombia+May 28 2005, 08:39 PM--> (Colombia @ May 28 2005, 08:39 PM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 02:30 PM
What nation will the ACP start operating in?
It will not start in one nation alone, but in a group of nations. History has shown that socialism in one country is nearly impossible.

What your question should be is what nation will the ACP need in order to survive. An answer to that would be an industrialized nation such as the UK. [/b]
I first must address a person I have not quoted. DJ-TC, I don't quite understand your objection to my idea. My idea is not a vanguard party, in fact if you have read my ideas in the field of economics you'd know this. My idea is one that can secure power without using violence. The idea of economic evolution is, I think, unavoidable. Also, the idea itself is a unifying one, since it incorporates the 'big three' of the AC movement: Marxism, anarchism, and environmentalism (greens would be delighted by environmental friendly reforms that the party would support). The authoritorial system would be easily checked by the mechanisms of democracy. As for Maoists and Stalinists, they shall either realize the error of their ways, or be excluded from the party. But once progress begins, and capitalism is truly destroyed, I think the party will win over even those confused souls.

Now, to respond to colombia and slim, I feel that it will begin in one nation. Colombia, I must stress that a new idea must begin somewhere, but I think you can agree with me because I propose an international ACP, to further gain economic power. My idea is simple: gain power in one industrialized nation (likely some nation in Europe, since the US is filled with ignorance currently), and then stretch out like a web to pooer nations. So we'd have a base of power and then off shoots. Of course, each ACP would be similar only in name and its ideology, leaders would be democratically elected in each country so as to avoid any possibility of colonialism or imperialism. Then, once political power is great enough, other nations will elect in the ACP, until world socialism (the second step of economic evolution) is realized. Now, how to begin...I suggest that we email all green, Marxist, and otherwise radical parties and inform them of this idea. Only unity wil give us the power we so desperately need, and other parties must realize this. If you'd like to help me in this (I plan to email all parties that fit the said description over this summer) tell me. I can provide you with a good site that lists almost every political party in the world. But what I'd really like to know is how many agree with this idea. Yea or nay? If yea, we can begin informing the other parties.

RevolverNo9
29th May 2005, 00:11
... I'd hate to use the word naivite... but...

redstar2000
29th May 2005, 00:44
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 06:11 PM
... I'd hate to use the word naivite... but...
Sometimes there's just no damn way of avoiding it. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

kurt
29th May 2005, 01:33
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 11:11 PM
... I'd hate to use the word naivite... but...
It seems to fit the dictionary definition fairly well as far as I'm concerned.

anomaly
29th May 2005, 08:04
I do not think the idea is so naive. You fail to recognize the gravity of the current situation, I think. With the left so divided, we cannot gain political power. Therefore I propose that we unite the left by any nonviolent means. Division is not a sign of maturity, unity is not a sign of childishness. We must unite the left, or we will fail. To do this, why not use the internet? You fail to realize that this vast powerful tool is here at our disposal, and that gives us unimagineable power. If we, in numbers, contact leftist parties, change will begin to occur. Perhaps you all need to watch the movie Reds to see what could happen if we let petty ideology divide the movement.

Lamanov
29th May 2005, 14:18
"We" are not supposed to gain political power, but the proletariat.
"We" are supposed to help them to do that, and that would be the revolution. There is no "economic evolution".


Perhaps you all need to watch the movie Reds to see what could happen if we let petty ideology divide the movement.

Comrade RedStar2000 conciders Orwel to be reactionist junk.
I wonder what he would say to that. ;) :D

Colombia
29th May 2005, 15:21
What makes you think the environmentalist would support us though? They don't see capitalism as evil.

RevolverNo9
29th May 2005, 16:12
You fail to recognize the gravity of the current situation, I think. With the left so divided, we cannot gain political power.

Perhaps...


I suggest that we email all green, Marxist, and otherwise radical parties and inform them of this idea.

Just consider what you've offered here.

slim
29th May 2005, 17:05
Everyone listen.

You doubt revolution which goes to show the success it will be.

Eevn leftists dont expect it let alone the scum in Whitehall. I have posted about my organisation with similar aims. I have written a book for recruits (crudely called the green book after Libya and the IRA but its basically the same sort of stuff). Ive made detailed studies and topgraphical charts and i can say it is possible.

What you propose could be construed as high treason which still bears the penalty of death in the UK. Also remember that the internet is logged. As such i will still talk out loud as it is not our treason but theirs. We are the people and for a government to act against us would be their treason against the people. If they strike they will do so before the word gets out and attack the so called "ring leaders".

anomaly
30th May 2005, 06:21
Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 29 2005, 01:18 PM
"We" are not supposed to gain political power, but the proletariat.
"We" are supposed to help them to do that, and that would be the revolution. There is no "economic evolution".


Perhaps you all need to watch the movie Reds to see what could happen if we let petty ideology divide the movement.

Comrade RedStar2000 conciders Orwel to be reactionist junk.
I wonder what he would say to that. ;) :D
Economic evolution is not revolution, but past revolution. It is after the revolution. It entails the gradual economic changing of socialism to world socialism to anarcho-communism, which is, in my opinion, the only way to communism. To think that we can go straight from capitalism to communism is frankly absurd.

About the proletariat, I agree that the revolution is theirs, and that in the end they will carry it out, but they need leadership. As many have noted, the working class is in general the least revolutionary class. Therefore it is up to people like us to spark this revolution. The proletariat is the body of the proposed political revolution, people like us are the head (and of course the capitalists are the asses...).

anomaly
30th May 2005, 06:26
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:21 PM
What makes you think the environmentalist would support us though? They don't see capitalism as evil.
Have faith in the greens, my friend. The greens hate companies that pollute the atmosphere, therefore they hate nearly every large corporation in the world. The movement I have proposed, and the party, would likely lead to a cleaner earth, since environmentalists can hold political office, meaning they get a say in policy, and also communism is likely going to be quite devoid of such rampant pollution. It is precisely the mad capitalist consumption of resources to feed their unplanned production process that so angers our green friends. They can be powerful allies. At this stage in the game, we need as many friends, not enemies, as we can get.

anomaly
30th May 2005, 06:30
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 03:12 PM

You fail to recognize the gravity of the current situation, I think. With the left so divided, we cannot gain political power.

Perhaps...


I suggest that we email all green, Marxist, and otherwise radical parties and inform them of this idea.

Just consider what you've offered here.
I have considered my offer, comrade. It is a gesture with the hope of mass movement, the kind that can usher in change of some sort. It is the beginings of this revolution that everybody desires. We cannot simply pick up a gun and start firing (I am actually a critic of violent revolution in many cases), we must plan our attack, and unification, the process for which I have here planned the beginning, is a prerequisite for any substantial political revolution (or violent, for that matter) that we seek. What I offer is the mechanism for a modern socialist movement, via the best tool we've ever had available to us.