Anarchism is based on peoples' mentality?

[Black Sheep]

Having read the ABC and reading CoB now, i have realized that the main argument for the immediate application of anarchistic communism is the trust to peoples' tendency for solidarity.
For example Kropotkin mentions periods of history and dreadful events where human feelings arise and overlook the distinctions of their fellow humans, and thus offering a helping hand of those in need.This natural tendency he says, will arise and 'activate' the people into working for the community.

Am i wrong,or is this the basis of anarchism?

[OI OI OI]

Originally posted by Berkman on ABC of Anarchism
Even the big capitalist has little to lose by the changing of the present-day system to one of Anarchy, for under the latter every one would be assured of living and comfort; the fear of competition would be eliminated with the abolition of private ownership. Every one would have full and unhindered opportunity to live and enjoy his life to the utmost of his capacity.


This is one of the numerous things that make me not be an anarchist and instead a Trotskyist.

[Black Sheep]

Yeah that is one of the kinda 'childish' points, but Berkman's point is not about the material profits but the ones concerning mental health and a life free of worries and stress (for the capitalists)

[nuisance]

This is one of the numerous things that make me not be an anarchist and instead a Trotskyist.
Why.....?

And to the OP, yes anarchists do put emphasis on solidarity, after all strength in numbers. However solidarity can be seen stemming from self-interest or from a natural desire for alturism and so on. So it is the revolutionaries position to promote grassroots working class resistance, which natrually leads to solidarity. Planting the seeds of social revolution.

[OI OI OI]

Why.....?

Because of this petit bourgeois mentality of not suppressing capitalism and reaction and even promising a better life under anarchism.


Yeah that is one of the kinda 'childish' points, but Berkman's point is not about the material profits but the ones concerning mental health and a life free of worries and stress (for the capitalists)

But that is excactly why it is childish.
He advocates a revolution for "everyone" , while the bourgeoisie is part of the reaction in every revolution.

Look at bolivia right now. The oligarchy felt a bit threatened by Morales and they started killing people in the streets.

Such is the morality of the reaction and we won't make them side with us with words and flowers . Instead we should repress them with guns and knives.

[nuisance]

Because of this petit bourgeois mentality of not suppressing capitalism and reaction and even promising a better life under anarchism.
Please stop with your buzzwords, mate.
Not supressing capitalism? Are you joking? In the very same book Berkman speaks of how to defend the revolution- http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_31.html

[bcbm]

Because of this petit bourgeois mentality of not suppressing capitalism and reaction and even promising a better life under anarchism.

Counter-revolutionaries will be dealt with as necessary, but why shouldn't everyone be promised a better life in an anarchist society? People are now just acting in their class interests and while it is detrimental to those of us on the bottom, once we've destroyed class society there's no need to hold a grudge.

[Plagueround]

B
Such is the morality of the reaction and we won't make them side with us with words and flowers . Instead we should repress them with guns and knives.

Yeah...that's it. Anarchists are all just hippie liberals stuffing flowers in the guns of their oppressors. :rolleyes:

Anarchists are revolutionaries and are not opposed to the use of violence, they just don't fulfill your fantasies of purging anyone who disagrees. If the bourgeois are willing to participate and are receptive to revolution, why would they not have a place in society? They aren't mindless monsters, most of them don't necessarily realize how much they oppress and exploit others. Counter-revolutionaries will be dealt with in an appropriate and objective manner, not a blanket jailing and execution list.

[OI OI OI]

Not supressing capitalism? Are you joking? In the very same book Berkman speaks of how to defend the revolution- http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST...whatis_31.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_31.html)


Yes this is how Berkman sees the defence of the revolution!
Pretty hillarious :lol:



Berkman
"But would you let counter-revolutionists incite the people if they tried to?"
By all means. Lee them talk all they like. To restrain them would serve only to create a persecuted class and thereby enlist popular sympathy for them and their cause.



Counter-revolutionaries will be dealt with as necessary, but why shouldn't everyone be promised a better life in an anarchist society? People are now just acting in their class interests and while it is detrimental to those of us on the bottom, once we've destroyed class society there's no need to hold a grudge.

They will hold the grudge. They will crush you with the help of the imperialist armies .
They will be the fifth column inside the post-revolutionay society!
Do you think a few years after the revolution there won't be still a need to be supressing them? In their first chance they will side with the forces of reaction , whoever they are. The bourgeoisie does not forgive expropriation.

Look at those idiot right wing Cubans in Miami. 50 years later they are waiting to attack when the time seems fit.



Yeah...that's it. Anarchists are all just hippie liberals stuffing flowers in the guns of their oppressors. :rolleyes:

According to Berkman they are!

We must let them incite counter-revolution after the revolution:rolleyes:

Have you dreamers not realized that revolution will bring blood , death and possible destruction of a large part of the productive capacity? Can you not understand that a state is necessary to advance the productive force in such a level that will allow us to build communism?

If we let everyone say what they want, under certain economic conditions they re talk will have the effect on the masses. All their propaganda under economic conditions, which are extremely possible after the revolution due to its nature(possible civil was, imperialist invasion etc) and also isolation , will have an effect to the masses and they might make counter-revolutionary conclusions.

Having said that I support the dictatorship of the proletariat that is the democratic ruling of the proletariat and opression of the bourgeoisie.


If the bourgeois are willing to participate and are receptive to revolution, why would they not have a place in society? They aren't mindless monsters, most of them don't necessarily realize how much they oppress and exploit others. Counter-revolutionaries will be dealt with in an appropriate and objective manner, not a blanket jailing and execution list.

Yes they will be glad they lost their power and wealth and they will be on your side.

Oh yes the bourgeoisie does not understand that it exploits people.When in the year 4000? The bourgeoisie although it is not all class concious it has a brain and it understands that there is a working class and they treat them as such.

What is an appropriate manner if not jailing?(i never talked about excecution, excecution only if the people agree with it, such as the Czar or Bush:laugh:)

[nuisance]

Yes this is how Berkman sees the defence of the revolution!
Pretty hillarious :lol:
Wait ago at missing the point, again. Here Berkman is saying that we, as anarchists, advocate freedom of press which is the freedom of speech. This however says nothing about allowing counter-revolutionary actions.

"There is a line, based on the theory of “repressive tolerance,” which says that, since the bourgeoisie (also) benefits from free speech and other freedoms, once we radicals take power we will deny free speech, etc. Right now, of course, we are a minority and use free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, etc. But once we take over, this says, we will deny these freedoms to people we disagree with! This is not presented as the control of ACTIONS (such as our stopping counterrevolutionary armies or organized sabotage) but of SPEECH and writing. Its advocates do not apply it just to exceptional circumstances (e.g., if things should develop into a civil war, we would not allow the enemy to make propaganda behind our lines), but even to a peaceful, stable, period, on principle.

As everyone knows, this is the position of the fascists as it is of the Communist Parties. However for anarchists to openly state this program is pretty stupid. By doing so, we would forfeit all the sympathy which others give us on the grounds of our right to free speech. That is aside from the sheer wrongness of these politics."- Wayne Price.

[OI OI OI]

Wait ago at missing the point, again. Here Berkman is saying that we, as anarchists, advocate freedom of press which is the freedom of speech. This however says nothing about allowing counter-revolutionary actions.

"There is a line, based on the theory of “repressive tolerance,” which says that, since the bourgeoisie (also) benefits from free speech and other freedoms, once we radicals take power we will deny free speech, etc. Right now, of course, we are a minority and use free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, etc. But once we take over, this says, we will deny these freedoms to people we disagree with! This is not presented as the control of ACTIONS (such as our stopping counterrevolutionary armies or organized sabotage) but of SPEECH and writing. Its advocates do not apply it just to exceptional circumstances (e.g., if things should develop into a civil war, we would not allow the enemy to make propaganda behind our lines), but even to a peaceful, stable, period, on principle.

As everyone knows, this is the position of the fascists as it is of the Communist Parties. However for anarchists to openly state this program is pretty stupid. By doing so, we would forfeit all the sympathy which others give us on the grounds of our right to free speech. That is aside from the sheer wrongness of these politics."- Wayne Price.

So basically we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press under capitalism?
My ass!

Freedom of the press and speech for the reaction in the immediate post revolutionary society is something dangerous as I have demonstrated above.

Bother reading all my post and then answer.

[nuisance]

So basically we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press under capitalism?
My ass!

Freedom of the press and speech for the reaction in the immediate post revolutionary society is something dangerous as I have demonstrated above.

Bother reading all my post and then answer.
It not dangerous in the slightest, that is unless the circumstances produced by the revolution did not appeal to the majority of workers, so I see why Statists would like to surpress freedom of speech. If a truly free society could be aspired to from the circumstances laid out, by the same principles and organisation as should be used in the revolution, then I see no need to surpress speech and press, because the future of society is in the peoples hands to shape and mould through federalised directly democratic means. Therefore I don't think a large section of the population would be swayed by reactionary propaganda, which would have needed to be deemed, relatively, null and void for the initial revolution to even take place.
I have read the rest of your post, which I didn't answer because it is non-sensical. You seem to think that anarchists will let counter-revolutionaries organise, this is false. However we don't believe our ideology to be so weak that we need to surpress propaganda.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Why.....?

And to the OP, yes anarchists do put emphasis on solidarity, after all strength in numbers. However solidarity can be seen stemming from self-interest or from a natural desire for alturism and so on. So it is the revolutionaries position to promote grassroots working class resistance, which natrually leads to solidarity. Planting the seeds of social revolution.
I pretty much agree with this. I think the basis of anarchism or left-communism is not a moral obligation to human kind. I think the basis is self-interest. I believe that everyone wants to have a nice life. Anarchism could provide this life but we can not live in that kind of society unless we work together to get there.

So I don't want to help my neighbor because of some moral obligation to the social class I am in. I want to help my neighbor because we only have strength in numbers. By myself I can't do shit. I think this is the basis for unions too. Self interest not caring about others.

[Chicano Shamrock]

If we let everyone say what they want, under certain economic conditions they re talk will have the effect on the masses. All their propaganda under economic conditions, which are extremely possible after the revolution due to its nature(possible civil was, imperialist invasion etc) and also isolation , will have an effect to the masses and they might make counter-revolutionary conclusions.
)
Yes if we let everyone just say what they want everyone will have freedom. We do not want this situation to run that course. We don't want people to be free, we need to crush them with our slavery..... Oh wait I forgot are we for freedom or fascism. This stuff is so confusing!:confused:

If the anarchist society is brought about and it is unfavorable to the point that the majority is swayed by bourgeois propaganda then it did not deserve to exist in the first place. In my opinion you can not restrict someone into freedom just as it has been proven that you can not create a stateless society by making a state. These are oxymorons.

[OI OI OI]

Yes if we let everyone just say what they want everyone will have freedom. We do not want this situation to run that course. We don't want people to be free, we need to crush them with our slavery..... Oh wait I forgot are we for freedom or fascism. This stuff is so confusing!http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/confused1.gif

Are you dumb?
Did I talk about slavery?
I talked about opression and elimination of the bourgeois class and the reactionaries while freedom for 90% of the population that is the non-capitalists non-reactionaries.



If the anarchist society is brought about and it is unfavorable to the point that the majority is swayed by bourgeois propaganda then it did not deserve to exist in the first place.

Do you think that a revolution is a path full of roses and love?
No it is not .
and when the economic hardship will come as a result of a possible devastating civil war or invasion then people might be persuaded by the bourgeois propaganda.



In my opinion you can not restrict someone into freedom just as it has been proven that you can not create a stateless society by making a state. These are oxymorons.

You re an oxymoron and everything you believe is an oxymoron.

Workers coming in power without opressing the bourgeoisie.

HA!



However we don't believe our ideology to be so weak that we need to surpress propaganda.

Idealist bullshit.

What ideology appeals to the masses is a result of the material conditions of each country.

While in Canada a rich advanced capitalist country has like 0.5% communists etc,
Greece has a Communist Party of 5% of the population, same goes with Italy etc.

[nuisance]

Idealist bullshit.

What ideology appeals to the masses is a result of the material conditions of each country.

While in Canada a rich advanced capitalist country has like 0.5% communists etc,
Greece has a Communist Party of 5% of the population, same goes with Italy etc.
I thought you said you were going to start making sensible posts? Evidently not.
Here we are talking about a successful intial victory against the capitalist class and other reactionary forces and the principles that the social revolution speaks of are in place. Anarchists don't want to drag the working class through revolution, therefore it doesn't matter how much percent of the population belongs to a certain ideology. We speak of working class direct democratic control over society. So we don't need everyone to be strict ideological anarchists, just people that want to have a say in how things are done. We are not going coerce them into adopting strict lines, this is why anarchists provide blueprints of future society.
So no, it is not idealist bullshit.

[bcbm]

What ideology appeals to the masses is a result of the material conditions of each country.

So when we have enough people on our side due to material conditions to actually overthrow the bourgeoisie, we'll then need to make sure they can't talk ever again (and probably kill loads of them) because the masses who just struggled to destroy their system will be easily won back over by pretty words, even though the material conditions for victory exist?:rolleyes:

[OI OI OI]

So when we have enough people on our side due to material conditions to actually overthrow the bourgeoisie, we'll then need to make sure they can't talk ever again (and probably kill loads of them) because the masses who just struggled to destroy their system will be easily won back over by pretty words, even though the material conditions for victory exist?http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

It seems like the anarchist specialty is to distort everything Leninists say or not having the mental capacity of comprehending what they actualy say.

So I will talk like I d talk to a baby.

One day in the wonderfull land of Lmaotown there was a revolution.
Ze poor people overthrew the rich people and tok all their money and all their stores. But then the rich people with the help of bad nazis fought against the poor people and killed loads of them . They also broke a lot of stores and there was a lot of devastation and poverty in Lmaotown.

So the people were sad and hungry. On top of that the neighboring towns including Bourgeoisgrad and Rich City attacked the poor people of Lmaotown also.

So although the poor won against the invaders their economy was destroyed by the invasions and the bad people so they had to rebuild the country.

Everyne was hungry though. They were suffering.

And because some people have different conciousness then others some people got VERY sad and they lost all hope.
And because the poor poeple believed in freedom not only for the poor but for the rich as well , they let the rich take over all the dissilutioned people and form a new army which crushed the revolutionary poor people in Lmaotown and went back to the old order.


Now do you understand what I am saying?

[bcbm]

I don't feel like having a discussion with a cock. I got it the first time, thanks, but I still disagree with your premise. I'll let somebody who can tolerate your immature, petty bullshit continue this debate, or maybe I'll come back later if you manage to grow-up.

[OI OI OI]

I don't feel like having a discussion with a cock. I got it the first time, thanks, but I still disagree with your premise. I'll let somebody who can tolerate your immature, petty bullshit continue this debate, or maybe I'll come back later if you manage to grow-up.


Pretty funny when you consider that you didn't get it the first time judging from the reply you made .......

And I am not at all immature.

Maybe my tone is a bit agressive but that is how I talk every day..

[bcbm]

Oh no, I get it. I just don't think the under-classes are full of morons who will turn to the people that were just murdering them because of a few pretty words after they were just willing to put their lives and communities on the line for it. Forgive me for actually having faith in my class and its abilities and not needing to fall back on brutality and dictatorship. You blab on and on about material conditions but continue to envision the failings of the past that occurred because of (in your analysis) those specific material conditions. So... which is it? If the majority of people are behind the revolution they will be behind it and if we're talking anarchism I think the ability to organize without bureaucracy, etc will be even more powerful in confronting our class enemies. Bourgeois elements actively destroying the revolution will be neutralized. A few former bosses telling the liberated workers they were better off as slaves will be irrelevant. Either way we've seen were your method leads- tyranny, slavery and the destruction of real working class revolutionary organs.