The only TRUE theory

[Revolution Hero]

All of us have anti-capitalistic moods. We are all leftists, and this is the only one thing we have in common. Some of us are sincere, some of us are not. But the thread is not about it.
Each of us represents different leftist theories, which sometimes are even opposing to each other. Many of these theories are made by the anti-communist ideologists. These ideologists and propagandists have the aim of splitting communist revolutionary movement and want to isolate progressive people from the true struggle.
We are different, and it must be admitted that we are weak. There is only one solution to the main problem of the modern communist movement. We have to choose the one common theory , which will unite our revolutionary movement, so we will have serried ranks. This kind of theory is MARXISM-LENINISM.
Marxism- Leninism is the only one synonym for COMMUNISM. It is not a dead dogma, but the fundamental knowledge , the basis each of us should know. Marxism-Leninism implies it's creative development. The theory have to be in the constant movement of changes, which will make our theory actual to the modern political, social and economical situations.
Marxism-Leninism is the only true theory we can choose. Those of you who disagree are free to post objections, but be sure your arguments are forcible and strong enough. ( What can be stronger than Marxism-Leninism?)

Let's come to the reason. Educate yourself, arm yourself with Marxism-Leninism, and only then WE WILL BE STRONG.

[ComradeJunichi]

Hm...question:
I've read that Leninism's approach has a different idea in the way of the revolution...Can you explain to me briefly what Marxism-Leninism would be?

[Nateddi]

I agree that marxism-leninism is the best theory.

I still think that all the other leftists should (and will) stay where they are on their opinions. If a movement of ML or not gets strong, I am sure all of the left will support it. I don't think at the moment only one theory can be actually proven the best, nor is there a need to unite under one theory at the moment.

[Nateddi]

Jurchi....... marxism-leninism is the same as leninism. Leninism is mostly marxism remember.

[Supermodel]

My computer's in a double posting mode....apologies.....

(Edited by Supermodel at 3:59 pm on July 12, 2002)

[Supermodel]

I have to disagree with your basic statement that there should be one dogma and that the left should stick with it.

Civilization grows and develops. After MArx, Engels and Lenin, other thinkers such as Mao and Che Bella Abzug had a lot to add. I think locking down on one dogma gives Marxism a fundamentalism that is bad for it.

I don't think that different means of running a society weaken alliances and blocs, I think that there are far greater barriers to bloc creation than disagreement over ideology.

[Lardlad95]

but dont you think marxism-leninism is to easily corrupted? the government has to much power

[Nateddi]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 6:00 pm on July 12, 2002
but dont you think marxism-leninism is to easily corrupted?
no


the government has to much power
What is too much power? What is the "government"?

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 4:00 am on July 13, 2002
but dont you think marxism-leninism is to easily corrupted? the government has to much power


People has all the governmental power. All of the citizens of a state are involved in the political activity.
Unlike capitalism,developed socialism represents a real democratic governmnet.

[evil chris]

ok, hands up, who can tell me what exactly Leninism has achived,positivily, in the last 90 years.

[Nateddi]

Improvemet of life of the Russian people as compared to what they had before and what they have now, and the theory was perverted too! Marxist leninist parties also were the most vocal force against fascism in europe, especially italy.

What has dreamland anarchism achieved?

[evil chris]

qualify that please.Inwhat way was the the Russian people's life emproved?

A dreamland can not,by defination be reach.Nor do i declair myself Anarchist.I just like the idea of freedom and have a high vaule of the human heart.
But, Anarchists had a fairly good upriseing in spain in 36 which got killed off by Western Non Intervention and Communist plotting.Got a nice autoimous commune kicking off in Algeria as we speak.Had a breif run in London in the early 20th century,had a corking movemtn in the Ukraine in the peasents until the Red Army under Trotsky murdered them, did some corkin work in Seattle in the early part of last century too.
Had a few glimmers of hope.It's just that for a revoultion in the name of Freedom to work for a long period of time ,it needs to be global

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from evil chris on 10:56 pm on July 16, 2002
qualify that please.Inwhat way was the the Russian people's life improved?


Citizens of the Soviet Union became free.
The exploitation and capitalistic classes were totally destroyed already at the first years of the revolutionary government.
The Soviet economy significantly rised and there were not any poor people already by the 60s.
People got the access to the state governing.

[ArgueEverything]

also, dont forget one of the first political acts of the bolsheviks was to repeal the 600-and-something antisemitic laws in russia.

[evil chris]

the soviet people becoma free................................to be oppressed by a whole new class! hurrah! yeah all that coericive violence and economic fraud (the economic figures put forward by many captins of industry are demostraightabley false).
you can't actully belive that about no poor people by the 60's can you? Again, demostratbley false, as is the idea that "the people" got access to governement.Some people got access ,but then _some_ people always do.

[Nateddi]

Its obvious that the soviet union had problems. This thread wasn't about that however. The USSR went through 25+ years of hardline stalinism, there economy was more state-capitalistic than it was socialistic after stalin era. this was all against what the old bolsheviks preached.

We are not comparing the USSR to an ideal anarchist / libertarian paradise. I am comparing it to the feudal monarchy which preceded it. The bolsheviks got as far as winning the civil war, whereas if teenage libertarian socialists seized power, they would have rased the white flag.

[evil chris]

"there economy was more state-capitalistic than it was socialistic after stalin era. this was all against what the old bolsheviks preached"

Cept Lenin of course, who seemed rather happy with State Capitalism


"whereas if teenage libertarian socialists seized power, they would have rased the white flag."

thats a fucking spurrilous slur against the fantasic peasent revoultionary Anarchist movment who beat the crap out of both the counter revoultionaries in their own country and those invadeing.
Until they were butcherd by the noble marxists.
There was no question of them raiseing white flags until they were free.

[Revolution Hero]

Nateddi, do you mean the state ownership on the means of production, when you say "state -capitalistic economy"?
Actually , it was taught that state ownership= society's ownership, in all soviet books on communism.
What ownership and property do socialist state need to have, in order to destroy classes anatgonism and the class oppression, in order to destroy the bourgeouise class? Only state ownership can serve as the specific insurement of the union of all classes of the society, making their interests to be common.

[Maaja]

I don't agree that there should be just 1 ideology. Countries are differently developed, people are not the same in different countries. And there are many more philosophians and other 'thinkers' who have always much to add to the pure Marxist-Leninist theory. I think that new theories should make it even better. Until now Marxism-Leninism hasn't been really realized, maybe with the help of new winds it could be easier to make it work. And little differences are always good, I wouldn't like to meet and see only people who are thinking ideologically EXACTLY like me. And if the whole society would do that.......... that doesn't mean of course that I do support capitalist ideas, I just like if left-winged thoughts are seen little bit differently, I think that new ideas are always progressive. World changes so has Marxism-Leninism.

[Revolution Hero]

Maaja, you are right , when you say that Marxism-Leninism has to be changed according to the changes in our world. The theory doesn't stay on one place, it is always searching for the new solutions of the new problems.
But you have to understand that all other theories are always misleading, as they can't be proved scientificly. And if you are Marxist ( I think you are) you have to know that Marx have criticized all that bunch of useless theories, starting with Prudonism and ending with the anarchistic Bakunism.
New ideas are progressive when they appear on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and inside this very theory.

[evil chris]

ever looked into the mentality of cults Revoultionary Hero?

[Revolution Hero]

I don't make a cult. That is uneducated people who think that any theory or ideology can result in a cult phenomenon and born blind people , who will blindly follow their mighty leader.
Marxism-Leninism is not about it.

[oki]

I don't agree.lets all be anarchists instead.or even better,lets just loose the past and think of a way to pull sosialismcommunismanarchism into the 21 century.
lenism-marxism was based on a past culture and values,and looks rediculous to me in this time and age.(that is: the dogmas used )not the ideals and goals.I don't think the left can comer together untill leftist goals suet the time and age again.you cant just start quoting guys that livesd such a long time ago when you look for awnsers.that stuff might have worked back then ,but now you will never convince the people with that.and without the people you have NO revolution.

example?who works in factory's anymore?not the great masses.they work in the office.and are beeing threated pretty good by the rulers.they know this.keep them happy and the system will sustain.

or am I breaking ranks by saying all this?

[Conghaileach]

Most people in the First World no longer work in factories. That is simply because the factory owners found that they'd get cheaper labour in the third world, and moved all the factories there.

Even office workers are still being exploited. They may appear to be treated well, but it's still the workers doing the most of the work, and it's still the bosses getting most of the pay.

[Ernesto Guevara]

i definately agree marxist-leninism is the best kind type of communism.
If only lenin would have lived longer to prove it to the world.

[evil chris]

he would have proven the world that..........Communism really is a lying doctrine where you claim to liberate thw working man but instead comtiune to oppress them?

[oki]

Quote: from CiaranB on 2:20 pm on July 24, 2002
Most people in the First World no longer work in factories. That is simply because the factory owners found that they'd get cheaper labour in the third world, and moved all the factories there.



yea I know that,but what I mean is,are people so unhappy or eager for change that they will go for a revolution?I don't think so.how would you mobilize the people?start a revolution in the 3rd world?
facists have been able to renew their movement,nowadays they are extreme rightwing,and have found political ways of taking over.now if these dumasses can do that,why cant the left do this?all thhat happens here in europe is that leftist partys become more and more mid/right.
yes I am frustrated about all of this.

Even office workers are still being exploited. They may appear to be treated well, but it's still the workers doing the most of the work, and it's still the bosses getting most of the pay.

[Conghaileach]

from oki
yea I know that,but what I mean is,are people so unhappy or eager for change that they will go for a revolution?I don't think so.how would you mobilize the people?start a revolution in the 3rd world?
facists have been able to renew their movement,nowadays they are extreme rightwing,and have found political ways of taking over.now if these dumasses can do that,why cant the left do this?all thhat happens here in europe is that leftist partys become more and more mid/right.
yes I am frustrated about all of this.

Jose Marti said that "the firsty duty of the revolutionary is to be educated."

I understand what you're saying. Right now, the world is turning more to the right. This is because the amount of propaganda and brainwashing that is thrown in our faces from when we are children. It makles us afraid of trying to strive for anything better by fighting for communism (a word meaning absolute evil, if you check any Yankee dictionaries).

It'll only be by educating the masses can they gain the will to fight for somethign better.

In my humble opinion.

(Edited by CiaranB at 10:12 pm on July 25, 2002)

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from oki on 10:15 pm on July 24, 2002
I .
lenism-marxism was based on a past culture and values,and looks rediculous to me in this time and age.(that is: the dogmas used )not the ideals and goals.

1.not lenism-marxism, but MARXISM-LENINISM.
2. theory develops by the modern theoretics, so that is you who sounds ridiculous.

[oki]

well thanks a lot.
I didn't say that YOU sound rediculous.
and that is isn no way a responce to the points I made,try to react to that instead of acting like I stepped on your toes.
marx was an ideologist.lenin was a guy who tried to give these ideals form in a political system.this system was based on thhe tiranny of the tsaar in russia,and the attitude of russians,their way of thinking .
how will it work now?who are these modern theoretics you talk about?

[andresG]

It always seems to me that when a person tells me that their ideology is the only one true ideology, that they are doing the same thing the televangelist does. "Only my way can take you to heaven!" Ideologies can always be improved and changed to meet the needs of the people.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from oki on 11:27 pm on July 26, 2002

how will it work now?who are these modern theoretics you talk about?






Theoretics of the communist parties. Their names will not tell you anything, but those men change the marxist-leninist theory, considering the modern situation.
And, believe me the theory will work in practice, as it has already worked. We have a big experience left to us by the Soviet Union, and we will learn on their mistakes. We will win, no matter what.

Also, about the workers.
You have said that there are not any factories and workers in the developed modern capitalist countries. But you are wrong. There are factories and there are workers, not in a big amount like in the past though, but still you can't deny the existence of the working class. If not the workers, capitalism would collapse.

Oki you are very suspicious and sound like capitalist. Are you one of them?

[oki]

I think there are reasons to be suspicious about your ideology.I feel like an anarchist.but that's only because the anarchist aproach towards anarchy sounds better to me then the communist one.in the past communism has not succeeded.now I think about that and see several points where that goes wrong.I'm sure you see those points too,when you look at the past.so then I'd like to talk about wais to not let that happen again in the future.that's one.two:how will you get people to support it again?real big problem I think,especially in the states.now I never met a communist that got awnsers to these questions.and I don't eighter.

I didn't say there are no more factorys.I said that the people that make a revolution are nowadays not factoryworkers,because there aren't as mutch of them as back in the days.these people are now working in offices.how can you mobilise them?the western system has become a litle smarter in controlling them.they are the middle class,and it's a democratic rule that if they are happy and confortable,you have no problems.

and this is not only a problem for your ideology,but allso for mine.

and don't call me a capitalist,after all I said.just because I don't directly agree with your ideology,doesn't make me the enemy.

[evil chris]

"And, believe me the theory will work in practice, as it has already worked. We have a big experience left to us by the Soviet Union"

This sentence is nonsensical as the Soviet Union clearly failed it's Citizens.Unless marxism-Leninism is a theory bassed around totalitarin dictatorships, you have swallowed some pretty big propaganda there.

"and we will learn on their mistakes"

If it there were mistakes, then something does not work.Simple as.
"Well my submarine works,excpet that we made the mistake of not puttin any Oxygen down there so everyone died within 10 minutes.But it did go underwater!"


"We will win, no matter what"

nono really, why not look into how cultic mentalites work.



(Edited by evil chris at 8:53 am on July 28, 2002)

[Nateddi]

>>I think there are reasons to be suspicious about your ideology.I feel like an anarchist.but that's only because the anarchist aproach towards anarchy sounds better to me then the communist one.in the past communism has not succeeded.

Communism has succeeded; look at where Russia is now and where they were before 1989, and where the were before 1917 and tell me communism failed; contemplate cuba now and cuba pre 1959 and rehearse that communism failed. On the contrary, anarchism is a theory which cannot be practiced due to the overwhelming military capacity of the United States and the whimp mentallity of all anarchist movements which do not support any military or any killings. The extremely vast majority of marxist movements have been completely overthrown by the US shortly after they came to power. Anarchism would be even more facile to destoy.


>>now I think about that and see several points where that goes wrong.I'm sure you see those points too,when you look at the past.so then I'd like to talk about wais to not let that happen again in the future.that's one.two:how will you get people to support it again?real big problem I think,especially in the states.now I never met a communist that got awnsers to these questions.and I don't eighter.

How will the people support it again? That is laughable! No americans supported communism ever, that does not diminish it, nor makes marxism-leninism a more unfavorable theory. World wide, the only kind of parties on the communist left which I see in parliments and running for heads of state are marxist and marxist leninist, no anarchists, no democratic socialists, no libertarian socialists, no "democratic" marxists, nothing! Russia's biggest party is a hardline marxist-leninist party at the moment; world wide, intelligent people did not jump ship to find a radical liberal perversion of communism.


>>I didn't say there are no more factorys.I said that the people that make a revolution are nowadays not factoryworkers,because there aren't as mutch of them as back in the days.these people are now working in offices.
The intelligentsia is not revolutionary by any means! The true revolutionaries are in the third world and former communist countries doing the real work which will start the next communist movement, never the rebelious radical liberal teens of petty-bourgeois parents.


>>how can you mobilise them?the western system has become a litle smarter in controlling them.they are the middle class,and it's a democratic rule that if they are happy and confortable,you have no problems.

There is no mobilization of a near petty-bourgeois people in a capitalist society! If you honestly believe that the US will magically realise communism is good and their intelligetsia will lead a movement is completely ludicrous; pull your head out of your ass!


>>and don't call me a capitalist,after all I said.just because I don't directly agree with your ideology,doesn't make me the enemy.

You are not a capitalist, however your views and positions will only help the capitalists. It is only the right that is the beneficiary of an impossible far-left system which draws popularity to itself regardless even if the popularity is radical teenage liberal airheads.


(Edited by Nateddi at 4:50 pm on July 27, 2002)

[Nateddi]

>>This sentence is nonsensical as the Soviet Union clearly failed the it's Citizens.Unless marxism-Leninism is a theory bassed around totalitarin dictatorships, you have swallowed some pretty big propaganda there.

Marxism-Leninism isn't founded around totalitarian dictatorships, there were however reasons for the development of them, them which i critisize, nevertheless acknowledge the fact that they brought more good than bad to their countries. The Soviet Union is a separte issue to debate upon. One must not be feared of being red baited to the extent that one will blatantly and nonessential denounce the soviet union and embrace a utopian theory for ending capitalism.


>>If it there were mistakes, then something does not work.Simple as.
"Well my submarine works,excpet that we made the mistake of not puttin any Oxygen down there so everyone died within 10 minutes.But it did go underwater!"

This in no way whatsoever is related or represntative to the troubles with the soviet union. You have no knowledge of dialectics, chris, even marx admitted that it may not work to perfection the first way around, nonetheless that is how all aspects of society are.


>>nono really, why not look into how cultic mentalites work.

The cult mentality is possessed by two stripes of people; Utopian socialists and laissez-faire capitalists. The utopian socialists have a completely flawed thought of getting rid of capitalism and assuming a socialist society; the laisse-faire advocates have a unscietific belief that the free market will solve all world problems. Marxism is the first and only scietfic study of society, history, and social change in relation to the inevitable fall of capitalism. This is precisely the reason for intelligent people who wish to save the world from capitalism are marxists, not airhead utopians.

[evil chris]

"Communism has succeeded; look at where Russia is now and where they were before 1989, and where the were before 1917 and tell me communism failed"

Yeah ok, Commmunism failed.The people of the Soviet union were in about the same place.Being dictated to by a small elite,having few rights, being randomly snuffed out or imprisoned on the behest of a sectre police, suffering poverty while the elite had riches etc.

"contemplate cuba now "

Yeah alright i'll stand for that.Cuba is better off now.
But then Kasto and his boys crafted a better,popular for of communism, unlike Lenin,who seemed positvely in contempt for the people.

"On the contrary, anarchism is a theory which cannot be practiced "

cept ofcourse where it was and is.Understand Anarchism, read your history and see where to tenants of Anarchism are practiced around you now.

"and the whimp mentallity of all anarchist movements which do not support any military or any killings."

Ahshitok
Just realised that you have no idea of Anarchism or have spoken to many (if any) Anarchists.
Why don't you go and look at the theory and read about the practice.Then we will debate.
Kay?
K

[oki]

nateddi:

russia is in the shithouse now because of the present ruling,not because communism was better.communism has only been practiced as arepressive system,with a small elite rulers that controlled everything.even you as a marxist-lenist cant seriously think that that is how communism should work.same goes for cuba.how did the power go to the people in this country?the power went to fidel and his gang.and at most,they never made it past the dict. of the prol.stage.which is not communism,but only a first step.a repressive one.

you say anarchism is non violent?not.check the spanish civil war,the anarchists were butchers,and before that anarchists were nown for their brutal terrorist attacks.
hardline anarchists believe that the system can only be put in place after this one is distroyed.they don't wimp out like them communists that go into politics,and thereby join the enemy.

in the states communism was actually big,before the 2nd WW.,during the depression.one example:check out the chaplin movies modern times and the great dictator.
these were hollywood produtions.
anarchists have principles,they are against a gouv. that has power,and therefore do not form partys to cheat voters.in france there is a trotskist party that is big,and most communist partys in teh world just lost their voters after the truth came out about russia,korea and china.some fused with green partys.and every country in europe still have sosialist partys, big or small.they are democrats,and sosialist.

no revolutionairys in the west?well,so you want to instate a system that noone agrees with?that will be good.start building prison camps then ,you'll need them.if you cant convince people of why communism is better then what we have now,it will NERVER work.and I do think that its possible to do that,might take a century or so....)
what you actually say is that capitalism in the west has won and there is no way to turn it around.that's a sad attitude.
and then you say that MY views are helping capitalists?
funny.....
anarchism has worked in the past,in spain.and will work again in the future.because it means freedom and equality,and that's what everybody wants .

[Nateddi]

>>Yeah ok, Commmunism failed.The people of the Soviet union were in about the same place.Being dictated to by a small elite,having few rights, being randomly snuffed out or imprisoned on the behest of a sectre police, suffering poverty while the elite had riches etc.

This is an altogether ludicrous assumption, it appears the mccarthy propagandists have captured the best of chris. There was no "small elite"; every party member had a right to give opinions, just look at Gorbochev and where he made it without being a hardliner. If your idea is to give right-wingers proportional representation or some other aspect of American democracy, your ideas, whatever they happen to be will utterly fail. There are certain things I myself do not condone, such as Stalin's pre-cold war politics. Stalin did kill and starve a great deal of people, this is precisely why I do not support him. In general life was better in the Soviet Union than during the monarchist era. From personal experience as well as having discourse with older citizens, I've learned that life in Russia (for citizens) during the Cold War was "calm" and "stable", that the citizens did not fearful of a nuclear war or an invasion of any sort. The UN's list of preferred countries had placed Russia at #60 and Ukraine (my home republic) at #80. In the 80's, the Soviet Union ranked around #25; and in late 70's the peak of soviet life, the number would likely be under 20. It is extremely effortless to not get red baited, all you need to do is to spew out the mccarthyist propaganda, and people will not be fearful of your anticapitalist theories regardless how dumb they are.


>>Yeah alright i'll stand for that.Cuba is better off now.
But then Kasto and his boys crafted a better,popular for of communism, unlike Lenin,who seemed positvely in contempt for the people.

Bullshit and you know it! Russia had such an event called civil war from 18-22, Lenin's years in power. Lenin was indeed a populist, people mourned when he died. His body still remains in the mausoleum after the 'people were liberated from communist aggression'.


>>cept ofcourse where it was and is.Understand Anarchism, read your history and see where to tenants of Anarchism are practiced around you now.

Will do


>>russia is in the shithouse now because of the present ruling,not because communism was better.

I take it the present system is worse than the communist system.

>>communism has only been practiced as arepressive system,with a small elite rulers that controlled everything.

more mccarthyist bullshit as from Chris.


>>even you as a marxist-lenist cant seriously think that that is how communism should work.same goes for cuba.how did the power go to the people in this country?the power went to fidel and his gang.and at most,they never made it past the dict. of the prol.stage.which is not communism,but only a first step.a repressive one.

As i've stated before, party members have full privilages. This isn't a monachy we are talking about. I do not condone all of his actions, though without a strong government, Cuba would have fallen to the US because they would likely attempt a Bay of Pigs II; or perhaps a massive propaganda campaign as was done in Eastern Europe prior to those rebellions.

>>you say anarchism is non violent?not.check the spanish civil war,the anarchists were butchers,and before that anarchists were nown for their brutal terrorist attacks.
hardline anarchists believe that the system can only be put in place after this one is distroyed.they don't wimp out like them communists that go into politics,and thereby join the enemy.

I am cognizant of the Spanish Civil War, though I don't see many anarchists of today as similar. I see them as hardline liberal pacifist anti-capitalists, mainly teenagers and college students (more of the former than tha latter). They are so paranoid they wish of "other ways" of destroying the system, and consider communists as people who are "joining the enemy". Such boisterous hypocrisy!


[/i]>>in the states communism was actually big,before the 2nd WW.,during the depression.one example:check out the chaplin movies modern times and the great dictator. [/i]
Communism was popular in the states during that time in contrast to other times; the popularity was nevertheless minuscule.


>>anarchists have principles,they are against a gouv. that has power,and therefore do not form partys to cheat voters.

more hypocrisy; parties cheat voters, a swift transition to such a government is possible.


>>in france there is a trotskist party that is big,and most communist partys in teh world just lost their voters after the truth came out about russia,korea and china.

Trotsky was a true marxist leninist who followed the principles the old bolshviks preached. The truth about those places was known long before 89 and the collapse of the cpsu.


>>some fused with green partys.and every country in europe still have sosialist partys, big or small.they are democrats,and sosialist.

The democrat / social democrat parties are not anticapitalist; the ones that are however, are marxist and marxist-leninist (which includes trotskyist).


>>no revolutionairys in the west?well,so you want to instate a system that noone agrees with?that will be good.start building prison camps then ,you'll need them.if you cant convince people of why communism is better then what we have now,it will NERVER work. .... what you actually say is that capitalism in the west has won and there is no way to turn it around.that's a sad attitude.

The sad attitude is the sanctimony over the possibility of communism getting popular simply by education (as if it is even possible to educate truth). I do not wish to seize power through a coup, communism will be more popular when capitalism starts to seriously go down. As long as conditions here remain the same (which they won't in a certain period of time), communism will not be popular enough.


and then you say that MY views are helping capitalists?
funny.....
anarchism has worked in the past,in spain.and will work again in the future.because it means freedom and equality,and that's what everybody wants .

Not everyone in a society will be a liberal, those views are a turnoff. People are not generally drawn to black clothing or trenchcoats either. This has little to do with spain. I've described already how the anarchists of today are in comparison to spain.

[Revolution Hero]

For all those anarchists and other critics of the Soviet Union:
You say that Soviet system wasn't good enough, as the Soviet Union had collapsed. You use this fact as a proof, which shows that marxism -leninism doesn't work. Ok, then read the following .
Firstly, the referendum was held in the USSR at the end of the 1980s. People were asked if they wanted to save the union or not. All of the Soviet Union's population participated. The majority- more than 80% were for the union. People wanted the state , which is GOVERNED according to the marxism -leninism. VOX POPULI.
After that three leaders of the some of the Soviet Union's republics have gathered in Belovezhskaya Pusha ( excuse me for the wrong spelling, if it is wrong) and signed the treaty about the disintegration of the USSR. According to that treaty all of the former soviet union republics became independent. Among those leaders, who have signed the treaty, was the first president of Russian Federation- Boris Yeltsin. Those leaders went against the people's will. And the USSR have collapsed,as the result of undemocratical act.
After that the new referendum was held. The results of which were falsified, for the purpose of the new leaders.

Secondly, the collapse of the USSR doesn't show the unefficiency of the marxism -leninism. And you don't need to make these terms ( USSR and marxism -leninism) equal and to put into one scale. Argue about the theory, not about the state, according to which it functioned.

Thirdly, if you defend your ideas show us how your anarchism is better than marxism-leninism. It would be very interesting to know. After that I will show on your mistakes, and I'll prove you that your theory will never work.

[oki]

look I'm not some punky guy walking around in a shirt with an A on it because that looks cool.anarchism is an Ideal.correct me if I'm wrong,but communism stribes in the end for anarchism too.it's the perfect state of the society.trouble with communism is that it never came out of the stages that should lead to anarchism.now anarchists don't believe in those first stages,and want to start out with anarchism straight away,after a revolution(violent or nonviolent.)the rev.in spain was nonviolent,they fought back the facists and took over power.they let the gouvernment stay,but only as administration.they refused the leadership.people started to organise themselves,in factorys and everywhere,ofcourse there were a lot of anarchists around to help with the way to do that correctly.I suggest you check out how this was done.the people were very content with it,untill the facists won the war and stopped it.the gouvernmentform that was before them was a republic(democracy)I'm not saying that this would exactly work like this now.that's why I've been trying to start a discussion about socialism in general ,and in what way we should acheave anything now.the main point I 've been making was actually that they way things worked back then wouldn't work now.
the main fight now is ofcourse that capitalism has to go.back then it was the fight against facism.big difference.you both make interesting points about the past but....do you have no self critisism about your idiology?all the time you act asif attacked,when all I want is to make progress.this threads subject was thhat the left should unite ,and preferbly as marxists/lenists
well I think the left can only unite under a new form,that is based on principles we all support.

one other thing,if the communist system is so open,why is party leader a lifetime job?

[Revolution Hero]

"now anarchists don't believe in those first stages,and want to start out with anarchism straight away,after a revolution(violent or nonviolent.)"

It is impossible to destroy the state straight away. The certain level of economical development is needed. This economical development can take place only inside the state structure and that is why the stage of socialism is so important, it is about the economical development of the state. The society without the state is the society without classes. You can't destroy the state straight away, as you can't destroy the differences between different classes, and that is why the development inside the state form is needed. During this economical development the differences between classes will be eventually destroyed. And that is the time , when communism comes- the society without any state structure.

"one other thing,if the communist system is so open,why is party leader a lifetime job? "

Party leader is elected by the party members. If the party leader worked all his life, this means that he was re-elected many times, it means that he was a respected man.

[oki]

no I think it's a culture to do that.in anarchism this would shift in terms(like weekly),and the leader would be a representative of the rest,only put in that place to serve order.
I think it's very well possible to start straight away.for sure in western countrys,they have an immence ritchness.buisnesses can run better when the people who work there actually have something to say.they know the places through and through.then again it might go bad with economy.still no reason to not do it.
the point is that oce you give people power,they will never give it up again.you give leaders time to secuer their own posisions.the power belongs to them,and stays with them.if you make it a priority to prevent this ,and guard it,people will know what they can expect.and see what freedom they gained.that people are really equal in this new system.then they will accept it easyer.in communism they face ,after a revolutiuon,a situation where they don't have these positive points.I don't think it's strange that the situation doesn't develop from there.a new elite is created right away.a revolution is about certain ideals,and then their new leaders insist on a time where these ideals dont count.now maybe if this was a very short period of time(as marx probebly ment it)to calm down the situation,and get public life back on track,I could understand it.but it never seems to work that way,cause no communist country EVER moved on.I see this as a sign that you cant trust people with this kind of power.even your own revolutionairys will abuse it.

[Revolution Hero]

See, Oki, you don't want to listen or you don't want to understand. I don't have the will to repeat what I have already said.

" no I think it's a culture to do that.in anarchism this would shift in terms(like weekly),and the leader would be a representative of the rest,only put in that place to serve order"

Economy and culture together. You have to have time in order to raise people's cultural level. That is why socialism is needed. The state develops economically and at the same time culture develops. A man have to be different in order to live in the society without state, he/she has to have a new moral and to be very counscious about his role in the new society. This level can be reached only through the education. That is why socialism is needed.

"but it never seems to work that way,cause no communist country EVER moved on."

It doesn't mean that it will never work.

[oki]

well I guess youre right,this isn't going anywhere.it's a difference of view.thanks for responding.

[Revolution Hero]

Theory of anarchy will never work in practice. Anarchist just waste their time on their utopic suggestions how to change a society.
And there is also another problem. A leftist who doesn't want to learn and educate himself/herself will never bring any change.

[oki]

marxismlenism as you see it didn't work and never will untill the problems I pointed out are solved.anarchism is a living theory,and an Ideal.it doesn't have to work all at once.but at least it stribes towards the ultimate goal,freedom and equality for all.

a leftist that only reproduces theorys is out of toutch with reality.

[Nateddi]

how is it a living theory? how many anarchists are there in the world in comparison to marxists?

[oki]

it's living because it doesn't rely on a theory that was written in the last century,it's still developing.since anarchists don't accept authority,they allso know how to stay critical towards the theory,and don't just exept what was said before them.I get the feeling that communism isn't too good at that.....

[evil chris]

if you think Anarchism is not a pracical idea then please read your history.

[Revolution Hero]

Anarchist theory slows the progressive leftist movement down, as it makes nothing , but illusion.

[oki]

hm,Isn't it funny how communists and anarchists are so busy fighting eachother ,when they should be working together to fight the evil kapitalists?

you cant discuss anything without agreeing on something.we need a basic set of values we can all agree on.or are the differences so big thhey cant be overcome?

[Revolution Hero]

You are right, the differences are the bigger than you think. Anarchists and communists can't work together, until anarchist will finally come to the reason and become communists.

And please, tell me how anarchists are going to fight capitalism?

[oki]

no I'm finished with you dude,it's like talking to a brick wall,incripted with the holy maxist bible.......

[oki]

okay,I'll give you a clue:just cancel it.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from oki on 9:12 pm on Aug. 17, 2002
no I'm finished with you dude,it's like talking to a brick wall,incripted with the holy maxist bible.......


You just can't argue with me.Let's suppose that you and the supporters of your ideas got what they wanted.Anarchist made a revolution. Tell me about your plans of actions. What will you do?
Well, I guess, that firstly you will destroy the governmental machine. What will happen after? It's really interesting....

[oki]

I don't want to argue with you.you started this thread with the announcement that we should find qa common ideology,as leftists,and that you thought that that ideology should be marxist/lenist.I didn't agree,cause I thought it was outdated in many ways,and I don't like the concept of forcing people in any way.I sayd we should try to figure out an improved leftist way.why should we argue?you clearly don't agre,and believe in marxism/lenism.you wanted to know where I stood,and I said I'm closest to anarchism.eversince you refuse to think about anything I say.that's how things are going here.this way we'll never find a common ground.

if you want to learn about anarchism and how it works,look up a few sites on the subject.especially on the spanish civil war.
anarchists stribe for a world without domination by an elite.I personally think that people basicly don't like to be dominated,and in the end,sooner or later they will allways get sick of it.we must go towards that.preferebly though drastic democratic reforms.only violent as a last resort.if the people desite what happens in this world,on local and national and global level,you don't need gouvernments.
anarchism is the ideal of EVERY leftist.allso marxist/lenists.I don't believ in the way communism tries to acheave that.it's proven to lead to more power abuse and suffering.I allso don't really believe in the way anarchists in the past have tried.that didn't work eighter.people should learn about their responcibility towards eachother and take the power back.this can be done in many ways.the current system in the west,democracy can be adepted.more democratic,less ways to repress the population.

now do you have anything serious to add to that or are you gonna petronise me again?

[Revolution Hero]

ALLRIGHT LET'S HAVE A SERIOUS DISCUSSION.

I know what anarchism is, as I used to be anarchist before I have become marxist-leninist. I have understood that anarchism will never work, it is more like ideal conception.
You want to destroy government and all authority, right? But by destroying the state , the law will be automatically destroyed too. As the result of the latter people will do anything they want and it will be chaos in your anarchist society. This wouldn't happen if people are very conscious and understand their role in the society, man have to be perfect. But it is impossible to reach high moral values ( for the anarchy society), as you guys want to destroy the state , without having any transitional stage, which is socialism.
There is only one possible way of reaching the society of the type you want. People can reach none-state society, through the state society. The socialist state develops economically and culturally, it evolves and eventually "dies". Here comes communism, or if you wish it - anarchy.
Also the society without authority can't function inside the global community , which is full of "authoritarian" states. Can you imagine that one society , which doesn't have statestructure, is surrounded by the many states. The best what can happen is that this society will be conquered by the ohter STATES. Untill, there are states, each of them have to have representatives( leaders with the rights of authority), the same is for the anarchy society, untill it will exist among other states. It is a paradox. Anarchy society have to have representative=leader= authority.
Or do you want anarchy to win in the whole world and at the same time?

[oki]

your forgetting that anarchism is a sosialist form allso.the difference is that the way towards the ideal is different from communism.but anarchism allso has a sosialist state,as far as I'm concerned.
you say representative=leader=authority.not really.a representative can be temporairy,and chosen by the people he represents.they should remain the onces with the real power.the power to send him home if he scews up.in communism you have leaders, choosen by the party.common people have no influence.we don't need leaders.decisions will have to be made by the people,in meetings,not by one person.this way responcibility for sosiety will stay with the people.noone to blame but yourself.
and yes,the gouv as we know it now will have to go.but will be replaced by other structures .the way I just discribed.anarchy is not chaos.anarchy is making people responcible for their own lives again.communism takes over power,and starts restructuring.so does anarchism.communism doesn't give the power back to the people after that.maybe that IS the goal,but I never saw that happen in history.anarchism will,it's the main goal to give the power back as soon as possible.there will still be a body guarding the ideals,and if it goes wrong they can step in,and try again.this might thake time,just as communism will take time to get settled.
in anarchism it would be impossible for a single chairman to decide everything.why does communism support this?how can a single peoplron know what's best for all others?to wait for an economy to develop is not nessesairy.people are perfectly capeble of running their lives economicly.unions can give directions.you don't need gouv for that.unions can talk to eachother.all body's in a country can choose represants for the country,towards other country's.if it is nessesairy to have people protecting the free territory,you'd need an army ofcourse.but again you don't have to have that structured the way it is now.the army now is the most hyrachic organ we know.that's bull.if people find their freedom important,they will want to protect that.so there you go.volunteers.so it's important to make people see that they can have freedom,make them aware.that is the base for revolution,nothing else.you cant force it upon people.
how do you see a revolution happening in the west?
ifyou start with a society that dictates,how will people react when they get their freedom back?how will you teach the people to be self relieent and responcible again,if you don't give them the chance to be that?
how can you make them understand that you create something for them,if you don't let them decide in it?

[oki]

sorry for the many typo's.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from oki on 12:18 am on Aug. 28, 2002
your forgetting that anarchism is a sosialist form allso.the difference is that the way towards the ideal is different from communism.but anarchism allso has a sosialist state,as far as I'm concerned.
you say representative=leader=authority.not really.a representative can be temporairy,and chosen by the people he represents.they should remain the onces with the real power.the power to send him home if he scews up.in communism you have leaders, choosen by the party.common people have no influence.we don't need leaders.decisions will have to be made by the people,in meetings,not by one person.this way responcibility for sosiety will stay with the people.noone to blame but yourself.



In your view, anacrhism is the socialist form, but is different from the socialism which exists now and existed in the past. Socialism exists inside the state structure. Then , according to you, anarchism will also exist in the structure , which is similar to the state one, but is not actually a state. Peole have all power.
During Soviet socialism there was only one COMMUNIST party. Many people were the members of it. And they made the decisions by themselves. The leader made a decision only after it had been discussed at the party meeting. So, people had the right to decide what is better for them.
Also, according to you , the masses will have the right to participate in the society's governing. What about class differences and class struggle. Wouldn't you have different classes, or would you have classless society? If the latter, then how all class differences would be destroyed?
As I know , anarchist don't have their political party. You consider revolution to be the only way of getting into power, don't you? What classes or class is the main motive force of the revolution, according to the anarchism? And how the revolution will be organized without any influence from the party organs ( as there are not any)?

[oki]

yes people could get involved in the comm.party in the sovj.union.first off,this created two classes.people that were members,people that weren't members.
leaders like stalin had all the power.they ruled untill their death.why is this good?there was no way in preventing a smart person to take that power.this is my main objective with communism.a leader could form a circle around him,the partytop,that supported him.people that opposed,could be send away by the leader.this is power.it should be the other way round.in anarchism you simply don't give that power to one person.preferebly,the top leader wouldn't exist.it's an extreme form of democracy in fact.
about classes:classes are differences between parts of the people.generally in income,lifestandart,influence.in this way the communist and anarchist sosiety don't differ that mutch.a difference is,that you don't work for a gouv.,but for your community.in this community people earn equal pay.they equally benefit from the community.community's can be seen,on a higher level as persons.all the community's together form a bigger community.wealth will be equal amoung them too.the poorer earea's get help,the ritcher help.and so on.if income,influence and wealth are equal,there are no classes.there will still be differences between humans,but that's normal.
back in the days,there were a lot of anarchist org.members were from the lower classes,the nes that were looking for revolution.there were no leaders,only ideologists,and for the rest every member could have the influence he wanted.the more a sosiety runs by itself,the less you need an org. to guide it.in the end it wouldn't matter at all if you would be a member or not.it wouldn't get you any privalidges.it would only mean that you do volunteer work for the sosiety .it isn't a job.the values will be guarded by these org. again a difference:in spain anarchist org.were offered power by the republic,but they refused.they transfered that power to lower levels immedietly.people will cooperate if they understand that these org.are structuring a sosiety that's fair and open.the anarchist ideology is only a way of acheaving that.the main thing is that you don't want power to stick somewhere.allso not with anarchists themselves.

[Anonymous]

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/----990449hitbush.jpg

its all i have to say about the conspiracy theorys!

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from oki on 11:14 pm on Aug. 28, 2002
yes people could get involved in the comm.party in the sovj.union.first off,this created two classes.people that were members,people that weren't members.
leaders like stalin had all the power.they ruled untill their death.why is this good?there was no way in preventing a smart person to take that power.this is my main objective with communism.a leader could form a circle around him,the partytop,that supported him.people that opposed,could be send away by the leader.this is power.it should be the other way round.in anarchism you simply don't give that power to one person.preferebly,the top leader wouldn't exist.it's an extreme form of democracy in fact.
about classes:classes are differences between parts of the people.generally in income,lifestandart,influence.in this way the communist and anarchist sosiety don't differ that mutch.a difference is,that you don't work for a gouv.,but for your community.in this community people earn equal pay.they equally benefit from the community.community's can be seen,on a higher level as persons.all the community's together form a bigger community.wealth will be equal amoung them too.the poorer earea's get help,the ritcher help.and so on.if income,influence and wealth are equal,there are no classes.there will still be differences between humans,but that's normal.
back in the days,there were a lot of anarchist org.members were from the lower classes,the nes that were looking for revolution.there were no leaders,only ideologists,and for the rest every member could have the influence he wanted.the more a sosiety runs by itself,the less you need an org. to guide it.in the end it wouldn't matter at all if you would be a member or not.it wouldn't get you any privalidges.it would only mean that you do volunteer work for the sosiety .it isn't a job.the values will be guarded by these org. again a difference:in spain anarchist org.were offered power by the republic,but they refused.they transfered that power to lower levels immedietly.people will cooperate if they understand that these org.are structuring a sosiety that's fair and open.the anarchist ideology is only a way of acheaving that.the main thing is that you don't want power to stick somewhere.allso not with anarchists themselves.



That's right Stalin had a lot of power. But the leaders , who governed after his death were always replaced, as the result of the election of the party members. Also, the majority of the Soviet population were the members of the communist party.

Theory of anarchy is not scientificly based. You talked about everybody being equal: rich to share with the poor, so they will be financialliy equal. It is called utopic communism, so you will know. Unlike anarchists, communists want to develop the state's economy, and only when it will reach a certain level, the state can be destroyed. EVERYBODY WILL BE EQUALLY RICH, INSTEAD OF BEING EQUALLY POOR, as it is supposed to be in the anarchy society.
I always thought that anarchy is about destroying the state. But you say that there have to be an elected representative, law, army et.c. All these characterizes THE STATE.

Also , you have not told me how was you going to come to the power, and what were your main motive forces ( the classes , who are considered by the anarchists to be the main forces of their revolution).

[oki]

were any leaders after stalin replaced because they had authocratic tendency's?(i'm curious)anyway,still there was one leader elected.anarch.would let the leadership shift by week or month,and he wouldn't have the power to determin policies.
ofcourse the most sovjet cityzens became members,since that gave them a life,privilages and acception.it was a carreer move.
communism has had time to be scientific.anarchism didn't.it only has the spanish period and a few small community's as experience.I have to say,they didn't have time to fuck up yet(well the spanish did in the end..)but allso not to prove it could work.
the idea of first develop,then the rest of the plan,is not bad in theory.just the points I made before:
the revolution will bring a regime the people don't want,which is in fact opposite of the ideals of the revolution.this implodes in time.I think it's more logical to first make things equal.people will see that sosiety has become fair,and that is a motivation to support the system.then the economy will develop faster.
you hear that a lot,anarchy is about destruction.I don't think that people that think that,are real anarchists.they miss the point.if you strip a gouvernment of all the parts that can repress the people,you still have a basic structure left that any country needs.if only an administative and organising function.an army doesn't have to be hyrarchic as it is now.now soldiers just do as they are told.they are machines.make a sosiety that people believe in and they will WANT to protect it.they don't need to be ordered,just organised.
law is in fact just a list of things people don't accept.people will not accept you just murder someone.you you write that down,and give it a punishment.this way you protect sosiety.why would that not count in an anarchist sosiety?otherwise murderers would terrorise you.we don't need a seperate state to tell us that.we can all agree,democraticly,what we accept and enforce it ourselves.I know it will be hard to make the whole state disappear,but I think in time you can get pretty close to it.we need new structures.people need to understand why things are the way they are.now you just say fuck the gouv.if you dont like law and that's it.that should be fuck all people in this country.then you would think twice before you go that way.

I have a question for you:do you actually believe the final stage of communism is possible?caause then you allso have no more state,law,army,equality,and so on.how would this be acheaved?Is it just the difference between a good and a bad economy that will make it work,according to communism?I find that hard to swallow.all the problems anarchy will have ,communism will have too.I allso can imaagin that wealth will make people less motivated to change things.

my last 2 posts I talked about anarchism after a revolution.taking over power is no different from communist revolution.spanish anarchists took power while facists tried to take power.before that they tried to organise revolutions several times,but never totally succeeded.in those days farmers were the main force,and the poor in general.now,we live in a system,that has a few rich. and a lot of midle class,and poor.they will have to be the ones.to get a midle class to fight a revolution,well,that will only happen when they suffer.so I don't see that happening any time soon.
I allso think that ,by democratic reforms,anarchist values can be pushed through this system we have now(I live in europe,we are a bit closer then the US)the EU is organised in a very sosialist way.no country in the EU wants to give up his power.if seperate country's organise more like this too,in time it can be allright.but drastic reforms are needed for that.and I believe people want that too,when you make them aware of it.
how would you start a revolution in the west?

[Revolution Hero]

"were any leaders after stalin replaced because they had authocratic tendency's?(i'm curious)anyway,still there was one leader elected.anarch.would let the leadership shift by week or month,and he wouldn't have the power "

Leaders after Stalin didn't had any authocratic tendencies. Some leaders were even re-elected, those were good leaders.
Allright , so there would be temporal leader in your anarchy society. The state wouldn't be destroyed, and the leaders will be changed in a month, and chaos in the society's life will be the result of such extreme form of democracy. The policies will not stable.


"the idea of first develop,then the rest of the plan,is not bad in theory.just the points I made before:
the revolution will bring a regime the people don't want,which is in fact opposite of the ideals of the revolution.this implodes in time.I think it's more logical to first make things equal.people will see that sosiety has become fair,and that is a motivation to support the system.then the economy will develop faster. "

You are wrong here . The revolution will bring the dictatorship of the proletariat. Workers and peasants will not be exploited anymore, they will work for themselves and for the good of their state. Ther would not be any antagonistic classes, and people will be equal in terms , than no one use their labor and no one exploits them.
Maknig people financially equal is just a dream ( on the stage you talk about), which is impossible to make come true right after the revolution. Making people financially equal on the stage, when the economy is not developed and doesn't reach it's highest level, will result in the EQUAL POORITY.

" I have a question for you:do you actually believe the final stage of communism is possible?caause then you allso have no more state,law,army,equality,and so on.how would this be acheaved?Is it just the difference between a good and a bad economy that will make it work,according to communism?I find that hard to swallow.all the problems anarchy will have ,communism will have too.I allso can imaagin that wealth will make people less motivated to change things. "

You are wrong, again. COMMUNISM WILL NEVER HAVE THE PROBLEMS , WHICH ANARCHY WILL HAVE. Communism, will come after socialism, during the latter the economy will develop, developed economy will result in the high cultural level of the population. As the result of the proper communist up-bringing people will become aware about their role in the society's life, they will become more councsouise, they will become perfect. Communism will be created, only when the socialism will win in the whole world. Untill there are countries with the antagonistic social system, socialism will function. When it reaches it's highest economical point the state will "die" and the law will be destroyed. The people will live according to the moral values, and communist traditions. Everybody will be financially equal, the classes will be destroyed.




(Edited by Revolution Hero at 7:10 pm on Aug. 30, 2002)

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from oki on 12:03 am on Aug. 30, 2002


my last 2 posts I talked about anarchism after a revolution.taking over power is no different from communist revolution.spanish anarchists took power while facists tried to take power.before that they tried to organise revolutions several times,but never totally succeeded.in those days farmers were the main force,and the poor in general.now,we live in a system,that has a few rich. and a lot of midle class,and poor.they will have to be the ones.to get a midle class to fight a revolution,well,that will only happen when they suffer.so I don't see that happening any time soon.


Don't say middle class, lower class. These are bourgeoise conceptions.
There are bourgeoise class, proletariat and peasantry.

[oki]

quote:Don't say middle class, lower class. These are bourgeoise conceptions.
There are bourgeoise class, proletariat and peasantry

okay,the main force was pesentry then.I just use terms from this century.these classes are a reality in this system,and are beeing used as such by the present forces.in my country pesants are a small minority,and so are proletairians.the rest is eighter classless,or bourg.according to this.

the only problem with a true democratic system is that it works slow.but hey,you could be more or less extreme in leadership .you could give a leader first say in policies,with approvel of the rest.you could let him stay on a jear-2 jears.point is that this leader will work for the people he represents.not for his own glory.he'll have to awnser to the people.

quote: Maknig people financially equal is just a dream ( on the stage you talk about), which is impossible to make come true right after the revolution.

not impossible.it's a choice you make.I gave my reaons for doing that and sosiety will benefit from it.you cants say it's impossible.the spanish anarchists did that,and it way very well possible.

quote: You are wrong, again. COMMUNISM WILL NEVER HAVE THE PROBLEMS , WHICH ANARCHY WILL HAVE. Communism, will come after socialism, during the latter the economy will develop, developed economy will result in the high cultural level of the population. As the result of the proper communist up-bringing people will become aware about their role in the society's life, they will become more councsouise, they will become perfect. Communism will be created, only when the socialism will win in the whole world. Untill there are countries with the antagonistic social system, socialism will function. When it reaches it's highest economical point the state will "die" and the law will be destroyed. The people will live according to the moral values, and communist traditions. Everybody will be financially equal, the classes will be destroyed.

you expect people to believe in a system that makes you wait till eternity for the whole world to be communist?why doesn't it apply to an intire country ,or community?I think it's an excuse,that has been used for powerabuse,or at best an easy way out .this is exactly why I can never be a communist.the way towards something is made the actual goal.(sorry if this offends you I don't mean to judge your believes,but it's my opinion.this sounds like a religon to me,that promises heaven,if you are good.but then youcn never be sure you will ever go to heaven.for the world to become communist,that might happen never,or might take generations.all these people wont ever see that happening,yet you expect them to build on it.that's not fair.I think people would rather see what they work for and have it straight away.I think that then they will be able to concore all the problems that arise mutch better.you know what you fight for.another difference is that anarchism actually thinks about lawlessness and equality as an emediet reallity.it's more realistic.

[Revolution Hero]

" okay,the main force was pesentry then.I just use terms from this century.these classes are a reality in this system,and are beeing used as such by the present forces.in my country pesants are a small minority,and so are proletairians.the rest is eighter classless,or bourg.according to this. "

According to the marxism-leninism peasantry can join the revolution only under the leadership of the proletariat. As bourgeoise class exploits directly workers, and this class is more likely to be aware of it's political mission. Unlike proletariat, peasants are petty-bourgeoise minded, and they care only for their land. They are small land owners. That is why proletariat is considered the main motive force of the revolution. Then peasantry goes and intelligentsia takes the third place in the REVOLUTIONARY UNION.


" not impossible.it's a choice you make.I gave my reaons for doing that and sosiety will benefit from it.you cants say it's impossible.the spanish anarchists did that,and it way very well possible. "

The society will not benefit from it. When the economy is not ready for the financially equal society , it is impossible to make the society truelly equal. You will share everything with the people, and as the result everybody will get just a little amount of everything. That is not what communism wants. Everybody will have what they want, and everybody's needs will be satisfied.


" you expect people to believe in a system that makes you wait till eternity for the whole world to be communist?why doesn't it apply to an intire country ,or community?I think it's an excuse,that has been used for powerabuse,or at best an easy way out .this is exactly why I can never be a communist"

Actually Soviet people believed in it, as everybody understood that it is impossible to make a communist society , when there are such capitalist states , as US, which want to destroy all socialist states. Untill there is an army, there is a state. USSR needed army in order to defend it's territory from the capitalist aggression. After the destroying the state decentralization always follows. And it is more easier to conquer decentralized society. Soviet theoretics understood that SOCIALISM ( not communism) must win in the whole world, and only then it will be possible to build communism. World community must not be antagonistic. Untill there are enemies, the state must stay.


"for the world to become communist,that might happen never,or might take generations.all these people wont ever see that happening,yet you expect them to build on it.that's not fair.I think people would rather see what they work for and have it straight away."


See, your selfish nature doesn't allow you to work for the future generations. But Soviet people understood their mission clearly. They didn't suffer in the USSR. They lived in the socialist state , they did not know exploitation. That was OK with them. And they strived for the bright future!

[Conghaileach]

from oki:
in my country pesants are a small minority,and so are proletairians.the rest is eighter classless,or bourg.according to this.

A proletarian is anyone is has to sell his/her labour in order to make a living. I think that the proletariat may have a larger number in your country than you think.

[oki]

Quote: from CiaranB on 5:23 pm on Sep. 1, 2002
from oki:
in my country pesants are a small minority,and so are proletairians.the rest is eighter classless,or bourg.according to this.

A proletarian is anyone is has to sell his/her labour in order to make a living. I think that the proletariat may have a larger number in your country than you think.

okay,just fishing for a statement on the subject.if this is the case,the majority of the proletaliat in the west is confortable,not repressed (modern workers have unions,rights,choice and so on)and can not be convinced to fight a revolution.

[oki]

revolution hero:
Q:According to the marxism-leninism peasantry can join the revolution only under the leadership of the proletariat

that's not equality.spanish pesants had no land or very litle.they worked the land of the rich.what does this make them?they started collectives ,bought up land and shared it.which is not selfish,but the opposite.

Q: When the economy is not ready for the financially equal society , it is impossible to make the society truelly equal. You will share everything with the people, and as the result everybody will get just a little amount of everything. That is not what communism wants. Everybody will have what they want, and everybody's needs will be satisfied.

it's not a fact that an anarchist economy will be poor.you keep saying that,but you cant prove that.it's an assumption.on the other hand,communist economys have been poor in some cases.sosialist economic programs have failed in some cases in the past.in fact there is no way to prove that any economic program in any system is gonna lead to prosparity.

Q: Untill there are enemies, the state must stay

i partly agree with this part.I allready explaned that anarchist sosiety would have army,and centralised decision making.but in a different way ,non hyrarchic and on equal bases.

Q:See, your selfish nature doesn't allow you to work for the future generations. But Soviet people understood their mission clearly. They didn't suffer in the USSR. They lived in the socialist state , they did not know exploitation. That was OK with them. And they strived for the bright future!

you know as weel as I that this is not intirely true.millions were killed for no reason,from time to time you couldn't even get food,there was a huge black market,and people dont live willingly in misery to build for their children.the sovjet union has known very harsh times.in an anarchist system this would be no different.exept that people would be equal,and share the pain equal.as a community.

[mentalbunny]

I don't think there is enough freedom in ML. There are extents that I don't think we should go to. maybe I'm to "pink" for you but I think we shouldn't be reduced to working for the state, which is what it would eventually become and no one would be happy, even the power-tripping people in charge would not be satisfied until the world was drab and grey and uniform. Individuality is abolished when the extreme left is reached. It means relatively little whether you are left or right, how extreme you are makes all the difference, and very etreme right is almost identicle to very extreme left. Think about that.

I'll come back to you with more thoughts.

[mentalbunny]

Well I promised I'd be back so here I am. I have this book on political ideologies, so this isn't just my opinion. Anyway is says "Marxism is not the true socialism" and " the surviving socialism which is rethinking itself in the 1990's is by and large reformist, democratic and revisionist in nature. If there is a futuer for socialism it lies in this format."

I can't argue with that!

[oki]

I believe in progressive thinking too.the world is changing all the time,and so should sosialism.in my country everybody has welfare,the ritch are taxed loads more then the poor and workers have rights.all this acheaved by sosialistswithin the democratic system.you cant egnore that.it's only the start,but still...

[Revolution Hero]

" that's not equality.spanish pesants had no land or very litle.they worked the land of the rich.what does this make them?they started collectives ,bought up land and shared it.which is not selfish,but the opposite. "

We have to put the question here:
What do these two classes want?
Workers want to be free from the exploitation.
Peasants more likely want only own land. Peasants do have their own land in the capitalist society. This fact makes them more independent.
In contrary, workers have nothing. That is why proletariat have to lead the peasants. Working class is the trully revolutionary class.


"it's not a fact that an anarchist economy will be poor.you keep saying that,but you cant prove that.it's an assumption.on the other hand,communist economys have been poor in some cases.sosialist economic programs have failed in some cases in the past.in fact there is no way to prove that any economic program in any system is gonna lead to prosparity"


You can't prove your assumption either. But you have to understand one important thing. You can't destroy the classes by sharing. Do you really expect that the rich will give all his fortune to the poor people. It is clear that he will not. So, what are you going to do? Kill him?
Also, your theory is about very dangerous change. Many people will be against the society you talk about. Those who have lived well in the past wouldn't like the equality with the poor, as it would mean that they are poor too. Are you going to kill all those people. The equality which is reached without the transitional stage is a very dangerous thing, the society will have a lot of problems.


"i partly agree with this part.I allready explaned that anarchist sosiety would have army,and centralised decision making.but in a different way ,non hyrarchic and on equal bases. "

Then, it means that the army wouldn't have any commanders. And this kind of army would never defeat the enemy. Army without the centralized authority is a nonesense.

" know as weel as I that this is not intirely true.millions were killed for no reason,from time to time you couldn't even get food,there was a huge black market,and people dont live willingly in misery to build for their children.the sovjet union has known very harsh times.in an anarchist system this would be no different.exept that people would be equal,and share the pain equal.as a community. "

There were some harsh times, but people knew that if they would would work they will survive and make the society better. I have talked to many old people. They have totally different psychology. They told me that they never worked only for their own purpose, but they had the common goal and worked for the purpose of their country. Probably , you will never understand them, nobody from the west will. But the USSR was powerful, only because of that kind of people.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 4:38 am on Sep. 6, 2002
Well I promised I'd be back so here I am. I have this book on political ideologies, so this isn't just my opinion. Anyway is says "Marxism is not the true socialism" and " the surviving socialism which is rethinking itself in the 1990's is by and large reformist, democratic and revisionist in nature. If there is a futuer for socialism it lies in this format."

I can't argue with that!




This book is nothing , but anti-communist propaganda. Not a progressive , but a regressive thinking.


(Edited by Revolution Hero at 6:45 pm on Sep. 7, 2002)

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 4:38 am on Sep. 6, 2002
Well I promised I'd be back so here I am. I have this book on political ideologies, so this isn't just my opinion. Anyway is says "Marxism is not the true socialism" and " the surviving socialism which is rethinking itself in the 1990's is by and large reformist, democratic and revisionist in nature. If there is a futuer for socialism it lies in this format."

I can't argue with that!




This book is nothing , but anti-communist propaganda. Not a progressive , but a regressive thinking.

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from oki on 12:04 am on Sep. 7, 2002
I believe in progressive thinking too.the world is changing all the time,and so should sosialism.in my country everybody has welfare,the ritch are taxed loads more then the poor and workers have rights.all this acheaved by sosialistswithin the democratic system.you cant egnore that.it's only the start,but still...


whre do you live, oki? that sounds like my ideal world!!!

revolution hero, i completely disagree, what has communism done for the world? answer me that well and i might be persuaded.

[oki]

bunny I live in the netherlands.It's quite impossible to die of hunger here.but we have a new right wing gouv. since 2 months,they will do their best to fuck it up. :)
no it's no paradise.but sosialism has had a lasting impact on the way we think.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Revolution Hero on 8:43 am on Sep. 7, 2002

Quote: from mentalbunny on 4:38 am on Sep. 6, 2002
Well I promised I'd be back so here I am. I have this book on political ideologies, so this isn't just my opinion. Anyway is says "Marxism is not the true socialism" and " the surviving socialism which is rethinking itself in the 1990's is by and large reformist, democratic and revisionist in nature. If there is a futuer for socialism it lies in this format."

I can't argue with that!


This book is nothing , but anti-communist propaganda.

Bullshit. Why do Sovietists have to call anything that challenges them propaganda??


Not a progressive , but a regressive thinking.

Maybe you could explain to me how an ideology based on someone who died almost 80 years ago is progressive. Moreover, maybe you could tell me how calling everything "propaganda" is progressive.

And I have a question to pose everyone here: are we to be idealistic or realistic?? Utopian or pragmatic??

[oki]

revolution hero:
"Workers want to be free from the exploitation.
Peasants more likely want only own land. Peasants do have their own land in the capitalist society. This fact makes them more independent.
In contrary, workers have nothing. That is why proletariat have to lead the peasants. Working class is the trully revolutionary class. "

not intirely true.workers would,after a revolution,run a factory on their own.same as pesants would work land on their own.a farmer will not be ritch by running his own farm,unless it grows so big he's have to have people work the land for him.modern day workers work for money.their main goal is to rise within a company and get ritch.which is a different attitude,a worse one.in the past,your view was correct now,I don't know.maybe in russia(you are from russia?)this is very different.here and allso in the states,unions have a big influence and gave workers right and prospect.things have changed.

"Do you really expect that the rich will give all his fortune to the poor people. It is clear that he will not. So, what are you going to do? Kill him? "

disown.communism does the same.in anarchism the weath will go to unions,and flow to where it's needed.you don't have to kill people that accept this.if they dont and frustrate the proces,they should be locked up.I don't see a difference with communism here.explane please?

"it means that the army wouldn't have any commanders. And this kind of army would never defeat the enemy. Army without the centralized authority is a nonesense"

yes it is.but an army should be based in society.now the army is a seperate thing.but basicly you're right.an army is an army.when you face an enemy that's like that,you have to be efficient.

" There were some harsh times, but people knew that if they would would work they will survive and make the society better. I have talked to many old people. They have totally different psychology. They told me that they never worked only for their own purpose, but they had the common goal and worked for the purpose of their country. Probably , you will never understand them, nobody from the west will. But the USSR was powerful, only because of that kind of people"

and the hope for a better life in the future.these people were taught to think like that.but still they all hoped to live in better days too.I'm allso pretty sure that if these times don't come,that will result in frustration.the soviet state did promise a better life,didn't they?they didn't say your life will be hard work and poor,but next generations will have a good life.they said build towards the future.did the leaders tell people that they would only get their utopia when the whole world became sosialist?and if they did,did they allso say that that was pretty mutch impossible the coming 100 jears?I never been to russia,I was however in the DDR.how do you see the DDR?as the same or different then the CCCP?

[mentalbunny]

Cool , oki, I was born in Den Haag, but we moved when I was 2. My sister may be moving back there when she gets her qualifications.

i see no one has tried to persuade me that communism has ever done anything good! We have to be realisitc, everyone wants the best they can get, and everyone has different ideas on how things should be done. I'm getting disheartened, there is no simple solution whcih everyone will agree to.

[oki]

guerrillaradio:
"Maybe you could explain to me how an ideology based on someone who died almost 80 years ago is progressive. Moreover, maybe you could tell me how calling everything "propaganda" is progressive.

And I have a question to pose everyone here: are we to be idealistic or realistic?? Utopian or pragmatic?? "

I think both.we don't have to choose.if idealism misses realism,we get nowhere.if realim misses idealism there is no point.the important thing I think is that we progress,and not get stuck in old ideology,like you said

[oki]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 11:20 am on Sep. 8, 2002
Cool , oki, I was born in Den Haag, but we moved when I was 2. My sister may be moving back there when she gets her qualifications.

i see no one has tried to persuade me that communism has ever done anything good! We have to be realisitc, everyone wants the best they can get, and everyone has different ideas on how things should be done. I'm getting disheartened, there is no simple solution whcih everyone will agree to.


den haag,allright!I live in Utrecht
even if noone agrees it's still usefull to keep on discussing views.remember that basicly we all believe in the same values and goal.there is more that unites us then devides us.

[mentalbunny]

I guess, I suppose if we discuss we may end up with something similar in our minds, bit like philosophy when you start with a thesis and an antithesis and end up with a synthesis (aren't i clever knowing all these long words!)

so someone tell me what's so great aobut communism?!