I'M BACK, COMMIE PUKES! - AND I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU JOKERS

[Capitalist Imperial]

What, did you think I would just never return, YOU WEAK SUCKS?

Did you think that I would just sit idly by and let you disrespect history's greatest nation? Allow you to put your ignorant and propoganda-filled leftist spin-stain on the fabric of the great United States and the institution of capitalism?

Well think again.

I have been reading some of the submissions that have littered this forum in the weeks since my hiatus started, and I must say, I am not surprised, but as usual, I AM disgusted.

How much more frivoulous poppycock, class envy, and frivolous notions of self-righteousness must I suffer before you punks wake up and smell the napalm?

Get it through your thick skulls, commie scum:

America will never crumble! We grow stronger every day!

And those of you who think China would really have a chance against us in a full-scale war are truly lacking in your knowledge of each nations true employable military, economic, and logistic ability (let alone Navies alone, the cornerstone of any fighting force). Oh, I'm sure you pukes would love to see us fall, but you better get a cup of coffe and a doughnut, 'cause its gonna be a long time before we fall off of the top of the mountain.

The sun will probably go supernova first.

LONG LIVE FREEDOM!

LONG LIVE CAPITALISM!

LONG LIVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!

[abstractmentality]

we missed you as well, CI.

[Cassius Clay]

LOL, please Capitalist Imperial don't call anyone 'Commie punks' or whatever there are very few Communists on this board. The majority share your murderous ideology, that of Capitalism.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 10:17 pm on Feb. 22, 2003
LOL, please Capitalist Imperial don't call anyone 'Commie punks' or whatever there are very few Communists on this board. The majority share your murderous ideology, that of Capitalism.



BS, CC, 95% of the people on this board criticize capitalism, and you know it

[Mazdak]

Or most THINK they are communists. Dont slander the true communists amongst us( all 1% of them here)

[Politrickian]

He's back!

I've missed you so much man.

[RedCeltic]

You where gone? Hmmm I didn't realize...


.... RC <------Anti Capitalist - Anti Communist - Liberiterian Socialist.

[suffianr]

An entire thread just for that, CI? The shit has hit the fan, and the fan is not amused.

You'd think there'd be more in it than mindless propaganda bollcoks, but in your case, that's the only way you get noticed. Welcome back anyway, mate.

Now, bugger off again.

[Anonymous]

Welcome back, CI!

[thursday night]

I'd say 3% to 4% are actually Marxist-Leninist/communists here. The rest are revisionists, punk rockers who think Che is cool and liberals. It's sick. So disgusting to me I'd take Dark Capitalist or CI before I'd take half the regulars on this forum.

[Guardia Bolivariano]

What you got fired already?:biggrin:

[Tkinter1]

Glad to see you back, CI!

[RedCeltic]

I'd say 3% to 4% are actually Marxist-Leninist/communists here. The rest are revisionists, punk rockers who think Che is cool and liberals. It's sick. So disgusting to me I'd take Dark Capitalist or CI before I'd take half the regulars on this forum.

And those of us who don't believe in tyrany of the state or tyrany of economy are non existant I suppose...

.... Many people here tend to be a-politcal actually which was the basis my almost abandonment of the board.

It's such a joke how on one hand stalinists boast that they are taking over the board and than on the other say they are only 1% of the board....

[synthesis]

Ha... welcome back.

With rhetoric like yours, I'd like to see what you look like someday.

I picture you with a shaved head and army fatigues, like that gym teacher in Beavis and Butthead.

[thursday night]

"And those of us who don't believe in tyrany of the state or tyrany of economy are non existant I suppose..."

Interesting, I never knew I supported tyranny. In fact, I am defending democracy, human rights and equality in the ‘Cuba is and will continue to be a socialist nation.’ Care to have a look? :) Maybe it will illuminate you on how I really stand.

[Mazdak]

Thursday night, you put it beautifully.

RC, we never said we took over the board. YOU are the ones who said we had taken it over.

[Blibblob]

Hows my avatar CI?!!

Isnt it pretty, but tell your little friends to calm down. I wore that on my arm and got the shit beaten out of me. Just goes to show how cowardly you capitalists are. Five against one is not nice.

[boadicea88]

Welcome back, CI, im sure that if most of the other people on this forum feel about you the same way i do, you are back among friends [/sarcasm].

They fought you five to one? man that really sucks, I've noticed with me that cappies tend to do rather the same thing though not usually quite that bad. See, im not very big, maybe 5'3 and110 lbs, well whenever I'm with another communist and we're wearing our armbands, the flames and whatnot are always thrown at me.

[Pete]

Bodecia :) Hello! I remember your poems from before that stalinst purging shit happened.

[Mazdak]

Yes, Welcome back friend.

[thursday night]

"YOU are the ones who said we had taken it over."

This is true. In fact, I once remember Malte informing me that his reasoning behind the mass restriction was that he was sick of “all the Stalin vs. Trotsky” threads. Now, if we look at the forums right now we’ll find very few authoritarian against anti-authoritarian threads, but we do see many threads in which I personally would really enjoy posting at, and they’re topic is totally unrelated to the dreaded Stalin vs. Trotsky debates.

I think it is also worth nothing just how few ‘Stalin vs. Trotsky’ threads are in this fora as of late, and that is quite remarkable considering that the ‘Stalinists’ have been locked in here for a very long time, and the liberals/revisionists here tend to be quite aggressive towards authoritarians.

[Pete]

Have you also noticed, thursday, the degradation of the posts in the politics board? Back when this shit was going on I left the board for about a week because I couldn't stand it. Let's not start it up again.

[Cassius Clay]

''And those of us who don't believe in tyrany of the state or tyrany of economy are non existant I suppose...

.... Many people here tend to be a-politcal actually which was the basis my almost abandonment of the board.

It's such a joke how on one hand stalinists boast that they are taking over the board and than on the other say they are only 1% of the board.... ''

LOL, where do you get all this 'Tyranny' stuff from. As Thursday explained in why he defends Cuba, he defends Democracy. The USSR was far more democratic than the U$ and it is people like Trotsky, Tito and stupid Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War who have fought FOR tyranny throughout the entire 20th Century.

[Hayduke]

CI,

As a capitalist you are productive right ?

THen why are you here to make an opposition to us, you havet got one guy over yet, its a battle you already lost.

I think your precense here is more like a hobby, to annoy those commies with text like " America can never be destroyed "

Seriously CI find yourself a life, instead of hanging around one a web board, were you are not even wanted.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

I have to agree with D Day - only a capitalist with not life would spend the effort to post so often on a communist site.

As for CI, I will acknoledge the greatness of the US only if George Dubya realises that a war with Iraq is uneccessary and ethically wrong... I think I'm safe for the next few millenia.

[RedCeltic]

LOL, where do you get all this 'Tyranny' stuff from

ALL States are Hierarchal in nature and therefore Tyranical.

And BTW I don't like Stalin, Trotsky or Lenin.. so :P

[Blibblob]

Im thinking CI isnt back...

[RedCeltic]

You mean he started this thread saying he's back to divert atention from the celibrations of him being gone? Quite possible. :biggrin:

[Pete]

Didn't he do this before??

[Cassius Clay]

''ALL States are Hierarchal in nature and therefore Tyranical.''

Great an Anarchist!

So then MrRedCeltic what's your alternative? Your description was also pretty vague and not very good. So because a goverment structure existed the Soviet state was oppressive. Not good enough.

[RedCeltic]

I believe in a non-authoriterian society in which individuals and groups practice self management. (self goverment)

However my oposition of government means only that I am against centralised, hierarchical, bureaucratic organisations or government.

I do however support self-government through confederations of decentralised, grassroots organisations, so long as these are based on direct democracy rather than the delegation of power to "representatives."


I reject authoritarian forms of organisation and instead support associations based on free agreement.

As Berkman said, "Only when each is a free and independent unit, co-operating with others from his own choice because of mutual interests, can the world work successfully and become powerful." [Op. Cit., p. 53]

Direct democracy and confederation are the expression and enviroment of liberty.

Direct (or participatory) democracy is essential because liberty and equality imply the need for forums within which people can discuss and debate as equals and which allow for the free exercise of what Murray Bookchin calls "the creative role of dissent "

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 4:32 pm on Feb. 23, 2003
''ALL Great an Anarchist!


I know isn't it ;)

[Cassius Clay]

''I believe in a non-authoriterian society in which individuals and groups practice self management. (self goverment)''

Well alot of evidence, testimonies, accounts etc points to the Soviet Union having precisly this, particularly under Stalin. Yet they also had a functioning law enforcement and goverment institutions to both govern and uphold the law. I presume you as a Anarchist would wan't to have no 'Official' governement body to even recomend a policy, your alternative would be trusting in everybody's kind hearts? Idealism personified.

Would you also like to show me a example of this theory being put into practice with any success.

''However my oposition of government means only that I am against centralised, hierarchical, bureaucratic organisations or government.''

Well I can't argue that the Soviet Union wasn't centralised, but that isn't a bad thing democratic centralism could be viewed as far more democratic and productive than other forms of democracy, particular parliamentary 'democracy'. 'Beuraucratic' define this? Anarchists tend to describe anything or everything as either 'Beuraucratic' or tools 'Of the oppressive state'. Typhically it is ultra-leftists who declare a almost holy-war like crusade against 'Beuraucrates' and in truth it is infact Trotsky who was the biggest beuraucrate of them all.

Where I'm going with the above I don't know, so I will just point out that Stalin fought against beuraucracy throughout his entire carreer.


''I do however support self-government through confederations of decentralised, grassroots organisations, so long as these are based on direct democracy rather than the delegation of power to "representatives."

'Direct democracy' would be a society where workers could walk into their factory managers office demand their resignation and actually get it. Also the Smolensk archive which has been in the west since 1945 shows us a example of over 50% of the local governing officialls being replaced in 1937.


''I reject authoritarian forms of organisation and instead support associations based on free agreement.''

You know this could be interpreted as Capitalism. Looks like Bakhurin still has his supporters, ofcourse Gorbachev and Deng Xia Ping allready proved that.


''As Berkman said, "Only when each is a free and independent unit, co-operating with others from his own choice because of mutual interests, can the world work successfully and become powerful." [Op. Cit., p. 53]

Direct democracy and confederation are the expression and enviroment of liberty.

Direct (or participatory) democracy is essential because liberty and equality imply the need for forums within which people can discuss and debate as equals and which allow for the free exercise of what Murray Bookchin calls "the creative role of dissent "


A men to that!

[American Kid]

I believe in a non-authoriterian society in which individuals and groups practice self management. (self goverment)

Celtic, explain that. I think I'm with Cassius on this one. It seems like you're "relying" on the good faith of people to control themselves in an appropriate manner. But I don't know, I think that human nature dictates only the exact opposite would happen instead.

Not trying to pick a fight, I just would really like you to elaborate. Try not to be too text-book-y. How would that function in practical terms? It almost sounds like you're talking about a tribal system.

As you were,
-ak


(Edited by American Kid at 5:39 am on Feb. 24, 2003)

[RedCeltic]

Well alot of evidence, testimonies, accounts etc points to the Soviet Union having precisly this, particularly under Stalin. Yet they also had a functioning law enforcement and goverment institutions to both govern and uphold the law.

Had what? No federal Government and citizens run their own lives through federations of collectives and direct democracy? Yea right. Tell me.. why are we talking about the Soviet Union? I don’t live in the Soviet Union, I never have, and I have no chance on moving there as it’s in the past. I want to change the place I live, not relive the past thank you.

The Soviet Union was not an anarcho-socialist society, it was a Statist-socialist society. It had a very large and very beurocratic government.

I presume you as a Anarchist would wan't to have no 'Official' governement body to even recomend a policy, your alternative would be trusting in everybody's kind hearts? Idealism personified.

Because I don’t’ believe in a federal Government, nor police forces or armies being professional jobs I’m trusting on people’s “kind hearts”? No hardly.

Armies and Police forces that operate on a professional level have historically been known to serve their officers and governmental leaders who take care of them and not the people. In Rome for example one can mark the beginning of Rome as an imperial power when the sodgers who once came as a volentery body of citizens, became a standing profession. The people may decide that in their community it’s mandatory for everyone to serve and protect the community as policemen, fire fighters, and/or solgers. Or it may be volentery.

Would you also like to show me a example of this theory being put into practice with any success.

So you are saying that every from of government that can exist has already been in existence? Bullshit. Where’s your mighty Soviet Empire? Hmmm?


Well I can't argue that the Soviet Union wasn't centralised,

WHY THE FUCK DO YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE USSR????


in truth it is infact Trotsky who was the biggest beuraucrate of them all.

So? I already said I don’t like him.

Stalin fought against beuraucracy throughout his entire carreer.

Stalin is dead. What does he have to do with the world today? Besides… you are completely wrong, I wonder if we are talking about the same Joe Stalin.. because the one I’m talking about set up the world’s first Worker’s Beurocracy.



'Direct democracy' would be a society where workers could walk into their factory managers office demand their resignation and actually get it. Also the Smolensk archive which has been in the west since 1945 shows us a example of over 50% of the local governing officialls being replaced in 1937.

Direct democracy is when communities are set up in councels that have equal say and any form of representative works only in direct relay with the councel and never on his/her own. In Direct Democracy everyone is a representative in Government.

You know this could be interpreted as Capitalism. Looks like Bakhurin still has his supporters, ofcourse Gorbachev and Deng Xia Ping allready proved that.

If I want to disassosiate myself with the United States and form my own nation I do not have the free will to do that. Under an Anrcho-Socialist society I would. How is that Capitalism? In an Anarcho-Socialist society Land and Labor would not be part of the economy. (not be for sale.)

[American Kid]

Because I don’t’ believe in a federal Government, nor police forces or armies being professional jobs I’m trusting on people’s “kind hearts”? No hardly.

Armies and Police forces that operate on a professional level have historically been known to serve their officers and governmental leaders who take care of them and not the people. In Rome for example one can mark the beginning of Rome as an imperial power when the sodgers who once came as a volentery body of citizens, became a standing profession. The people may decide that in their community it’s mandatory for everyone to serve and protect the community as policemen, fire fighters, and/or solgers. Or it may be volentery.

The Kid still didn't get his.

*wonders what he has to do to get some fuckin' respect around here*

Anyway. More reading....
-aK

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from American Kid on 6:37 pm on Feb. 23, 2003
I believe in a non-authoriterian society in which individuals and groups practice self management. (self goverment)

Celtic, explain that. I think I'm with Cassius on this one. It seems like you're "relying" on the good faith of people to control themselves in an appropriate manner. But I don't know, I think that human nature dictates only the exact opposite would happen instead.

Not trying to pick a fight, I just would really like you to elaborate. Try not to be too text-book-y. How would that function in practical terms? It almost sounds like you're talking about a tribal system.

As you were,
-ak


(Edited by American Kid at 5:39 am on Feb. 24, 2003)


As I said... I didn't say NO government.. but rather people working in small community groups that in turn are part of larger federations. The smaller groups may send out representitives to the larger federations but are in still direct contact with the smaller groups, and don't act on their own... or every individual in the smaller councels, in turn participates in the larger federation via the internet.

I don't believe in primitavism as some anarchists do.

[RedCeltic]

You posted before I had a chance to reply to you AK

[Cassius Clay]

''Had what? No federal Government and citizens run their own lives through federations of collectives and direct democracy? Yea right. Tell me.. why are we talking about the Soviet Union? I don’t live in the Soviet Union, I never have, and I have no chance on moving there as it’s in the past. I want to change the place I live, not relive the past thank you.''

And yet you seem so well informed to tell me that it was a beaucratic 'Stalinist' hell hole. 'Had what?' 'self managment' through the Soviets ofcourse. Why am I talking about the Soviet Union? Well I don't really know, didn't know it caused you so much offence? Sorry why did you start talking about your ideology? Which all I wanted to do was find out more about.


''The Soviet Union was not an anarcho-socialist society, it was a Statist-socialist society. It had a very large and very beurocratic government.''

Exactly it wasn't 'anarcho-socialist society' but a Socialist one with socialist democracy aswell. The question still stands would you like to show me a example of your ideal society being put into practice with any positive result.

''Because I don’t’ believe in a federal Government, nor police forces or armies being professional jobs I’m trusting on people’s “kind hearts”? No hardly.

Armies and Police forces that operate on a professional level have historically been known to serve their officers and governmental leaders who take care of them and not the people. In Rome for example one can mark the beginning of Rome as an imperial power when the sodgers who once came as a volentery body of citizens, became a standing profession. The people may decide that in their community it’s mandatory for everyone to serve and protect the community as policemen, fire fighters, and/or solgers. Or it may be volentery.''

You talk about Rome, 2000 years old. Incase you didn't notice the Soviet Union did NOT have a proffessional army, people's commisars ever heard of them? They were there to make sure the Red Army never became like Roman Legions. Stalin allways fought against a bourgesie officer corps growing and becoming a powerful state instiution seperate to the workers. He pointed out as much in 1945 when he said that the Red Army can take as much credit as it want's but remember without the workers in the factories there would be no army in the first place.

Why am I talking about the Soviet Union? The answer is don't try to portrait a similar image of Imperial Rome and Soviet Union, without providing some evidence to back it up. I'm also pointing out that many of your ideals (well atleast some of what you have stated) were put into practice in Soviet Union.


''So you are saying that every from of government that can exist has already been in existence? Bullshit. Where’s your mighty Soviet Empire? Hmmm?''

No read the question again and answer it. If I were to take your logic I'll say hey you had your chance in Spain and you ended up joining sides with Franco's Fascists. So your glad about the fall of the Soviet Union? Anyway who ever said we would win first time around?

''WHY THE FUCK DO YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE USSR????''

FUCK dude, sorry I just like winding you up. You listed a number of things (one of them being anti-democratic centralism) that you for and against in your ideal society. I responded by using the example of the Soviet-Union between 1917-53 as my ideal society and I compared it. You know that thing called debate and discussion?

Seriously calm down.

''So? I already said I don’t like him.''

I was using him as a example of so called 'Anti-beucraticism'. Read the post again.


''Stalin is dead. What does he have to do with the world today? Besides… you are completely wrong, I wonder if we are talking about the same Joe Stalin.. because the one I’m talking about set up the world’s first Worker’s Beurocracy.''

You know for a person who doesn't like Trotsky you talk just like him. 'What does he have to do with the world today?' hmm let's see have you actually read any of his writings for starters? He led the Soviet Union to a socialist democratic society, crushed Nazism, help establish fellow socialist regimes from Korea to Berlin.


''Direct democracy is when communities are set up in councels that have equal say and any form of representative works only in direct relay with the councel and never on his/her own. In Direct Democracy everyone is a representative in Government.''

I was just about to agree with you until that final sentence. You wan't your ideal society, build a time machine go back to Angient Greece kill all but about 30 of the locals and hey presto you got your society.

''If I want to disassosiate myself with the United States and form my own nation I do not have the free will to do that. Under an Anrcho-Socialist society I would. How is that Capitalism? In an Anarcho-Socialist society Land and Labor would not be part of the economy. (not be for sale.)''

Guess I just misunderstood what you were saying. You are though against the 'State' interfering in 'Land and Labor' are you not? If so, again this sounds just like a rich Kulak talking.



[/quote]

[Valkyrie]

CC, this is in response to you comment here:

"Well alot of evidence, testimonies, accounts etc points to the Soviet Union having precisly this, particularly under Stalin. Yet they also had a functioning law enforcement and goverment institutions to both govern and uphold the law. I presume you as a Anarchist would wan't to have no 'Official' governement body to even recomend a policy, your alternative would be trusting in everybody's kind hearts? Idealism personified."



On the first issue: The only law enforcement institutions that I know that work directly for and with a government are the CIA, KBG, FBI, Army, Navy, Air Force, and the ilk, the Imperial military forces of the governments. No, Anarchists would not have that. There would be a disengagement of war-ing with humanity.

As far as enforcement of crime --- "crimes" would be categorically redefined. Of course, anything done violently or agressive against a person would be completely antagonistic and unacceptable to an anarchist society.

There is a miliue of anarchist variations out there. I could say that the anarchists on this board fall into the Traditional Leftist sense of which most theoretical writings is based on. If you want a grasp of the basic thrust of the whole thing you could take a brief look through the Anarchist FAQ:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

or any of the anarchist writers:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...rchivehome.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/archivehome.html)

Malatesta and Kropotkin & Rocker are particularly good.

[thursday night]

“Tell me.. why are we talking about the Soviet Union? I don’t live in the Soviet Union, I never have, and I have no chance on moving there as it’s in the past.”

Us Marxist-Leninists enjoy discussing the Soviet Union because, debatably, it at certain periods was a successful and proper socialist state. Unfortunately it collapsed in 1991 and for the future we must look back at the past and see what to do and what not to do. The USSR also sometimes serves as an excellent example of certain points we try to make to you liberals in debate.

“In Rome for example one can mark the beginning of Rome as an imperial power when the sodgers who once came as a volentery body of citizens, became a standing profession.”

So, tell me. Why are we talking about ancient Rome? I don’t live in Rome, I never have, and I have no chance of moving there as it’s in the past.

See what I’m saying, RedCeltic? :)

“In Direct Democracy everyone is a representative in Government.”

Direct Democracy, as ideal and utopian as it may sound, can never work properly with more than thirty or forty people. The fact is that it simply far too unrealistic to ever be implemented in anything than a tiny peasant village with a population of no more than seventy.

At any rate, anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-socialism or whatever you like and the like can never work and in the past have proved to be extremely counterproductive to the revolutionary people’s movement of liberation. For instance during the great revolution of 1917 in Russia we see the anarchists are saboteurs against the newly found socialist state. During the Spanish Civil War we see their precious ‘communes’ totally failing to set up proper defense against the fascist army rebellion, not to mention their complete lack of will to cooperate with any other anti-fascist elements. Furthermore, anarchism and it’s near-identical clones has proved to be a far too purist and theoretical theory. Never do they cooperate and they have, like the rest of the anti-Marxist-Leninist revisionists, totally defaced the socialists states in Eastern Europe (USSR, GDR, Bulgaria etc.), Asia (Vietnam, DPRK etc.) and Latin America (Cuba) by believing the capitalist/western and Trotskyite lies.

[RedCeltic]

” 'self managment' through the Soviets ofcourse.”

On the lower level, yes your right on it would work quite the same, however the local level would have more power than any federations, and there would be no federal government nor elected body such as was in the USSR.

“Why am I talking about the Soviet Union? Well I don't really know, didn't know it caused you so much offence?”

It doesn’t I just find it funny that you Stalinists can’t construct a post without saying Stalin’s great, Trotsky sucks, boy I wish I was back in the USSR.. lol ;)


“Sorry why did you start talking about your ideology?”

You thought that everyone on this board was a Marxist-Leninist, liberal, or capitalist.

“but a Socialist one with socialist democracy aswell.”

If you say so. I didn’t live there.

“The question still stands would you like to show me a example of your ideal society being put into practice with any positive result.”

I already answered this question.

“the Soviet Union did NOT have a proffessional army, people's commisars ever heard of them? They were there to make sure the Red Army never became like Roman Legions.”

The Soviet Union Did in fact have a standing army, many people spent their lifetimes in the army. The USSR poured much of their resources into keeping a standing army.


”No read the question again and answer it. If I were to take your logic I'll say hey you had your chance in Spain and you ended up joining sides with Franco's Fascists. So your glad about the fall of the Soviet Union? Anyway who ever said we would win first time around?”

I think Thursday had a better response to this which was that you study the past to know what to do in the future. Your constant asking “where has this been shown to work” seems as if you are saying that it has not already been done, it can’t be done. Well, before 1917, there was no worker’s state. And one must say that on at least some level they where successful to last until 1991.

And on this board I have always defended the beneficial aspects of the USSR and Cuba, etc.. So don’t think I don’t.

No, I can’t show you how an Anarcho-Socialist society has worked in the past. I could however show you how anarchist collectives work in the present. There are many of them across the United States. Does that show it works on a larger scale? No of course it doesn’t.


”Seriously calm down.”

Who’s upset? Lol… I just find your Soviet worshiping funny. :)


”Read the post again.”

No, I already did thanks.


”You know for a person who doesn't like Trotsky you talk just like him. 'What does he have to do with the world today?' hmm let's see have you actually read any of his writings for starters? He led the Soviet Union to a socialist democratic society, crushed Nazism, help establish fellow socialist regimes from Korea to Berlin.”

Perhaps I didn’t express myself clearly. I dislike Personality worship. No I haven’t read Stalin’s works yet. I’ve read Marx, Engles, Lenin, and a small amount of Trotskey. It’s not so much the men, or their ideas I dislike, it’s their followers who try and make them into Gods.

Now maybe you’ll say you don’t and that’s fine.


“You wan't your ideal society, build a time machine go back to Angient Greece kill all but about 30 of the locals and hey presto you got your society.”

That’s not funny. Are you to tell me that before 1917 that Communism wasn’t considered to be an idealistic dream that could never happen?

Some people still are romantic about politics, that’s what makes us revolutionaries. That’s what revolutionary means.

[RedCeltic]

“Direct Democracy, as ideal and utopian as it may sound, can never work properly with more than thirty or forty people.”

No it wouldn’t, and shouldn’t on the local level. We are talking about small collectives that work together with other collectives in small federations.

“The fact is that it simply far too unrealistic to ever be implemented in anything than a tiny peasant village with a population of no more than seventy.”

We have several here in Albany NY, and there are quite a few out on the west coast. They’ve been in operation for years.

“For instance during the great revolution of 1917 in Russia we see the anarchists are saboteurs against the newly found socialist state.”

Not true, Anarchists worked along side Communists in the revolution, and even helped in taking positions in the newly formed Soviet Government before Lenin had them all imprisioned.

“During the Spanish Civil War we see their precious ‘communes’ totally failing to set up proper defense against the fascist army rebellion,”

Don’t forget the role the United States Played in that.

[thursday night]

"No, I can’t show you how an Anarcho-Socialist society has worked in the past. I could however show you how anarchist collectives work in the present. There are many of them across the United States."

Okay, I understand what you are trying to state with this comment but unfortunately it doesn’t really bolster your debate. Why? Well, those anarchist collectives you refer to consist of persons of the same ideological mind set whom have willing traveled to these collectives to live in them. This is vastly different from real-life people’s collectives. In real life, you have various people of different ideological mindsets who must be collectivized. They haven’t traveled from across the country just to be in a collective, they are real life people. And this is where anarchism fails. It is too ideologically purist and thus in real life situations it doesn’t work.

Do you see what I’m trying to say? I realize that the above paragraph wasn’t the most coherent thing I’ve ever written here.

[thursday night]

“Not true, Anarchists worked along side Communists in the revolution, and even helped in taking positions in the newly formed Soviet Government before Lenin had them all imprisioned.”

True, but after the revolution the anarchists, because of their lack of cooperation and ideological purism, became saboteurs of the newly formed socialist state and instead of operating as productive elements within the Soviet Union they reverted to a knee-jerk and focused on bringing the USSR down as opposed to aiding it in it’s David against the Goliath type situation.

[concious]

"And those of you who think China would really have a chance against us in a full-scale war are truly lacking in your knowledge of each nations true employable military..."

I caught this crap by chance on 2/22 ...
the only thing I want to ask you is: if you think that China + North Korea (2 million + units)+ let's say every other country that would like to attack the grand
USA maybe India or who knows, you know though some of these other countries that do also have weapons of mass destruction, would have a shot at it...
I'm not personally waiting for such event but man get real...

p.s ...altough I would like to see a change on the absolutely fucked up mindless foreign policy that these selfish, incoherent, morrons of fucking -senseless- existance which you would call government, have created.
advise: see about finding out a little bit about the real world and real freedom... budy

[concious]

"As I said... I didn't say NO government.. but rather people working in small community groups that in turn are part of larger federations. The smaller groups may send out representitives to the larger federations but are in still direct contact with the smaller groups, and don't act on their own... or every individual in the smaller councels, in turn participates in the larger federation via the internet. "



oh... you mean groups like the ones that right now are against war or environmentalists or community groups,etc. which work with the "larger federation" - congress and also with "smaller groups" like the senate and comunity officials(i forgot their name). then the people participate on the decisions of this "larger federations" or gov't. through the internet, kind of like the many,many people that participated in signing and sending petions, over the internet which then where directly taken to the senators in each state, demanding no war...

... I don't know but your form of gov't. sounds a little familiar.
how do you see it?

[concious]

...anyways --- love you all---- keep up the good thinking....
by the way, could somebody please tell me how to add the emoticons to a post...
thanks lots

[Kapitan Andrey]

This topic is just stupid market place talking...

Stupid waste 17 minutes of my Internet time!

[Old Friend]

He called you guys commie pukes. Uh oh , better ban him, too.

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from concious on 11:28 pm on Feb. 23, 2003
"As I said... I didn't say NO government.. but rather people working in small community groups that in turn are part of larger federations. The smaller groups may send out representitives to the larger federations but are in still direct contact with the smaller groups, and don't act on their own... or every individual in the smaller councels, in turn participates in the larger federation via the internet. "



oh... you mean groups like the ones that right now are against war or environmentalists or community groups,etc. which work with the "larger federation" - congress and also with "smaller groups" like the senate and comunity officials(i forgot their name). then the people participate on the decisions of this "larger federations" or gov't. through the internet, kind of like the many,many people that participated in signing and sending petions, over the internet which then where directly taken to the senators in each state, demanding no war...

... I don't know but your form of gov't. sounds a little familiar.
how do you see it?


No that isn't anything like what I'm talking about. What you are talking about is a representitive democracy. What is the level of participation you have in your local Govt.? I'm saying everyone would be part of the Govt.

Any "representitives" would act more as messengers who are in direct contact with the people and don't make decisions on their own.




Well, those anarchist collectives you refer to consist of persons of the same ideological mind set whom have willing traveled to these collectives to live in them. This is vastly different from real-life people’s collectives. In real life, you have various people of different ideological mindsets who must be collectivized.

No, Anarchy isn't for everyone. It's people's choice to live in them, participate with them, or to live in the secular community. Once as people are used to it, it becomes a natural way of life.

It's not about forcing people to live a partiuclar way, it's about providing an alternative.

Some people ( like yourself for example) will always want others to tell them what to do. People like you just can't imagine living without a State.

That's people need to be weaned off the state through political means... while we transform our communities.

[suffianr]

Ah, so much for solidarity!

It's curious how CI's self-glorification thread turned out into another Stalinist-justification thread...Sounds crazy, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of CIA involvement just yet... :)

[RedCeltic]

Well You know Stalinists.. .god forbid an anti-capitalist believes something different than they do.

[Invader Zim]

Firstly welcome back CI, i missed ridiculing your pathetic arguments. But how was your promotion ect.


Quote: from Old Friend on 8:20 am on Feb. 24, 2003
He called you guys commie pukes. Uh oh , better ban him, too.


No you see CI hasnt spammed, flamed and been a complete pain in the ass. Earlier you said you would leave and left a good-bye note. Well then why are you still here.

[GuErRrIlLa]

This CI guy sounds like an asshole....

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from GuErRrIlLa on 4:13 pm on Feb. 24, 2003
This CI guy sounds like an asshole....

No Capitalist Imperium argues well ect. But he is very stubburn and cannot see that america is not the shining state of rightiousnes he believes it is. He cannot accept any critism of the USA at all.

[RedComrade]

Quote: from AK47 on 3:56 pm on Feb. 24, 2003
Firstly welcome back CI, i missed ridiculing your pathetic arguments. But how was your promotion ect.


Quote: from Old Friend on 8:20 am on Feb. 24, 2003
He called you guys commie pukes. Uh oh , better ban him, too.


No you see CI hasnt spammed, flamed and been a complete pain in the ass. Earlier you said you would leave and left a good-bye note. Well then why are you still here.


Check out the post on new policy Norm was sabotaged and provoked into the behavior that got him banned, the mod said he was gonna ban Norm before anything even started happening, it was predetermined sabotage of an intelligent voice of opposition they didnt want speaking up personally i hope Norm does come back, debate was of a much higher quality than.

[concious]

"Any "representitives" would act more as messengers who are in direct contact with the people and don't make decisions on their own. "

ok I get it more now... but who would interact with the people to actually bring the many different ideologies that a diverse community involves together, unless you're talking about grouping together only people that have the same or similar ideologies, which of course at the end would crash like a kamakazee since people would never ofcourse come together, therefore wouldn't you, in your system, need somebody to guide the issues and how to exactly proceed when taking it or exposing it to this higher Federation, somebody that would act as a "head" of the group, which at the end might become corrupt anyways... or how is it that would guide the process of coming together on an issue to take it to the big Fed. considering the many ways on which people differ on everything.
and also, what type of economic system would you use?
thanks.