Today I Just Learned that Communism and Anarchism are Pointless Dreams

As you know, I used to be an anarchist-communist, but the last time since I posted on here, I learned communism and anarchism are just impossible attempts that will only result in deluded people ruining everything for the workers, funny enough with the fact that they always claim to care about them "suffering" under capitalism, since I've been going to non-indoctrinated forums.

All your "theories" are problematic, like the communist "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". The theory that any government whatsoever could abolish all it's power, NO ONE has even heard of a government giving up their authority and abolishing the state BECAUSE it's not part of human nature to, AS WHAT HAS BEEN PROVEN UNDER WHAT HAPPENED UNDER THE SOVIET UNION, CUBA, CAMBODIA, NORTH KOREA, CHINA, POLAND, YUGOSLAVIA, ETC ETC ETC ETC.

Another problematic feature of human nature that both of you communists and anarchists ignore is people being too lazy to work. What do your communist, Marxist, anarchist, "left communists" or "Hoxhaists" like what do those even mean to people who don't have an obsession with obscure "theoritical errors" in failed projects that are the errors themselves, whatever you want to call them, ist-theorists even do when they are confronted with that fact? Hope that us non-communist people would forget about their flawed-from-the-ground plans that would only result in disaster? Even past the "transition" or "socialism stage", what would keep ALL people "happily working for the betterment of mankind" as I have heard from communists so many times? The people in many Marxist countries couldn't do it even with force and torture and terror in many cases! And even if some of you respond like "We don't force labor people" then WHAT is stopping a majority of people to not work at all? How is it any encouraging that lazy people benefit from the non lazy people's labor?

The countless nations that I have listed couldn't even achieve communism for one second. The thing that I notice from many communists and anarchists is their annoying usage of terms like "ruling class" to the so-evil "bourgeoisie" when they can't even deal with the fact that they were the LITERAL ruling class too, and that THEY FAILED BIG, only to do worse than the capitalism that preceded them, and they were even more powerful than the corporations!

Leftism in practice, theory, whatever you want to say, it just has never been possible, at all, so how do you people still praise any movement that you think will lead to your own utopia with the faults that are painfully obvious to countless workers who have lived under nations with this utopia in agenda? HOW?

With all due respect, the only thing that your post demonstrates is that you never really understood what communism is, starting with the crucial error of thinking that the withering away of the state is a matter of "the government" (in abstract of course) "voluntarily" "giving up their authority". It isn't. The state withers away as its functions cease to be necessary due to the change in the relations of production.

And seriously, human nature? Wow. Human nature is a nonsensical phrase that has been used as a quasi-scientific excuse for everything from slavery to homophobia. It's guff of the worst sort. Likewise the old "BUT IF WE DON'T STARVE PEOPLE WHY WOULD THEY WORK????" nonsense. Well, why wouldn't they? You need to do something between being born and croaking.

Oh, and once again, with feeling: communists don't oppose "corporations", communists oppose all forms of private property, from Northrop-Grumman to your local deli.

Why are you so angry with us? We didn't force you to, in your eyes, waste your time on these politics. Honestly, given the posts and threads you made I don't find it surprising that you abandoned these politics.

Most here have come through self-education which is inherently incompatible with indoctrination.

As 870 said, it's not a matter of a government voluntarily giving up power and handing it to the people. It works more like this: According to Marxism, contradictions within capitalism produce class antagonisms between the working class and capitalist class which will result in a revolutionary situation wherein the working class forms organs of workers' power -- such as workers' councils, workers' associations, committees, communes -- to try and conquer political power. These organs, part of a revolutionary body -- the workers' state -- is organised from below with power in the lowest organs, and mandated, recallable, rotating workers' deputies in higher organs executing decisions, whom are binding on all organs by virtue of the lower organs accepting the decisions of the higher organs. The revolutionary state is a temporary one where councils and the like will wield political power, and workers' associations will assume control of production. Socialised production under private property is transformed into social ownership. The state will use violence, pressure, and coercion where necessary to consolidate power and carry the revolution to victory. This violence is directed at the reaction, those using violence to restore property rights and the bourgeois class to the position of ruling class. As the social revolution progresses the reaction is beaten and defeated, and the process of socialisation is completed, revolutionary violence is obsolete and will necessarily disappear -- it's not a matter of giving up power, it's matter of it becoming obsolete. What remains of the workers' state -- the workers' state stripped of its coercive functions -- is the associations of producers and social ownership. In other words, the result is the free association of equal producers and consumers administrating commonly owned productive resources: communism.

None of the countries you named were workers' governments or states. They were all states controlled from above and administrated capital through state ownership.

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/...man-343481.jpg

If it turns out that people are too lazy to labour, labour notes/credits can be used as external incentive for productive activity. As for "happily working for the betterment of mankind", I don't believe that people will do that. This was part of a Stalinist New Man type project, which failed of course given its voluntaristic nature. People will work because they enjoy it or because they receive labour credits for it.

"What do your communist, Marxist, anarchist, "left communists" or "Hoxhaists" like what do those even mean to people who don't have an obsession with obscure "theoritical errors" in failed projects that are the errors themselves, whatever you want to call them, ist-theorists even do when they are confronted with that fact?"

They don't mean anything to ordinary people, and therefore all these tendencies would generally identify as simply socialists or communists in public debate.

So why is it you blame anarchism for Stalinism? Seems odd.

Again, why do you blame anarchism or non-Stalinist politics for Stalinism?

First off, people aren't only motivated by money. It is an artificial concept created by modern society. If we were only motivated by money, then cavemen would have never been able to survive. Humans are mainly motivated to work by two concepts: The need to survive, and the desire to live. In a fully developed communist society, and even in the phase with the dictatorship of the proletariat, wage labour would be replaced with free work. For more on that, read Paul Lafargue's "The Right to be Lazy".

Secondly, countries like North Korea, the USSR, China and other places aren't Marxist, but rather, state capitalist. They've botched historical materialism and replaced with some damned "Great Men of History" theory, business's are still organized like a capitalist one (and let's not forget how these countries use stock markets and trade with capitalist nations, like the Lend-Lease deal during WW2), and a new minority replaced the capitalist class. The only Marxist country was the Paris Commune, and that wasn't even run by Marxists.

And finally, what is with your obsession with lazy people? If a man or woman doesn't want to work, then so-fucking be it! You sound like Bill O 'Reilly for Christ's sake!

What are your politics now, then?

You know your shits gone cray when I find myself agreeing with Vincent and Tim dude. :D No offense, guys.

That's just victim blaming. As someone who's unemployed that is what's said about me! I am too lazy, i'm work-shy apparently. Somehow that doesn't explain why it is i still produce use-values even though i dont have a wage. I'm just too lazy, that's why the other day i stole a bunch of wood from a skip and built a table for my mate's garden. Yup, i'm just too lazy to work, that's why i don't have a job. It has nothing to do with the destruction of industry in my city, nothing to do with the massive amount of applicants for each vacancy, nope just laziness.

"Dictatorship of the proletariat" is not like a current republic - as self-sufficient autonomous system. Autonomous organs of communism are naturally the communes. Socialist state is like a congress where communes establish their common policies towards organizations not having internal communal relationships or communal relationships with others. These policies, when successful, will result in decrease of lower forms of organization and forming of new communes. This is the true aim of all "transitional programs", not establishment of some "new and better state of things". But as lower forms of organization disappear, as communal way of living becomes the standard, the dictatorship will have less and less to do. The less represantatives of the old order there are, the less need is there to form common policies towards them. Everything a society does will be done through direct, communal relationships between commune members and communes. And this is the "withering away of the state" - who wants to work in an organization that has nothing to do? Working for state becomes like being a guardian of city gates of a modern city; a rather pointless way to spend your time.

As for "lazy" argument - I think that there is no reason why a commune needs to accept lazy, exploitative people as their members (unless communars really believe that they can make the person into a communar). I believe that Marx' "industrial armies" (corporations) and labour credit systems are meant precisely for these lazy people whom no commune would want as their members.

I think you learned something about Leninism.

And I agree with you, the left is soft on lazy people and all kinds of stuff that regular working joes are not. But under communism, under a federation of autonomous areas, anyone refusing to do work they are capable of yet wanting to take from the communal production of goods will face some swift communal justice.

Same with how a community under communism will be capable of dealing will all kinds of harmfull and fucked up behaviour that is dangerous to the safety of the common good. We don't need peoples labour being turned into surplus value or the state to end laziness or deal with pedophiles for example once capitalism and the state ends.

We don't lose all ability to govern ourselves and remove parasitic elements from our group with democratic action.

I think someone mooching off the larger group while contributing nothing will soon find himself with an ultimatum from the larger group, do some work or go plant beans somewhere and pray for the best. Remember there would be no need for unemployment under a workers controlled economic system which is not based on a monetary system. What marx called the Anarchy of production will be removed. Making something will not rest on whether or not it is financially viable, but whether it is usefull and is of want by the people in the community.

JudasMaiden:
I stopped reading a little ahead of this, at "human nature", but I just wanted to say: if this is the main reason for you thinking it all hopeless, you really don't have a clue where to look. The two first replies to your post are the best possible direct replies and you should read, and perhaps re-read, them.

When you said "impossible attempts", I thought you were on to something and that you were criticising the disguised utopianism that can be seen on this forum.

Turned out you were repeating strawmen.

Today I just learned that JudasMaiden took their first hit of crack. Lay off it. Please.

Congratulations on enlightening us that everything we've so dearly studied is wrong and pointless! *gasp* human nature proves it all wrong! I mean of course we're all gonna sit on our asses without motivation and then eventually die. Of course we just wanna redistribute wealth and create a brutal authoritarian state where we worship long dead idols: Lenin <3

JM you've a ton of reading to do so don't give up and don't let others control your decisions and ideas. Be your own person and question everything! I questioned communism and anarchism before and came right back. Go ahead and explore other views while your young.

Seriously, fucking piss off you worthless fucking degenerate swine. Get the fuck out of here and don't fucking come back. I don't know where the fuck you came from, but fuck off, you Israel-loving fuckwit. Seriously, you fucking parasitic vermin.

>Moderator

Yeah, that's a real useful post as well you liberal Tulipman. Want an infraction? No, I'm not that sort of arsehole.

You've been a communist/anarchist at least since November 2013 and today is the first time you even considered the human nature argument and the "but it failed in Russia" argument? Were you living in a bubble until you discovered your non-indoctrinated forums?

You lost me at "human nature"...
Are you sure you weren't an ancap in disguise this whole time?

I bet you have a blossoming social life. No doubt if you had to articulate your points in public you would become a bumbling anxious nervous wreck. But on the internet you are really brave and outspoken.

I just think you are really cool. Keep up the great work.

Ah! Do you feel that love everyone?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Forgive me, but I'm a bit suspicious of anyone who's grown up in the u.s., becomes attracted to communist politics and then suddenly "learns" all these arguments on "Un-indoctrinated" forums. These dull arguments are spoon-fed to everyone in the u.s. (And you live in Arizona, no less!) from a young age. Unless revleft is the first website you ever used, you've never been to a public school, never turned on a tv or read a newspaper, there's no way that you suddenly discovered "communism=Stalinism" and that capitalism is the best of all possible worlds.

Next week: "hey guys, I just discovered this wonderful new drink called Coke... It comes in diet flavor too!"

It's strange because before he was talking about his flyers and all kinds of stuff. Now he's doing this? It seems like they might be trying to punk us or start a flamewar (already succeeded really).

Yeah, I think if the o.p. had been written like... "They're right, this stuff is impossible" then I could more easily believe that it's a sincere change in politics. Still could be the case, just sounds like one of those trolls that pretends for a bit out of curiosity or whatever.

I need to mention at this point that if Leon Trotsky were alive he would almost certainly be clawing his way out of his coffin, screaming in agony, but if he made it, he would drink Virgin Cola.

It's a widely-known fact.

(Now that I think about it I haven't had a Virgin Cola in years, maybe they don't make them anymore. But we took our colas seriously.)

I don't know, as I recall it JM always had something against "theory", and they honestly always seemed like a liberal to me (that's not saying much, though, sometimes I sit at home investigating myself for signs of liberalism... hope I don't find out anything...), for example they always talked about "corporations", "consumerism" and so on. On the other hand, the hit-and-run nature of the thread does provide circumstantial evidence that JM was basically an elaborate troll.

I think we all replied to a troll post

Yes but what matters is what we've learned from it. Who cares if the OP is a troll, we've benefited more than they have! All sorts of things, not just the forum (read: party) line, have been discussed that can help beginners and experts.

I find it ironic that you say that literally after posting a string of useless expletives.

Would you mind giving yourself an infraction though?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?fa..._faqforumrules

Posts like this are not appropriate, especially in the learning forum. Consider yourself warned not to do it again.

You can't give an infraction anyway if you're involved in a dispute in the thread.

Did you seriously just call the gestapo? What kind of a person does that?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

EDIT: loonyleftist: INFRACTED!!! :laugh:

I think that Tim Cornelis was just pointing out that: "This is the behaviour of a moderator" (You know, someone who should moderate the exact behaviour that Takayuki displayed) as opposed to "running to teacher."

this thread is a mistake

should be gulag'd, i think

While I strongly disagree with Patrice's capitalistic nonsence...

You are a mod here. You get to set standards, not to undermine them. You have, consequently, to be civil, not to tell people to get raped. If you think Patrick's post warrants it, issue a warning or an infraction. But please refrain from debasing the level of debate and the level of admining here. It is already low enough without that.

And if you can't refrain from that, have the decency of giving up your mod tools.

Luís Henrique

Good point, but interesting that you brought that up. Since when is a moderator some kind of authority on everyone's behavior? They are an authority on the site, not on people's behavior. Of course, this is all irrelevant to the point of the thread. If it even had a point to begin with. :glare:

Ah, "human nature". How non-dogmatic! You probably thought of it yourself. I have never heard of it before.

bait and run, also known as trapping

OK then, then look at all the attempts for the state to wither away.

then what explains the failed revolutions by the Marxists to become communist paradises?

So lazy people will know that there will always be someone else to do most of their work of the rest of their lives, and the lazy person will have to lift a remote once a day?

as communists showed us every time in practice, they went on to control all property. I don't know how you bolshevik supporters are able to say that a freaking coup was "worker control" or a "dictarship of the proletariat" when the only dictatorship it was was OF THE PARTY over any business or corporation or worker.

All of you people care about are revolutions that will never happen again because people now have the countless proof against it.

You mean repeating to yourselves "Humans will be perfect and never do bad for their communist society to collapse"?? How is THAT self-education? Dogmatic anarchists don't realize that everyone has to be anarchist or else everything fails as it did in the Spanish Civil War and everywhere else anarchists tried to take over for a silly idealistic paradise, AND THEY NEED THE EXCUSE OF A CIVIL WAR to kill "reactionaries" to not be seen as traitors to their own principles!

workers power, that sounds great in theory, but have you ever thought that almost no worker knows of your specific plan to destroy capitalism?? how does this even deal with REACTIONARY workers? there are a lot of them if you use this forums standards

the "revolutionary state" has been tried, guess what, the state didn't give up its power and it immediately became what most of you here hate

In other words, wishful thinking..

Yay labor credits, what next, flag checkpoints??

you are missing the point, those "state capitalist" countries all had active plans to become communist countries under Marxist guidance and I already heard about your paris commune thing from you communists, it doesn't convince anyone! historical materialism? SERIOUSLY? a flawed 150 year old "thoery of history"?!?!

Active plans? What the hell are you talking about? Russia botched up the plan for communism after Lenin died. When Stalin took over, he exiled Trotsky and gave Bukharin the back of his hand, and set Russia on the course to Bullshit Mountain.

The Paris Commune was the first truly liberated society in history. Worker's owned the means of production, government was run by the people and for 72 days the Parisians gave the world the first taste of freedom.

Finally, you presented no evidence against historical materialism, and you even spelled "theory" wrong. Pardon my language, but you done fucked up.

All these questions and objections to communism are so elementary that it makes it hard to believe that you were sincere in your advocacy of anarchism in the first place. I imagine all of us here have been struggling with these questions prior to becoming communists. The posts and threads you made suggests that you had a personal (teenage) aversion against the American lifestyle (video games opium of the masses; wanting to emigrate from the USA; saying we need to 'do stuff' and 'do revolutionary stuff' -- adventurism) and you sought to rebel against it by adopting an anti-establishment ideology, anarchism, without thoroughly understanding it. And now you seem to feel kind of duped that you were lured into this ideology that in hindsight doesn't even make sense, to you, and now you take it out on us :(

This still reveals you don't understand what it means to wither away. No state "tries" to wither away, and there's never been a context where it would allow for the state to wither away. You can't will a state in and out of existence. There's never been a workers' state that was successful in consolidating power and victory. There have been a few attempts: the Paris Commune (crushed), the Russian Revolution (degenerated), the Spanish revolution (crushed), and some others. The degeneration of the Russian revolution spawned a bastard child, Stalinism, which inspired other revolutions that were not socialist in the first place, and therefore cannot be invoked as evidence against socialism.

No one believes in communist paradises and utopias, these are strawmen. There have been dozens of books, and many more articles and essays, written about the causes of the degeneration of the Russian revolution. I'm not going to regurgitate them for you. The failure of the Russian revolution is highly complex and was caused by a variety of factors.

This is perfectly in line with (the simplistic answers to complex questions) anarchism. So you have given no arguments of why you oppose communism and anarchism in general; only vanguardism.

It's become more difficult, yes.


Right. No one believes that. Additional evidence you were never sincere in your anarchist politics. It also has nothing to do with what I said.

You accused us of being indoctrinated, but by whom? Indoctrination implies being subjected to consistent and systemic uncritical information that you come to accept as (absolute) truth. Most of us here, I reasonably assume, came through reading books, not because some institution indoctrinated us. That's what I meant with self-education.

Not everyone would need to be anarchists, only enough for anarchists to become victorious. You make all kinds of baseless claims that undermine that your politics were sincere and show they were a pretext and an excuse for teenage rebellion.

Another elementary question that most normal people would ask themselves before becoming communists. I can't be bothered wasting too much time on explaining it. You have to understand the concept of 'revolutionary situation' and 'non-revolutionary situation'. We are currently in a non-revolutionary situation, and revolutionary situations are rare. The window of opportunity for socialism is therefore small, but it's not impossible. A revolutionary situation will occur through innumerable uncontrollable factors, and it cannot be induced -- people are not simply moved into action through persuasion. A revolutionary situation cannot be willed into existence, in other words. What we need to do is prepare by educating as many workers as we can (which will always be a minority of the working class) and once a revolutionary situation breaks out we need to use the most advanced workers to agitate in organs of workers' power, say workers' councils, to adopt our revolutionary programme and positions to carry the revolution to victory.

Yes, I have thought about it, and thoroughly. And so have we all. All the arguments you throw at us have all been debated internally ad nauseam. Countless books and essays concerning all these questions.

Yes it has been tried. In the Paris Commune and in Russia in 1917. In 1917 it degenerated. Of course it couldn't wither away because the basis for it withering away, the absence of class antagonisms, was never attained. The state doesn't give up power. We already explained twice that it's not a matter of the workers' government giving up power -- which you carefully ignored.

According to Marxism, contradictions within capitalism produce class antagonisms between the working class and capitalist class which will result in a revolutionary situation wherein the working class forms organs of workers' power -- such as workers' councils, workers' associations, committees, communes -- to try and conquer political power. These organs, part of a revolutionary body -- the workers' state -- is organised from below with power in the lowest organs, and mandated, recallable, rotating workers' deputies in higher organs executing decisions, whom are binding on all organs by virtue of the lower organs accepting the decisions of the higher organs. The revolutionary state is a temporary one where councils and the like will wield political power, and workers' associations will assume control of production. Socialised production under private property is transformed into social ownership. The state will use violence, pressure, and coercion where necessary to consolidate power and carry the revolution to victory. This violence is directed at the reaction, those using violence to restore property rights and the bourgeois class to the position of ruling class. As the social revolution progresses the reaction is beaten and defeated, and the process of socialisation is completed, revolutionary violence is obsolete and will necessarily disappear -- it's not a matter of giving up power, it's matter of it becoming obsolete. What remains of the workers' state -- the workers' state stripped of its coercive functions -- is the associations of producers and social ownership. In other words, the result is the free association of equal producers and consumers administrating commonly owned productive resources: communism.


It's only wishful thinking if you ignore history which shows that revolutionary situations do indeed occur, and therefore that there is a window of opportunity for a socialist revolution and a revolutionary workers' state as I described above, and therefore for the social institutions, after being stripped of their coercive functions, to remain as freely associated producers. It's not wishful thinking, it's an analysis of the visible social development as we have seen it evolved within capitalism.


Flag checkpoints? I have no idea what that means* *I looked it up. I have no idea what a Mario video game aspect has to do with labour credits.

But you're just going to dismiss that labour credits are a refutation of your argument that communism will fail because not everyone has intrinsic motivation to labour? Because you didn't really explain why that option is not an alternative to you.


And more evidence that you do not understand the nature of a socialist transformation. A plan or wish to become socialist is insufficient: it's voluntaristic (the idea that some social condition can be willed into existence because you will it into existence). The state-capitalist regimes didn't have the means to transform themselves into socialism because they lacked genuine organs of workers' power and were directed from above instead, and therefore there was no basis for the creation of associations of producers and thus communism.

I also very much doubt that you know what historical materialism is.

"it doesn't convince anyone!" Uh well, we were convinced by it. Surprising as you may find it, we were not born as Marxists, we become convinced, and for some the Paris Commune aided that.

So my suggestion is, inform yourself about an ideology before adopting it; and inform yourself about an ideology before criticising it. Because as someone pointed out, you have been an anarchist for quite some time, but your lack of knowledge on communism is quite frankly embarrassing.

It might be because they were all underdeveleped countries and warzones. So? Who cares if there's lazy people? Under capitalism at least 10% are unemployed, and it's probably much higher. The bourgeoisie don't do real work. Much of the work now is just to make money for someone else. Why should anyone be punished with poverty and starvation for being &quot;lazy?&quot; As opposed to capitalist controlling all of these.Proof? I guess you're right. The Monarchy has been restored, most of the US is slaves and indentured servants(who knows when they'll have a civil war, godless shithole), and all attempts at establishing a capitalist republic were violent as fuck. Guess Kings and Lords really do have the divine right to rule! 8) Nobody will ever be perfect. There will be problems, but it's better to try for a better world. Reactionaries always have an excuse to kill, civil war or not. Businesses, running the economy, without the the Lord and the kings' guiding hand? Bullshit! 8)Those state' were all under attack. It was beyond their control.There are no communist countries, seeing as it's a stateless society.

When communists are shown evidence in history against them by noncommunists, they shout "STRAWMAN!!!!!!!" they ALWAYS do.

Gee it's true that communists can't be debated with without being harassed by them in this freaking thread and in a PM. SCREW OFF!

That is what effective leftists that you call "STALINISTS" in real life want to do while all your "alternative tendencies" are dead!

No it's not the first time that I've considered that communism and anarchism IS idealistic because of our human limitations, I actually did critical thinking about it instead of repeating to myself obscure and silly little theories about "GERMANY PROLETARIAT" or whatever else trotsky or bordiga or someone on this forum said

I am not even libertarian or conservative and I never even spoke of anything like that but communists always love bringing this up to noncommunists whereever you find them.

communist ideals INEVITABLY lead to the stalinism that ALL OF YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT. I used to think after shrugging off the arguments presented against this that there is a way we can create a communist society by doing it "trotsky's way" or kropotkin's, but the former will only become stalinism like what is the difference anyway, and the latter is infeasible and leaves many more fucking questions than answered so anarchism and communism are completely out of the question!

I changed my mind once realizing the facts, SO?

I DON'T care if you all think I am a troll because I don't religiously believe that humanity will redeem itself to perfection as long as the revolution happens correctly the next time!

JudasMaiden basically learned that serious class struggle is hard fucking work with no immediate payoff, and decided to say "screw that".