It could be better. It does not explain what anarchism is, it only explains some diferences between anarchism and marxism, and it does it very well. A problem I have with it is the use of complicated language, which does not make it easy to understand, especialy to non-english people like me.
Yeah, I showed some people that. I thought it was one of the best posts on anarchism on this site.
Its not post 52, but it is cool. He expresses the diferences between anarchists and marxists very well.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...7&postcount=19
"1. No one takes him seriously around here " Some people aparently do, just no authoritarians. "2. He constantly uses the same arguments which have been disproven over and over with no justification" Strangely enough I feel the same way about you. "(this I believe is because he lacks a basic knowledge of leftism" See, same argumment. "3. He is completely close-minded making a discussion redundant and useless." Exactly what I think about you and Caj.
I would also like to bring this back up with your whole "synthesis" thing. Re-post: No, that proves nothing. Besides the fact that it has obvious historical flaws, all it proves is that anarchism has socialism as it's economic base and differs from other socialisms for x, y, and z in it's political parts.
"Anarchists deny the use of state, so according to this logic they are not part of the socialist movement." Yes, because the whole socialist tradition is "the use of the state" No, I only brought up one thing about social democracy because I thought that maybe, as an anarchist, you might know why they are not socialists. Social democrats tend to also be market socialists and they are not against generalized commodity production, the operation of exchange-value, the operation of the market, the extraction of surplus value, etc. I would argue that, if put in practice, anarchism would keep some of the things listed above (especially the extraction of surplus value) and that is why it is flawed but as a theory in itself anarchism denies all of the above. I have given you proof over and over again, destroyed every argument you have made saying that anarchism is not a tendency of socialism, and every other user you bring this to disagrees with you.
"No, because they deny the revolutionary ideology that has always characterized socialism and socialist thought" Anarchists deny the use of state, so according to this logic they are not part of the socialist movement.
From viewing you conversation with Caj, it is obvious that you do not have a good understanding of basic leftist knowledge. Seriously, if you want some reading materials I can link to some good information to help you. I am being sincere here. Just tell me what you want to know more about and I can lead you to users that can help you, tell you of intellectuals whose works can help, or link to some reading materials that can help.
"You said it originated within socialism, I say it is a synthesis, that /\ proves it." No, that proves nothing. Besides the fact that it has obvious historical flaws, all it proves is that anarchism has socialism as it's economic base and differs from other socialisms for x, y, and z in it's political parts. "Is social-democracy a tendency of socialism?" No, because they deny the revolutionary ideology that has always characterized socialism and socialist thought, even among most of the utopian socialists of the early 1800s. Bad argument. 'I never said anarcho-capitalists were genuine anarchists" Bull Shit "I said their movement has characteristics of anarchism, particularly the libertarian part." And, as I have proved before with evidence, theoretical evidence, etc. that is a stupid thing to say.
