NationStates Jolt Archive

I myself am not a communist (I am, in fact, a staunch anticommunist), but I've noticed lots of communists here on NS. So, to clarify things: which kind are you?

I myself am not a communist (I am, in fact, a staunch anticommunist), but I've noticed lots of communists here on NS. So, to clarify things: which kind are you?
I am hardcore capitalist, and thus have absolutely no reason to be writing this.

I'm just misunderstood.

"Anarcho-syndicalist" or "Anarchist communist" come closest.

I'm a proud anarcho-fascist. :cool: ;)

*tries to comprehend and then has a stroke*

Marxist-Leninist/pseudo-Maoist.

All 'round benevolent despot here -- rather akin to Julius Caesar

I chose "just plain communism", because communism as defined by Marx sounds fine for me. It's a very democratic form of communism, close to anarcho-communism, even if maybe a bit less radical in the "anarchy" part: no governement as we know it, but still a legal system, ...

I could have voted "anarcho-communism", but it's not exactly that either.

You could say I'm Anarcho-Communist... But then, my idealogy is evolving beyond even that point.

I seem to be turning into an all-out Anarchist. Let people have their own capitalistic market economies if they wish, and let people live in communes, free from the stress of capitalism if they so wish.

More and more, I'm stressing complete freedom, even if that means drastic differences between relatively close areas. However, if there is to be a governing body, I still stand by my somewhat older ideals.

My reasoning for all of this is that we should all be working together, not against each other. The capitalist cities could quite easily trade and barter with Communes, and people could move between them freely.

I seem to be turning into an all-out Anarchist. Let people have their own capitalistic market economies if they wish, and let people live in communes, free from the stress of capitalism if they so wish.

I don't think many anarcho-communists would deny people the right to live under capitalism if they so chose.

I don't think many anarcho-communists would deny people the right to live under capitalism if they so chose.

True. I'm still stressing the importance of a combination of both.

I seem to be turning into an all-out Anarchist. Let people have their own capitalistic market economies if they wish, and let people live in communes, free from the stress of capitalism if they so wish.

Well, how will you prevent the capitalists from abusing the planet ? WIth extreme amount of pollution, overuse of ressources, ...

The world is one, and what some do affect the others. We need something to prevent the money-hungry capitalists from harming the communes with their pollution, or from depleting the ressources.

I'm a facist.

Well, how will you prevent the capitalists from abusing the planet ? WIth extreme amount of pollution, overuse of ressources, ...

The world is one, and what some do affect the others. We need something to prevent the money-hungry capitalists from harming the communes with their pollution, or from depleting the ressources.

What makes you think the capitalists would be more likely to pollute or overuse resources than the communes?

What makes you think the capitalists would be more likely to pollute or overuse resources than the communes?

That's what I'm thinking.

Look, just because there's no government doesn't mean there aren't laws. I'm sure it would be in the best interest of all people to pollute as little as possible. And who says there wouldn't be organisations to help keep factories clean?

I'm a Trotskyist. I basically believe in democratic rights but a strong central structure. I'm sceptical of the DOP and actually rather hate it. I disagree with leninists because their system easily becomes abused and turned into Stalinism which tyrannical and has killed millions. Anarcho-Communists are unrealistic. Crime and robbery would be abundant. Maoism is just Stalinism except rooted in the country, and wtf is a Luxembergist? I mean I know who he is but who gave him a branch?

BTW It's nice to see people exploring and learning about different branches of socialism/communism. Especially if they're capitalists because it doesn't make them look like ignorant snobs.

Anarcho-Communists are unrealistic. Crime and robbery would be abundant.

What makes you think that people wouldn't be armed? Individuals armed to the teeth (a la the "Old West") are far more effective than any police force.

I'm sure it would be in the best interest of all people to pollute as little as possible.

But not on the individual level.

While every person in society might be benefited by society as a whole reducing pollution, their contribution to this, viewed in exclusion, will be a loss. Thus, if you make it voluntary and everyone behaves in their rational self-interest, everyone will opt out, and the environment will be destroyed.

wtf is a Luxembergist? I mean I know who he is but who gave him a branch?

He? Him?

I'm a facist.

What is a facist?

But not on the individual level.

While every person in society might be benefited by society as a whole reducing pollution, their contribution to this, viewed in exclusion, will be a loss. Thus, if you make it voluntary and everyone behaves in their rational self-interest, everyone will opt out, and the environment will be destroyed.

How's that? You're assuming that everyone will pollute the fuck out of the planet just to make a quick buck. That seems highly unlikely.

I think you underestimate most people's respect for the planet.

What is a facist?

Well, he does seem to like posting pics of his face. :p

How's that? You're assuming that everyone will pollute the fuck out of the planet just to make a quick buck. That seems highly unlikely.

Not "everyone." It doesn't need to be "everyone" to be a serious problem.

I think you underestimate most people's respect for the planet.

I don't think enough corporations will decide of their own accord to protect the environment for such a system to be viable.

anti-communist

Not "everyone." It doesn't need to be "everyone" to be a serious problem.



I don't think enough corporations will decide of their own accord to protect the environment for such a system to be viable.

1: True, but...

2: ...How did we get into this? Again, just because there isn't a governing body doesn't mean there are no laws. And, if the communities that happen to control a lot of natural resources happen to be communes, that's another con for the growth of corporations.

There doesn't have to be an all-powerful central government to prevent companies from polluting and exploiting.

Well, he does seem to like posting pics of his face. :p
That would make you an anti-facist.

Or two of us in all. Anyone else want to join the Anti-Facist Union? Only eligible for those who are averse to posting pictures of themselves...

I'm a Khrushchev man, myself.

I'm the sexiest kind of communist.

I'm the sexiest kind of communist.
I am a well endowed communist.

I am a well endowed communist.

What, so you are privileged enough to have a hefty wad...






























...of cash?

What, so you are privileged enough to have a hefty wad......of cash?
Unheard of! RPP made a post about something other than himself!

SCREENSHOT!!!

Unheard of! RPP made a post about something other than himself!




I won't believe it.

...of cash?
Communism shouldn't technically have currency, should it? I think "no" is the right answer, but...
Indeed. As well as something else that helps along with the free love aspect of communism, according to Marx that is.

Why isn't there a communazi option?

Communism shouldn't technically have currency, should it? I think "no" is the right answer, but...
Indeed. As well as something else that helps along with the free love aspect of communism, according to Marx that is.

A gigantic beard?

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,381316,00.jpg

A gigantic beard?
All real communists are man beasts. Of course I'll have a mammoth beard.

I won't believe it.
Too late. :)

I said Marxist, bacause it is the closest other than 'other' to Socialism. The only problem w/ the thinking of Communism today is we relate it to the cold war, Stalin era Russia which is about as far as you can go from Marx's origianal ideas of Communism.

Why would anyone want to say they support stalinism, that is beyond me.

I am less of a communist, more of en Evolutionary Sociolist... alright that is exactly what I am, but not many people read up on early 20th century french sociolists. I am also a strong anti-anarchist. I do not see any corilation between sociolism/communism and anarchism

I'm a Trotskyist. I basically believe in democratic rights but a strong central structure. I'm sceptical of the DOP and actually rather hate it. I disagree with leninists because their system easily becomes abused and turned into Stalinism which tyrannical and has killed millions. Anarcho-Communists are unrealistic. Crime and robbery would be abundant. Maoism is just Stalinism except rooted in the country, and wtf is a Luxembergist? I mean I know who he is but who gave him a branch?


This is right on, I support Trotskyism, but like the way evolutionary comes to be better, but since evolutionary isnt an option, its trotsky

I am hardcore capitalist, and thus have absolutely no reason to be writing this.
Pretty much the same here. :p

BTW It's nice to see people exploring and learning about different branches of socialism/communism. Especially if they're capitalists because it doesn't make them look like ignorant snobs.
A good capitalist has to know his/her enemy well. ;)

wtf is a Luxembergist? I mean I know who he is but who gave him a branch?

SHE is Rosa Luxemburg, a member of the Startacist League, and a very influential German communist, who was assassinated in the late 1910s, or 1920, around then. Wikipedia should have an article on Luxemburgism.

You could say I'm Anarcho-Communist... But then, my idealogy is evolving beyond even that point.

I seem to be turning into an all-out Anarchist. Let people have their own capitalistic market economies if they wish, and let people live in communes, free from the stress of capitalism if they so wish.

More and more, I'm stressing complete freedom, even if that means drastic differences between relatively close areas. However, if there is to be a governing body, I still stand by my somewhat older ideals.

My reasoning for all of this is that we should all be working together, not against each other. The capitalist cities could quite easily trade and barter with Communes, and people could move between them freely.
So many flaws. You need a government for capitalism to exist.

Complete freedom sounds good but in many cases can cause conflict.

What makes you think the capitalists would be more likely to pollute or overuse resources than the communes?
Empirical evidence.

Look, just because there's no government doesn't mean there aren't laws. I'm sure it would be in the best interest of all people to pollute as little as possible. And who says there wouldn't be organisations to help keep factories clean?
How is that any different to the status quo?

What makes you think that people wouldn't be armed? Individuals armed to the teeth (a la the "Old West") are far more effective than any police force.
Also very likely to hurt themselves and other people by accident or idiocy.

But not on the individual level.

While every person in society might be benefited by society as a whole reducing pollution, their contribution to this, viewed in exclusion, will be a loss. Thus, if you make it voluntary and everyone behaves in their rational self-interest, everyone will opt out, and the environment will be destroyed.
I think it is in everyone's rational self-interest not to pollute. But people are not rational beings. They don't feel the burn of pollution immediately, so they go on doing it regardless of their life in the long term. (That said, most people do not pollute gratuitously.)

How's that? You're assuming that everyone will pollute the fuck out of the planet just to make a quick buck. That seems highly unlikely.

I think you underestimate most people's respect for the planet.
Capitalists will do exactly that. They have shown us already that they will do that.

Why would anyone want to say they support stalinism, that is beyond me.
Although Stalin was one of the most murderous communists ever, he was also one of the most successful in terms of military and economic victories. He turned the USSR into an industrialised superpower.

Capitalists will do exactly that. They have shown us already that they will do that.


Although Stalin was one of the most murderous communists ever, he was also one of the most successful in terms of military and economic victories. He turned the USSR into an industrialised superpower.

And of course, he made the USSR into an eco-friendly pollution-free zone unlike those evil capitalists. :rolleyes:

"His" victories rested solely on the skill and bravery of those who fought (those he didn't kill, that is). Giving him credit for Russia defending itself against the Nazis is like giving Truman credit for inventing the A-Bomb.

I'm an evil communist :p

And of course, he made the USSR into an eco-friendly pollution-free zone unlike those evil capitalists. :rolleyes:

"His" victories rested solely on the skill and bravery of those who fought (those he didn't kill, that is). Giving him credit for Russia defending itself against the Nazis is like giving Truman credit for inventing the A-Bomb.
Sorry if you misinterpret, but I don't admire Stalin.

I was just stating why some people might do so. Most of the Red Army's victory was due to the generals, but Stalin had the good idea of moving the factories eastwards as the war was starting, which was decisive in defeating the Germans.

His five-year plans did turn the USSR into an economic superpower, but I have no delusions that it was environmentally friendly!

If I was a hardcore Communist I would be Luxemburgist I think.

SHE is Rosa Luxemburg, a member of the Startacist League, and a very influential German communist, who was assassinated in the late 1910s, or 1920, around then. Wikipedia should have an article on Luxemburgism.

Opps... I thought she was that German person....

What makes you think the capitalists would be more likely to pollute or overuse resources than the communes?


In capitalism, you destorying the enviroment is profitable. By cutting down the rain forest, one will be able to sell it for cash and do what he/or she wishes. Thus he/she will continue to do it no matter whether it's needed or not because he'll still get cash. In communism however, cutting down the rain forest would only happen based on need. There won't be a market where you can get cash no matter the situation.

Complete freedom sounds good but in many cases can cause conflict.

exactly. In a restaurant for instance, If someone is smoking and it is unpleasant to a non-smoker, who comes first?

I said Marxist, bacause it is the closest other than 'other' to Socialism. The only problem w/ the thinking of Communism today is we relate it to the cold war, Stalin era Russia which is about as far as you can go from Marx's origianal ideas of Communism.

Actually, Trotskyism probably is the closest. Marxism-Leninism is pretty hardcore

This is right on, I support Trotskyism, but like the way evolutionary comes to be better, but since evolutionary isnt an option, its trotsky

Why would anyone want to say they support stalinism, that is beyond me.

I am less of a communist, more of en Evolutionary Sociolist... alright that is exactly what I am, but not many people read up on early 20th century french sociolists. I am also a strong anti-anarchist. I do not see any corilation between sociolism/communism and anarchism

It's nice to see there are other trots here.

Stalin is basically the Pinochet of Capitalism. They both give their idealogies a bad name. Of course Stalin gives Communism a worse name mainly because the masses are very uneducated on it and think communism is both an economic/political system rather than just an economic system.

Evolutionary Socialism is interesting. Usually Evolutionaries participate in elections. This I do, however many people think evolutionary socialism won't rid the system of capitalist tragedies like poverty. A revolution is basically a clean sheet of paper to build upon.

What makes you think the capitalists would be more likely to pollute or overuse resources than the communes?

Because capitalism is driven by selfishness and greed. Because those who succeed in capitalism are those ready to use dirty means to reach their goals, and those kind of persons don't hesitate to pollute if this can save them money. And capitalism, mathematically, give them power.

Since it looks like this thread is turning into yet another Communist/Capitalist debate, I respectfully invite all the communists on NS to stand in line. This (http://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=coada1el.jpg) line.

P.S. The yellow lettered word means bread.

Look, just because there's no government doesn't mean there aren't laws.

Well, if some laws are issued "globally" and are enforced on "communities" which refuses them, it's not really anarchism anymore, I would say.

I'm sure it would be in the best interest of all people to pollute as little as possible.

Well, not really... look at the current situation. It would also be the best interest, in the long term, for all people to pollute less. But in a competitive system like capitalism, you need to be better than the competitors on the short term, or you die before the long term. So capitalism makes people act for their short term "best interest", which is often polluting. As long as there is capitalism and competition, there will be such things...

And who says there wouldn't be organisations to help keep factories clean?

Well, those organisations are a power then. So it's not pure anarchism anymore either. They are a form of authority.

john lennonist/groucho marxist!

actualy i'm not anti-anything other then treating people bad or putting ANY idiology ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in, and since communism is just another damd idiology, just like capitolism is, only different, i guess i'm not exactly one of them either, although i AM a non-monetarist, eco-socialist, who feels that 'welfare' and infrastructure are the only justification for the existence of any government and no government that doesn't invest more then 2/3rds of its resources in 'welfare' and infrastructure and doing so in an environmentaly respectful way has any reason, let alone right, to exist.

i guess that makes me an eco-socio-anarcho-dotdotdotist.

there was a guy named kropotkin who looked like santa claws and had some pretty good ideas

=^^=
.../\...

I'm more of a Commue-meritocist.

Why didnt you put 'The stupid kind' and just erase all the other options?

What makes you think that people wouldn't be armed? Individuals armed to the teeth (a la the "Old West") are far more effective than any police force.

That's scary, for me. First, there are accidents. Guns are very dangerous, and we know that accidents with them are frequent. But then, it would make crimes much easier, and people abusing from other much easier too. Giving guns to everyone is really a bad idea, except in special situations (like when you're afraid of an external agression, or of a military coup).

More of a trot, but the ultimate goal would be Anarcho-communism, with another form of 'communism' as a way of getting there.

In communism however, cutting down the rain forest would only happen based on need. There won't be a market where you can get cash no matter the situation.

You assume that communism also provides a mechanism to tell the difference between desire and need. The communists may not need the extra fuel to keep their houses that bit warmer, for example, but that does not mean they won't desire it.

If it is of short-term benefit to the people of a commune to over-deforest, then they are as equally likely to do so as in capitalism. The fact that they may not receive cash for their endeavours does not mean they do not benefit in other ways: they may be able to farm more livestock or crops or just keep themselves warmer as a result. Similarly for creating pollution.

Why didnt you put 'The stupid kind' and just erase all the other options?

Why don't you provide intelligent and reasoned arguments for your comment?

SHE is Rosa Luxemburg, a member of the Startacist League, and a very influential German communist, who was assassinated in the late 1910s, or 1920, around then. Wikipedia should have an article on Luxemburgism.

Both Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebnecht (the leaders of the Spatacists) were killed in the Red Rising in the Ruhr, in 1919 I believe. The Freikorps captured them, mutilated them horribly, and then killed them.

But anyway, Anarcho-Communism is what I believe in myself.

Wow. I didn't know there are different kind of commies. I am not communist myself. I am libertarian.

Anarcho-communist, but i have sympathies with most forms of libertarian socialism.

snip

Greetings!! :p

El Ejército del Ebro,
rumba la rumba la rumba la.
El Ejército del Ebro,
rumba la rumba la rumba la
una noche el río pasó,
¡Ay Carmela! ¡Ay Carmela!
una noche el río pasó,
¡Ay Carmela! ¡Ay Carmela!

Y a las tropas invasoras,
rumba la rumba la rumba la.
Y a las tropas invasoras,
rumba la rumba la rumba la
buena paliza les dio,
¡Ay Carmela! ¡Ay Carmela!
buena paliza les dio,
¡Ay Carmela! ¡Ay Carmela!

El furor de los traidores,
rumba la rumba la rumba la.
El furor de los traidores,
rumba la rumba la rumba la
lo descarga su aviación,
¡Ay Carmela! ¡Ay Carmela!
lo descarga su aviación,
¡Ay Carmela! ¡Ay Carmela!

Pero nada pueden bombas,
rumba la rumba la rumba la.
Pero nada pueden bombas,
rumba la rumba la rumba la
donde sobra corazón,
¡Ay Carmela! ¡Ay Carmela!
donde sobra corazón,
¡Ay Carmela! ¡Ay Carmela!

Contraataques muy rabiosos,
rumba la rumba la rumba la.
Contraataques muy rabiosos,
rumba la rumba la rumba la
deberemos resistir,
¡Ay Carmela! ¡Ay Carmela!
deberemos resistir,
¡Ay Carmela! ¡Ay Carmela!

Pero igual que combatimos,
rumba la rumba la rumba la.
Pero igual que combatimos,
rumba la rumba la rumba la
prometemos combatir,
¡Ay Carmela! ¡Ay Carmela!
prometemos combatir,
¡Ay Carmela! ¡Ay Carmela!

=======================

Amarrado a la cadena
de la inicua explotación
con amor camina el paria
hacia la revolución

Marcha en pos de la anarquía,
y el yugo debe finir
con amor, paz y alegría
de una existencia feliz.

Donde los hombre sean libres,
libres cual la luz del sol,
donde todo sea belleza,
libertad, flores y amor.

¡Libertad amada,
tu eres mi único anhelo,
tu eres mi ensueño,
tu eres mi amor!

En la celda del castillo
de Montjuich, número cuatro
no llevaron conducidos
presos e incomunicados.

Sin delito cometido
nos llevan a prisión,
debilitan nuestras fuerzas
y aumentan nuestro valor.

Ya cansado estoy del yugo,
obreros, no más sufrir,
que el burgués es un verdugo,
tirano y policía vil.

¡Libertad amada,
tu eres mi único anhelo,
tu eres mi ensueño,
tu eres mi amor!

Las cárceles y castillos
tendremos que derribar,
nos engañan los caudillos,
nos roban la libertad.

Well, I wouldn't define myself as Communist- merely left leaning in some areas... a centre-leftist overall...

Bah! My compass score is more accurate at explaining it...

Marxist, denouncing Stalinism.

Marxism is the original communism, no heirachy, all help in community, switching jobs so its fair, production for need not selling. Common ownership of land.

Anarcho communism is marxism with a different name.

snip

Or you may like:

http://idd003x0.eresmas.net/mp3/The%20Fifth%20Regiment.mp3

El dieciocho de julio
en el patio de un convento
el pueblo madrileño
fundó el Quinto Regimiento.

Venga jaleo, jaleo
suena la ametralladora
y Franco se va a paseo,
y Franco se va a paseo.

Con Líster, el Campesino,
con Galán y con Modesto
con el comandante Carlos
no hay miliciano, con miedo.

Venga jaleo, jaleo
Suena la ametralladora
y Franco se va a paseo,
y Franco se va a paseo.

Con los cuatro batallones
que Madrid están defendiendo
se va lo mejor de España
la flor más roja del pueblo.

Venga jaleo, jaleo
suena la ametralladora
y Franco se va a paseo,
y Franco se va a paseo.

Con el quinto, quinto, quinto,
con el Quinto Regimiento
madre yo me voy al frente
para las líneas de fuego.

Venga jaleo, jaleo
suena la ametralladora
y Franco se va a paseo,
y Franco se va a paseo.

Lenin and Mao are traitors to true communism. Both made their revolutions dependant on the petty bourgeois peasants, and so disenfranchised the proletariat. Both placed revolutionary activity in the hands of a vanguard party, thus denying the existance of a revolutionary proletariat, and setting the stage for the Communist Party to become the ruling class. Tey set up three-class systems of the peasantry, proletariat, and communist party, instead of a classless society, and made the Party the ruling class rather than instituting the dictatorship of the proletariat. Their revolutions thus are anathema to true communism, and are the reason that I support a Marxist position.

comrade Gallipoli-China

I am probably more Marxist than I voted, but I simply love Trotsky...

I hate Stalin and am not a big fan of Mao either.

Oh, and anarcho-communism doesn't really exist. Although certain types of anarchism and communism are based on mutualism and community, private property exists in anarchism.

Oh, and thanks to whomever created this poll for not including Stalinism in the list. Stalinism is a cult of personality coupledwith a vast totalitarian state. It has absolutely nothing to do with communism.

I love trotsky too, but he was more of a Marxist than anything else. Still, you have to admire his anti-stalinism. By the way, that post above denouncing anarchism and stalinism was mine.

Comrade Gallipoli-China

Anarcho communism is marxism with a different name.

No, anarcho communism says that the capitalist state will be destroyed and nothing should replace it, no state, no system of control, nothing.

Marxism states that when capitalist state is destroyed, it will be replaced by a workers state that will be able to destroy the class system, thus destroying the need for a state.

Also there are several crucial differences between the way Marxists and anarchists organise, but I can't be arsed with that right now.

On another note, big up to all my trotskyist brothers and sisters.

I would have put Socialism but being as it isn't there I will go for Marxism.

Don't really like Stalin or Mao due to the millions of there own people they killed during both countries genocide's.

No, anarcho communism says that the capitalist state will be destroyed and nothing should replace it, no state, no system of control, nothing.

Since anarchism will replace the state with a decentralized democratic model of political organization that would indeed be capable of defending the gains of a revolution, this criticism is unjustified.

Marxism states that when capitalist state is destroyed, it will be replaced by a workers state that will be able to destroy the class system, thus destroying the need for a state.

A "workers state" that will be one of two things:

1. A decentralized democratic model of political organization, as many libertarian Marxists have proposed, and which compels the question: if that is a "state", what is "statelessness"?
2. An authoritarian statist model of political organization, where "democracy" is irrelevant to major decisions and where the party elite dominates the system. In that case, the question must be asked: how can you expect to eradicate the class system if you are building another one?

I'm just misunderstood.
Me to, constantly people are jumping conclusions. "Ooo.. A commie he must like Stalin, and support ditatorships!". When the truth is I support democracy, and although Stalin did industrialized Russia, "the ends do not justify the means". I dont have a specific Communist idealology.

Since anarchism will replace the state with a decentralized democratic model of political organization that would indeed be capable of defending the gains of a revolution, this criticism is unjustified.
It wasn't a criticism, if I wanted to start criticising anarchy I would. I was stating that the role of anarchy is not to replace one state with a different form of state, but to destroy the state altogether.



A "workers state" that will be one of two things:

1. A decentralized democratic model of political organization, as many libertarian Marxists have proposed, and which compels the question: if that is a "state", what is "statelessness"?

Why does everything democratic have to be decentralized to anarchists?

All seriousness though, a state= monopoly of violence and means of oppression of one class by another. Abolish the classes, abolish the monopoly held on violence and we abolish the state.




2. An authoritarian statist model of political organization, where "democracy" is irrelevant to major decisions and where the party elite dominates the system. In that case, the question must be asked: how can you expect to eradicate the class system if you are building another one?

How is a party elite a "class"? I'm not arguing for a party elite, Im just saying that it's completely incorrect to call those in command a seperate class, as it completely ignores the economic relations of the country.


I've also noticed that you've given us the "libertarian Marxist" [anarchist] option and the only other one appears to be the "Totalitarian Stalinist Dictatorship" option. Oh dear. Both are incorrect models to follow.

It wasn't a criticism, if I wanted to start criticising anarchy I would. I was stating that the role of anarchy is not to replace one state with a different form of state, but to destroy the state altogether.

You said that anarchism would replace the capitalist state with nothing, which is false.

Why does everything democratic have to be decentralized to anarchists?

Because centralized democracy is not democracy at all. At best you are choosing from limited options who is going to rule you for the next few years, not running the system yourself. The result is the concentration of power in an elite, which begins to entrench itself and weaken democracy.

All seriousness though, a state= monopoly of violence and means of oppression of one class by another. Abolish the classes, abolish the monopoly held on violence and we abolish the state.

Why wait? Expropriate the means of production, and you've abolished the classes. Put the means of violence in the hands of the people and the institutions of grass-roots political power (workers councils, etc.) and you've abolished the monopoly of violence. Neither is going to make capitalism come back.

How is a party elite a "class"? I'm not arguing for a party elite, Im just saying that it's completely incorrect to call those in command a seperate class, as it completely ignores the economic relations of the country.

That is irrelevant to my point, because whether or not you want to call it a "ruling class" it is still a group of people with power concentrated in their hands, and just like any other group of people with power concentrated in their hands they will seek to retain that power.

Furthermore, since the state controls the means of production and the party elite dominates the state, there is definitely an unequal economic relation there.

I've also noticed that you've given us the "libertarian Marxist" [anarchist] option and the only other one appears to be the "Totalitarian Stalinist Dictatorship" option. Oh dear. Both are incorrect models to follow.

No, a "Totalitarian Stalinist Dictatorship" wouldn't be a workers state at all, rather a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship. I was thinking of Leninism, mostly, or left-wing social democracy for that matter, where the primary engine of working-class power is the centralized authority of the party and the state it controls. Perhaps that is an improvement over the state being the enforcer of capitalist property relations, but nevertheless, we can do better.

You said that anarchism would replace the capitalist state with nothing, which is false.
Im sorry, that was an oversimplified statement. Anarchy would replace the capitalist state with its own organs of, well not power. Power implies authority. Organs of decision making? Well, there aint gonna be too many decisions made if we need a consensus...



Because centralized democracy is not democracy at all. At best you are choosing from limited options who is going to rule you for the next few years, not running the system yourself. The result is the concentration of power in an elite, which begins to entrench itself and weaken democracy.

You're thinking of the current unaccountable electoral system, which is not something to be emulated. A centralised democracy which does have accountability, recallability, bureaucratic rotation, limits on time and number of positions, etc. would be a democracy that doesn't concentrate power within the hands of a few.


Why wait? Expropriate the means of production, and you've abolished the classes. Put the means of violence in the hands of the people and the institutions of grass-roots political power (workers councils, etc.) and you've abolished the monopoly of violence. Neither is going to make capitalism come back.

Yes but unfortunately is that there will be a period when... guess what?... the ruling class you have overthrown will want what they had back. Until that threat has been diminished the power has to lie in the hands of the working class, and not the former bourgeoisie.


That is irrelevant to my point, because whether or not you want to call it a "ruling class" it is still a group of people with power concentrated in their hands, and just like any other group of people with power concentrated in their hands they will seek to retain that power.[quote]

I didn't say I advocated a party elite, though did I? I just object to using the word "class" to define them as it is a completely incorrect label.

[quote]
Furthermore, since the state controls the means of production and the party elite dominates the state, there is definitely an unequal economic relation there.


But it is not a direct ownership of the means of production by individuals. They aren't a class.


No, a "Totalitarian Stalinist Dictatorship" wouldn't be a workers state at all, rather a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship. I was thinking of Leninism, mostly, or left-wing social democracy for that matter, where the primary engine of working-class power is the centralized authority of the party and the state it controls. Perhaps that is an improvement over the state being the enforcer of capitalist property relations, but nevertheless, we can do better.

Centralised authority is necessary for a period if we are to ever achieve communism. We can't expect capitalism to lie down for us.

Im sorry, that was an oversimplified statement. Anarchy would replace the capitalist state with its own organs of, well not power. Power implies authority. Organs of decision making? Well, there aint gonna be too many decisions made if we need a consensus...

No one sane would require unanimous consent for every decision. Nor do most anarchists. It is true that anarchists would probably respect the right of a disgruntled minority to disassociate itself from the community, sure. If the capitalists, after the means of production are seized, decide to go build and work a farm on unoccupied land instead of participating in socialism, they would have that right.

You're thinking of the current unaccountable electoral system, which is not something to be emulated. A centralised democracy which does have accountability, recallability, bureaucratic rotation, limits on time and number of positions, etc. would be a democracy that doesn't concentrate power within the hands of a few.

But you still have a small number of people organizing society from the top down. In order for democracy to be real you have to have the constant involvement of the population in governance, and that requires decentralization.

Yes but unfortunately is that there will be a period when... guess what?... the ruling class you have overthrown will want what they had back. Until that threat has been diminished the power has to lie in the hands of the working class, and not the former bourgeoisie.

So how will the capitalists regain control in an anarchist society? Will the revolutionary proletariat just decide to let them take control of the factories again? The people are not sheep; even without the benevolent guidance of the vanguard party, they are perfectly capable of resisting the herding of the capitalist class. If they are not, why not just keep what we have now?

But it is not a direct ownership of the means of production by individuals. They aren't a class.

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle." The "history of all hitherto existing society" is not, according to Marx, the history of the "direct ownership of the means of production by individuals"; quite to the contrary.

So, assuming you are talking about the Marxist conception of a "class," your argument is flawed. Class systems are indeed based, in Marxist thought, on economic relations, but capitalism is not the only inegalitarian system of economic relations.

Centralised authority is necessary for a period if we are to ever achieve communism. We can't expect capitalism to lie down for us.

And we won't. We'll abolish it, and replace it with something else - ourselves.

... I am not.

You assume that communism also provides a mechanism to tell the difference between desire and need. The communists may not need the extra fuel to keep their houses that bit warmer, for example, but that does not mean they won't desire it.

If it is of short-term benefit to the people of a commune to over-deforest, then they are as equally likely to do so as in capitalism. The fact that they may not receive cash for their endeavours does not mean they do not benefit in other ways: they may be able to farm more livestock or crops or just keep themselves warmer as a result. Similarly for creating pollution.

The point is that when things are made for profit, they'll be made non-stop because there will always be a buyer. When things are made based on need/desire people, people won't make it non-stop because there isn't a hypothetical unlimited supply of buyers.

Centralised authority is necessary for a period if we are to ever achieve communism. We can't expect capitalism to lie down for us.


Which is why there should be some sort of Vanguard party that is elected during the revolution, but no DOP. There should immediatly be a strict constitution that is adopted that collectives, assigns jobs, etc.. with certain unamendable laws and other amendable ones.

Me to, constantly people are jumping conclusions. "Ooo.. A commie he must like Stalin, and support ditatorships!". When the truth is I support democracy, and although Stalin did industrialized Russia, "the ends do not justify the means". I dont have a specific Communist idealology.

You sound like a Trotskyist to me. Democracy, structure, and equality.

There should immediatly be a strict constitution that is adopted that collectives, assigns jobs, etc.. with certain unamendable laws and other amendable ones.

And who writes this "strict constitution"?

I'm the kind of communist who goes around killing facists. Whatever kind that is.
:sniper:

No one sane would require unanimous consent for every decision. Nor do most anarchists. It is true that anarchists would probably respect the right of a disgruntled minority to disassociate itself from the community, sure. If the capitalists, after the means of production are seized, decide to go build and work a farm on unoccupied land instead of participating in socialism, they would have that right.

But if even one person is being forced to carry out a decision that they don't agree with, then somebody else's authority has prevailed over that human being's right to live as he/she chooses. That's not very anarchist of you.



But you still have a small number of people organizing society from the top down. In order for democracy to be real you have to have the constant involvement of the population in governance, and that requires decentralization.


But soviet democracy does require constant involvement of the workers, i don't know where you get this idea that it's not. There's also not a top-down structure as the people who have elected somebody can instantly recall them when they feel it's necessary. And I don't mean in the "don't vote for them next time" thing, as in can actually remove them from power.


So how will the capitalists regain control in an anarchist society? Will the revolutionary proletariat just decide to let them take control of the factories again? The people are not sheep; even without the benevolent guidance of the vanguard party, they are perfectly capable of resisting the herding of the capitalist class. If they are not, why not just keep what we have now?


Firstly, I've just gotta say this. Anarchism cannot be a revolutionary belief system, as Leon said-
"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is."
Doesn't really tie in with the "against all authority" stuff does it?

Secondly, an anarchist society cannot protect itself because there can be no central co-ordination of your forces, supplies, etc. Also, there are problems in the fact that some brutal things will have to be done which once again goes anarchist theory.



So, assuming you are talking about the Marxist conception of a "class," your argument is flawed. Class systems are indeed based, in Marxist thought, on economic relations, but capitalism is not the only inegalitarian system of economic relations.


Okay, sorry I fucked that up a bit. I'm used to talking about state capitalism, not the general view of the bureaucrats and party elites as a "class". But anyway, no. They weren't a class.


And we won't. We'll abolish it, and replace it with something else - ourselves.

What is this hippy nonsense? How does that make any sense?

john lennonist

Stoned Hypocrite Communist?

What makes you think that people wouldn't be armed? Individuals armed to the teeth (a la the "Old West") are far more effective than any police force.
The "Old West", whether you're thinking of the Hollywood creation or of the actual old West, was nowhere near an ideal society.

Oh, and anarcho-communism doesn't really exist. Although certain types of anarchism and communism are based on mutualism and community, private property exists in anarchism.
How can private property exist in anarchism? It's just a legal concept which necessitates a state to defend it.

Although Stalin was one of the most murderous communists ever, he was also one of the most successful in terms of military and economic victories. He turned the USSR into an industrialised superpower.

True, but the results didn't justify the means. The USA was also an industrialised superpower, and capitalism got it to that point without the incredible waste and inefficiency of Stalin's Five Year plans.

But if even one person is being forced to carry out a decision that they don't agree with, then somebody else's authority has prevailed over that human being's right to live as he/she chooses. That's not very anarchist of you.

No one is stopping anyone from leaving, and an effort would be made to prevent a monopolization of the options. Anyway, it is the lesser evil; consensus means tyranny of the minority, however small.

But soviet democracy does require constant involvement of the workers, i don't know where you get this idea that it's not.

I see. So every worker is going to lead the "centralized democracy"? In what sense, then, is it "centralized"?

There's also not a top-down structure as the people who have elected somebody can instantly recall them when they feel it's necessary. And I don't mean in the "don't vote for them next time" thing, as in can actually remove them from power.

But do they know what's going on? Hierarchies are very good at making themselves unaccountable, whatever democratic forms are added; the experience of bourgeois democracy should prove that.

Firstly, I've just gotta say this. Anarchism cannot be a revolutionary belief system, as Leon said-
"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is."

Engels, actually.

Doesn't really tie in with the "against all authority" stuff does it?

Yes, it does. The revolution is the rejection of authority, at least a certain kind of authority - the authority of the capitalist. The only sort of "freedom" that it does away with is the "freedom" to rule.

Secondly, an anarchist society cannot protect itself because there can be no central co-ordination of your forces, supplies, etc. Also, there are problems in the fact that some brutal things will have to be done which once again goes anarchist theory.

Sure there can be coordination. Just because people are equal does not mean that they are unwilling to cooperate.

Brutality on the whole tends to hurt the cause of the revolution more than it helps; it multiplies resistance, alienates moderates, and overall is a very messy way of accomplishing the objective. Keeping the blood to a minimum is probably advisable in most revolutionary situations; far too many bloody revolutions have resulted in despicable tyrannies. That said, if brutality does end up being necessary, anarchists are just as capable of being brutal as Leninists are.

Okay, sorry I fucked that up a bit. I'm used to talking about state capitalism, not the general view of the bureaucrats and party elites as a "class". But anyway, no. They weren't a class.

Sure they were. They had a particular role within society, one accompanied both by economic and political privileges.

What is this hippy nonsense? How does that make any sense?

"Hippy nonsense"? The notion of proletarian emancipation by the action of the proletariat itself predates the hippie movement by over a century. It is one of the better contributions of Marxism.

And who writes this "strict constitution"?

The people, a volunteer, a leader. Than it's voted on until it is agreed on by at least 2/3 of the people

I'm a Democratic Socialist. That way, you don't end up with some Stalinist dictator.

Just a plain socialist, which isn't the same thing, I know.

I don't acknowledge Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh etc. as communists, merely as despots, dictators who make their own principles.

What is this hippy nonsense? How does that make any sense?

I suggest you change your tone a little, you sound like a broken record of McCarthy speeches.

I'm a communalist.

Maoist. Although I sport the Soviet hammer & sickle on my nation as it is just a badass flag.

I'm more of a Thoreauist, if that counts.

No one is stopping anyone from leaving, and an effort would be made to prevent a monopolization of the options. Anyway, it is the lesser evil; consensus means tyranny of the minority, however small.

Oh great, everyone with a different point of view starts up their own community. I'm sure that will work out perfectly.



I see. So every worker is going to lead the "centralized democracy"? In what sense, then, is it "centralized"?

Because leaders are still picked and are still involved in decision making processes which can be rushed under extreme circumstances (obviously with safe guards to protect ultimate worker control). The decisions are binding for everywhere, but individual cases can be reviewed.


But do they know what's going on? Hierarchies are very good at making themselves unaccountable, whatever democratic forms are added; the experience of bourgeois democracy should prove that.

Thats because their entire economic system was based on exploitation and inequality. Funny that.


Engels, actually.

My mistake, comrade


Yes, it does. The revolution is the rejection of authority, at least a certain kind of authority - the authority of the capitalist. The only sort of "freedom" that it does away with is the "freedom" to rule.

Yes but on a practical level you will be killing people who don't want to be killed. How much authority can you hold over someone when you already have power of life and death over them?


Sure there can be coordination. Just because people are equal does not mean that they are unwilling to cooperate.

I didn't say that, it's just without any organs of power a state brings it will be incredibly difficult to coordinate it on a national level.


Brutality on the whole tends to hurt the cause of the revolution more than it helps; it multiplies resistance, alienates moderates, and overall is a very messy way of accomplishing the objective. Keeping the blood to a minimum is probably advisable in most revolutionary situations; far too many bloody revolutions have resulted in despicable tyrannies. That said, if brutality does end up being necessary, anarchists are just as capable of being brutal as Leninists are.

I don't say brutality aint a bad thing, but it will be necessary- assassinations, executions, perhaps even some good old fashioned war communism. Like I said, your belief system is "against all authority" and these acts, in and of themselves, though done for a liberating cause, are highly authoritarian.


Sure they were. They had a particular role within society, one accompanied both by economic and political privileges.


I can't be bothered to get into this debate. I've seen it take up too many pages.


"Hippy nonsense"? The notion of proletarian emancipation by the action of the proletariat itself predates the hippie movement by over a century. It is one of the better contributions of Marxism.

No I wasn't saying your beliefs were hippy nonsense, I congratulate you on being a revolutionary, takes you away from the reformist hippy bollocks. Its just that statement you made at the end.

Maoist. Although I sport the Soviet hammer & sickle on my nation as it is just a badass flag.

Oh so support the massacre of the people?

I'm a Democratic Socialist. That way, you don't end up with some Stalinist dictator.

Basically what Trotskyists want. Democratic Communism.

Oh great, everyone with a different point of view starts up their own community. I'm sure that will work out perfectly.

It won't be significant. Most people, even today where conditions are pretty horrible in some places, stay where they are. The only reason I brought up the point was to illustrate the fact that a truly disgruntled minority would have other options than simple accede to the majority.

Because leaders are still picked and are still involved in decision making processes which can be rushed under extreme circumstances (obviously with safe guards to protect ultimate worker control). The decisions are binding for everywhere, but individual cases can be reviewed.

Then the workers are not involved in running the system. They are bystanders who occassionally attain the opportunity to participate temporarily.

Thats because their entire economic system was based on exploitation and inequality. Funny that.

But it isn't like you're going to have worker self-management in the "workers state," either, so "exploitation and inequality" aren't going to go away just because you proclaim socialism.

Yes but on a practical level you will be killing people who don't want to be killed. How much authority can you hold over someone when you already have power of life and death over them?

True. Practically, there will definitely be abuses; that's why long and bloody revolutions are things to be avoided.

I didn't say that, it's just without any organs of power a state brings it will be incredibly difficult to coordinate it on a national level.

In all likelihood, the various workers councils would freely agree to some kind of central coordination in the event of a protracted struggle like the Russian Civil War. The crucial elements would be voluntary association and the maintenance of most political power directly in the hands of the grass-roots workers councils.

I don't say brutality aint a bad thing, but it will be necessary- assassinations, executions, perhaps even some good old fashioned war communism.

Maybe. No brutality was necessary in, say, the rebellion that led to the Paris Commune; it happened, but it was hardly necessary. Though considering that it was crushed a few months afterward, I suppose its applicability could be questioned.

Like I said, your belief system is "against all authority" and these acts, in and of themselves, though done for a liberating cause, are highly authoritarian.

In a revolutionary situation, some authoritarianism would probably be necessary towards the capitalist class. The issue for me is how to organize the society created by the workers.

No I wasn't saying your beliefs were hippy nonsense, I congratulate you on being a revolutionary, takes you away from the reformist hippy bollocks.

I don't know if I can accept the label "revolutionary." I don't hold to a strict ideological position; the working class should organize itself and use whatever means available to emancipate itself. With our current elitist political system, it definitely cannot occur solely through electoral means, independent working class action is necessary, but I could see at least theoretical circumstances where an elected left-wing party would be beneficial to achieving socialism.

Definitely, I reject the notion that a revolution must be a protracted, violent insurgency. Such things do not tend to end very well, and are probably unnecessary in industrialized countries anyway. A nation-wide uprising of the sort that led to the Paris Commune, or the exploitation of a political vacuum as occurred in the Spanish Revolution, are probably the models to follow.

Oh so support the massacre of the people?


Basically what Trotskyists want. Democratic Communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_uprising

http://www.wholewheatblogger.com/weblog/images/potandkettle250x150.jpg


;)

What's the difference between an anarcho-communist and an anarcho-syndicalist? They sound awful similar to me.

Poor Tito. He doesn't seem to have any followers on NS. :P

How can private property exist in anarchism? It's just a legal concept which necessitates a state to defend it.

So, Robinson Crusoe didn't own anything?

What's the difference between an anarcho-communist and an anarcho-syndicalist? They sound awful similar to me.Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of market socialism, whereas anarcho-communism is usually not market socialist, which is why I am an anarcho-communist, as I am against the concept of markets.

So, Robinson Crusoe didn't own anything?No, he simply used things. Use =!= ownership.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of market socialism, whereas anarcho-communism is usually not market socialist, which is why I am an anarcho-communist, as I am against the concept of markets.

Anarcho-syndicalism doesn't have to involve markets. It's basically just anarchist socialism based off industrial organization, which looks to trade unions as the driving force of revolutionary change. I voted for it to make explicit my identification with worker association-based anarchist socialism rather than utopian commune-like versions along the lines of the Kibbutz movement.

Anarcho-syndicalism doesn't have to involve markets. It's basically just anarchist socialism based off industrial organization, which looks to trade unions as the driving force of revolutionary change. I voted for it to make explicit my identification with worker association-based anarchist socialism rather than utopian commune-like versions along the lines of the Kibbutz movement.Don't those trade unions typically take control of the means of production and then trade on the market? What would anarcho-syndicalism say would happen next after the trade unions took power?

I'm a Trotskyist. I basically believe in democratic rights but a strong central structure. I'm sceptical of the DOP and actually rather hate it. I disagree with leninists because their system easily becomes abused and turned into Stalinism which tyrannical and has killed millions. Anarcho-Communists are unrealistic. Crime and robbery would be abundant. Maoism is just Stalinism except rooted in the country, and wtf is a Luxembergist? I mean I know who he is but who gave him a branch?

BTW It's nice to see people exploring and learning about different branches of socialism/communism. Especially if they're capitalists because it doesn't make them look like ignorant snobs.

Bingo! Right here am I, with you!