The only thing worse than a capitalist....

[Supernius]

....is an anarchist.

Yours cordially,
Supernius

[redstar2000]

#Moderation Mode



Moved here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=2159)

[Som]

Well thats a well thought argument.

I suppose though, you'd have them all shot next time they help you along.

[redstar2000]

Welcome to the board, Supernius.

As you may have gathered, this is basically a "leftist" board. Since I know your views from politicsforum.org, I know that you are not a "leftist" in any meaningful sense of that word.

Therefore, please confine your posts to this forum--Opposing Ideologies--which is set up explicitly for debate between "leftists" and non-leftists/anti-leftists.

Thanks,
:cool:

[peaccenicked]

Define capitalist.
Define anarchist.
Show how they can be compared.
Hmmmmmmm
There is nothing worse than a Stalinist and thats a inarticulate and completely empty headed one.

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from Supernius on 5:48 pm on April 11, 2003
....is an anarchist.

Yours cordially,
Supernius


Pull your head out of your ass.

[Anonymous]

What about an anarcho-capitalist? :biggrin:

(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 11:32 am on April 12, 2003)

[synthesis]

Better than state socialism!

[Kapitan Andrey]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 2:21 am on April 12, 2003
Define capitalist.
There is nothing worse than a Stalinist and thats a inarticulate and completely empty headed one.


Yup! Agree!!!

[Pete]

My utopian views are quite anarchist. Hmm. So were Marx's.

[Cassius Clay]

Well since a basic definition of 'Anarchism' (although I confess I haven't read any of Bakunin or other similar folk) would be total lack of government involvment in things that would be similar to a rich Capitalists dream come true.

I'm sure I'll now be accussed of all soughts of things and called all soughts of names but so be it.

[Pete]

It is a lack of all power structure, which is classless and virtually has no economical structure. Corporations and money just would not exist. A capitalist hell.

[Mr Akbar]

how you can see this?

[Cassius Clay]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 3:23 pm on April 12, 2003
It is a lack of all power structure, which is classless and virtually has no economical structure. Corporations and money just would not exist. A capitalist hell.


If you don't mind me asking how are you going to get this in place so fast (since you appear to be ignoring any transistion period)? It sounds great but idealism would be a understatement.

[Pete]

It comes after the dictatorship of the proletarait has abolished all classes and the new man has been created. Marx meets Che.

[RedCeltic]

Archy= Heiarchy, or athority

Anarchy= Lack of archy.

Anarchy does not mean no government. It means no heiarchy in govenrment and no heiarchy in economy. It means that every person has direct participation in governement and economy.

Not all anarchists argee on how to go about it, or what the end product would look like. However it's important to point out that anacho-captialism is an oxymoron. Capitalism supports a heiarchy in labor and, less democratic representation in economy than we have in politics.

Anarcho-Syndiclists for example like the IWW believe in calling for a worldwide general strike to takeover the means of production. That's not exactly in the best interests of the captialists.

[Pete]

This is where I am divided in my ideology.

I see that the only way to unite and militarize the people of the industrial world is to become unionized. Mass strikes, and the defiance of 'back to work' legislation that are less than the complete acceptance of the workers demands. Syndicism, except the union leaders are workers as well, the voice of all is the voice that matters, not the voice of a few. Mass direct democracy, which will make talks fail inevitably, but it will bring capitalism to its knees. And since there is no leadership, but people holding the union to gether (support not leaders) then it would also be a form of anarchy. Anachro-Syndicism.

In third world countries there needs to be first a massive campaign of education and the awakening of the people's political consciouness. Being from an industrialized nation itis not my place to make judgements as of the extent of corruption/poverty/capitalism and how to destroy it. People like Dhul, Lara, or Subcommadante Marcos would be better speakinghere.

[MAN with a RED face]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 4:36 pm on April 12, 2003
In third world countries there needs to be first a massive campaign of education and the awakening of the people's political consciouness.

i agree with that completely, i do observe it here

[MAN with a RED face]

Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society in which individuals freely co-operate together as equals without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchism essentially seeks to create a classless, stateless society, free of oppression and exploitation, that is organized and held together by the four principles; individual freedom, social and economic equality, free association, and mutual aid (i.e. cooperation and solidarity).

--->from RTF.com

(Edited by MAN with a RED face at 2:45 am on April 13, 2003)

[kylie]

in anarchism there would be no authority, yes? so if a person wanted to start a factory and force people to work there, this would be dissallowed, as its authority. but then who is to stop them? for there to be anti-authoritarianism, there must be someone to uphold and impose it, in which case it no longer exists.

It is a lack of all power structure, which is classless and virtually has no economical structure. Corporations and money just would not exist. A capitalist hell.
barter would still be possible, and neccessary, if there is no state and therefore no public property.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Well, the point is not so much total lack of government institutions, it's total lack of pecking order.

--- G.

[Som]

in anarchism there would be no authority, yes? so if a person wanted to start a factory and force people to work there, this would be dissallowed, as its authority. but then who is to stop them? for there to be anti-authoritarianism, there must be someone to uphold and impose it, in which case it no longer exists.

This argument is really nothing more than a word game.

Is there the authority to stop authority? yes, is this authority in itself? no.

Defending freedom is not the same as imposing authority.

There will be non authoritarian organs of organizing that will help this society defend itself. These might even be the same organs that brought anarchy about in the first place, workers militias, federations, trade unions, so on.

If you don't mind me asking how are you going to get this in place so fast (since you appear to be ignoring any transistion period)? It sounds great but idealism would be a understatement.

The most common idea is that of a social revolution. This is far from idealistic, and in practice its really not much different from the idea of 'all power to the soviets', the state is really given far too much credit in the idea of a popular revolution.

Something from the anarchist FAQ that seems sort of fitting:

Lenin asked Makhno, "How did the peasants of your region understand the slogan ALL POWER TO THE SOVIETS IN THE VILLAGES?" Makhno states that Lenin "was astonished" at his reply:


"The peasants understood this slogan in their own way. According to their interpretation, all power, in all areas of life, must be identified with the consciousness and will of the working people. The peasants understand that the soviets of workers and peasants of village, country and district are neither more nor less than the means of revolutionary organisation and economic self-management of working people in the struggle against the bourgeoisie and its lackeys, the Right socialists and their coalition government."
To this Lenin replied: "Well, then, the peasants of your region are infected with anarchism!" [Nestor Makhno, My Visit to the Kremlin, p. 18] Later in the interview, Lenin stated: "Do the anarchists ever recognise their lack of realism in present-day life? Why, they don't even think of it." Makhno replied:


"But I must tell you, comrade Lenin, that your assertion that the anarchists don't understand 'the present' realistically, that they have no real connection with it and so forth, is fundamentally mistaken. The anarchist-communists in the Ukraine . . . the anarchist-communists, I say, have already given many proofs that they are firmly planted in 'the present.' The whole struggle of the revolutionary Ukrainian countryside against the Central Rada has been carried out under the ideological guidance of the anarchist-communists and also in part by the Socialist Revolutionaries . . . Your Bolsheviks have scarcely any presence in our villages. Where they have penetrated, their influence is minimal. Almost all the communes or peasant associations in the Ukraine were formed at the instigation of the anarchist-communists. The armed struggle of the working people against the counter-revolution in general and the Austro-German invasion in particular has been undertaken with the ideological and organic guidance of the anarchist-communists exclusively.
"Certainly it is not in your party's interest to give us credit for all this, but these are the facts and you can't dispute them. You know perfectly well, I assume, the effective force and the fighting capacity of the free, revolutionary forces of the Ukraine. It is not without reason that you have evoked the courage with which they have heroically defended the common revolutionary conquests. Among them, at least one half have fought under the anarchist banner. . .

"All this shows how mistaken you are, comrade Lenin, in alleging that we, the anarchist-communists, don't have our feet on the ground, that our attitude towards 'the present' is deplorable and that we are too fond of dreaming about the future. What I have said to you in the course of this interview cannot be questioned because it is the truth. The account which I have made to you contradicts the conclusions you expressed about us. Everyone can see we are firmly planted in 'the present,' that we are working and searching for the means to bring about the future we desire, and that we are in fact dealing very seriously with this problem."

Lenin replied: "Perhaps I am mistaken." [Makhno, Op. Cit., pp. 24-5]

[Pete]

in anarchism there would be no authority, yes? so if a person wanted to start a factory and force people to work there, this would be dissallowed, as its authority. but then who is to stop them? for there to be anti-authoritarianism, there must be someone to uphold and impose it, in which case it no longer exists.

Who would follow them? That is the question.

[Dirty Commie]

Good points on both sides, but why not apply the minimalized authoritative structure to the ideas of equal distribution of labour/by-products of labour (for lack of a better word at the moment) and give the world anarcho-socialism. This is at least my definition of it.

[Invader Zim]

This is all delving into the realms of extream logic bordering on maths. I will now ignore this thread until it returnes to normal.

[RedComrade]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 3:21 pm on April 12, 2003
Well since a basic definition of 'Anarchism' (although I confess I haven't read any of Bakunin or other similar folk) would be total lack of government involvment in things that would be similar to a rich Capitalists dream come true.

I'm sure I'll now be accussed of all soughts of things and called all soughts of names but so be it.




I use to have similar misconceptions here is a site that is very good at dissmissing them:
http://flag.blackened.net
once your there go to FAQ, read the anarchists FAQ, its very good.

(Edited by RedComrade at 11:35 pm on April 13, 2003)

[StalinLover]

Quote: from Supernius on 11:48 pm on April 11, 2003
....is an anarchist.

Yours cordially,
Supernius


The only thing worse than an anarchist is an ex-leftist, specially of the neo-conservative brand. Of course, all you che lovers are going to end up like Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who started by writing her doctoral thesis on the Spanish Civil war and how good the POUM and the CNT adventurists and liquidationists were, and ended up a Reagan croonie...

A pity we no longer have the gulag...

[RedCeltic]

That's interesting, because I've been a leftist for a long time and the only people I have seen become "Reagan Cronies" are Stalinists, and Nazis. I knew both kinds of people gowing up in the 80's.

These are people who are attracted to the all the trappings that go along with the Soviet Union, and the ideology, and are not socialists because they want to do what they think is best for humanity.

See, I could respect an athoriterian who was so because he tought that was what the working class wanted, and because of his experiences as an actual worker. (as opposed to a high school/college student)

And There was one "Staninist" on this board onece that I did respect in that way. The rest of you are the "ideological faithful" who read Lenin like the Bible, Think you need to be a Stalinist in order to wear those cool hammer and sickles you love, and are unable to have an opinion on a topic that Marx/Lenin/Stalin didn't, or disagree with them for that matter.

[StalinLover]

Hey:



That's interesting, because I've been a leftist for a long time and the only people I have seen become "Reagan Cronies" are Stalinists, and Nazis. I knew both kinds of people gowing up in the 80's.

I named an ex-YPSL member (J Kirkpatrick) as a reagan croonie, could you name at least one ex-Stalinist who became a reagan croonie? Its the only fair thing. Otherwise it is empty slander.

And don't assume anything about people. You will make less of an ass later on...


These are people who are attracted to the all the trappings that go along with the Soviet Union, and the ideology, and are not socialists because they want to do what they think is best for humanity.

How dare you judge people like that?


See, I could respect an athoriterian who was so because he tought that was what the working class wanted, and because of his experiences as an actual worker. (as opposed to a high school/college student)

I know exactly 5 working-class anarchists in the USA. All I respect. One is my sister. The rest are what you named above. Or suburban rebels playing at being reds.


And There was one "Staninist" on this board onece that I did respect in that way. The rest of you are the "ideological faithful" who read Lenin like the Bible, Think you need to be a Stalinist in order to wear those cool hammer and sickles you love, and are unable to have an opinion on a topic that Marx/Lenin/Stalin didn't, or disagree with them for that matter.


And how does this apply to me?
Pre-emtive strike?

Lets rewrite this:

The rest of you are the "ideological faithful" who read Bakunin like the Bible, Think you need to be an anarchist in order to wear those cool circle As you love, and are unable to have an opinion on a topic that Bakunin/Kropotkin/Durruti didn't, or disagree with them for that matter.

mlmao!

Durruti would have eaten your ass for dinner... :)


(Edited by StalinLover at 5:48 pm on April 14, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

some one has tp fix that quote bug.

[Som]

The rest of you are the "ideological faithful" who read Bakunin like the Bible, Think you need to be an anarchist in order to wear those cool circle As you love, and are unable to have an opinion on a topic that Bakunin/Kropotkin/Durruti didn't, or disagree with them for that matter.

The problem with the rewrite is really that its incredibly rare to find an anarchist whose that dogmatic.

Theres few that would ever assign themselves to a single personality in the slightest.

Thats why while there are marxist-leninists, there are no bakuninist-durrutiists or proudhounists or kropotkinists.
Merely collectivists, mutualists, and anarchist communists.

[kylie]

There will be non authoritarian organs of organizing that will help this society defend itself. These might even be the same organs that brought anarchy about in the first place, workers militias, federations, trade unions, so on.

the role of representatives in communism, and the government in socialism is also this. albeit in a more organised and efficiant way than what seems to me to be mob rule. if these defenders are not to be authoritarian, then they would be just that.

in response to the first post, i'd disagree. anarchism to me is very close to communism, there is certainly worse viewpoints among the left.

And There was one "Staninist" on this board onece that I did respect in that way. The rest of you are the "ideological faithful" who read Lenin like the Bible, Think you need to be a Stalinist in order to wear those cool hammer and sickles you love, and are unable to have an opinion on a topic that Marx/Lenin/Stalin didn't, or disagree with them for that matter.

if this is directed at me, you're wrong, im not a stalinist.

I know exactly 5 working-class anarchists in the USA. All I respect. One is my sister. The rest are what you named above. Or suburban rebels playing at being reds.
then you havent been paying very good attention to things. the local anarchist group i know has very few in it not from the working class.

[StalinLover]

Quote: from Som on 9:47 pm on April 14, 2003


The problem with the rewrite is really that its incredibly rare to find an anarchist whose that dogmatic.

Theres few that would ever assign themselves to a single personality in the slightest.
Thats why while there are marxist-leninists, there are no bakuninist-durrutiists or proudhounists or kropotkinists.
Merely collectivists, mutualists, and anarchist communists.



By definition, anyone who advocates only the immediate elimination of all heriarchies, is dogmatic. So all anarchists are dogmatists, that they are not same type of dogmatic is of no consequence. And so-called "marxism" does not escape this:

Dogmatism is an inevitable danger of ideology, and the reason why marxism, or rather, the tools of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, are such powerful weapons dogma destruction.

Even Comrade Stalin was at times dogmatic.

As to the concrete example you give, I have met proudhounists, kropotkinists etc.

Man, there is even Platformism!!!

It seems to me that you are:

1) Beliving the @s too much

2) Doing a very convinient self-definition

3) Just plain clueless


BTW, Red Celtic, I am still waiting for the proof on this slanderous statement:

"the only people I have seen become "Reagan Cronies" are Stalinists"

Cough it up, will ya, or shut up and retract your slander. I am willing to be corrected, if it is true.

[RedCeltic]

if this is directed at me, you're wrong, im not a stalinist.

Why would that be directed at you when I said ON this board ONCE

There are no real STALINISTS on this board that I know of. The person I am talking about lived in the USSR and knew what he was talking about.

[RedCeltic]

By definition, anyone who advocates only the immediate elimination of all heriarchies, is dogmatic. So all anarchists are dogmatists

I really can't believe you posted this. Are you sure you don't want to go back and take this back? Because anyone with dictionary and two brain cells to rub together knows that "Dogma" is not simply two people who share an idea.

Dogma is an athoritative principle writen down in which later members of the group believe to be the absolute truth.

Anarchists have no such thing.


Anarchism is a socio-economic and political theory, but not an ideology. The difference is very important. Basically, theory means you have ideas; an ideology means ideas have you. Anarchism is a body of ideas, but they are flexible, in a constant state of evolution and flux, and open to modification in light of new data. As society changes and develops, so does anarchism. An ideology, in contrast, is a set of "fixed" ideas which people believe dogmatically, usually ignoring reality or "changing" it so as to fit with the ideology, which is (by definition) correct. All such "fixed" ideas are the source of tyranny and contradiction, leading to attempts to make everyone fit onto a Procrustean Bed. This will be true regardless of the ideology in question -- Leninism, Objectivism, "Libertarianism," or whatever -- all will all have the same effect: the destruction of real individuals in the name of a doctrine, a doctrine that usually serves the interest of some ruling elite. Or, as Mikhail Bak said Until now all human history has been only a perpetual and bloody immolation of millions of poor human beings in honour of some pitiless abstraction -- God, country, power of state, national honour, historical rights, judicial rights, political liberty, public welfare



"the only people I have seen become "Reagan Cronies" are Stalinists"

Cough it up, will ya, or shut up and retract your slander. I am willing to be corrected, if it is true.

Yes what I said is true. I have known Stalinists who have become conservitive in real life, while I myself was once a Democratic Socialist and now am an anarchist. So why don't YOU Shut up?

What proof am I expected to give here? DO you want me to dig up these people and fax you a copy of their 2000 voting record? Come on. These are people I grew up with. They were Soviet Communists in the 1980's and when I came home again years later in the late 1990's they were very much assimulated into the conservitive population which is fairly dominant in the county.

One old freind I know is on the Suffolk county police department, and has said that working in poor black communities has made him realize that they only have themselves to blame for their condition.

Another is in the Army, has been for years now and believes that it is "leftist crybabies" that keep the US from having the true powerhouse militery that it should have. .... This was during Clinton's Presidency when he said that, so today his most likely like a big roling in shit.


These are both guys that went on a trip to Moscow together and used to walk around high school with parts of Soviet uniforms. They were in the communist youth, and now are conservitives. I know because they told me so.

I do know one person I've met recently that was in the communist youth, and was a Stalinist at one time, but now is an anarchist.