Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Otter

Anarchy, Socialism, Communism, and community gardens

Recommended Posts

CBH

Since it's apparently confusing I'll clarify. I wasn't saying 'eliminate the individual' nor was I saying that the individual shouldn't have a right to their own opinions. I was saying- if you'd bothered to quote the complete sentence- that we should eliminate individual interest which conflict with society. So, instead of wanting an SUV, you want a new light rail system. Instead of wanting to find the finest wine, you want society to produce better wines etc.

Except that you, Melchior, as an anarchist, continually denounce any mechanism to do this. Be they peaceful or violent.

 

We could set up an organization - let's call it something short and catchy, like "Communist Party" - which teaches positive communal values and discourages the negative, selfish ones.

 

We could also take measures to deal with those who cannot be reasoned with. If someone's opinion is "socialism is bad, you should give the MoP back to capitalists and return to your slums", then it would be sensible to exclude them from the political process. Why? Because it's plainly obvious what they would try to do with it.

 

In the extreme case, where that person decides to take action, and arms himself and likeminded people, and attempts counterrevolution, then we could lock him up and have him do something useful instead. If you're in a developed country perhaps they could do office work. If you're in somewhere chronically undeveloped then perhaps they could be used to mine coal or dig new canals or something.

 

Yet because you are anarchist, you refuse. You denounce those who've actually had to deal with these problems as evil. I suppose the Correct Anarchist Tactic is to just cross your fingers and hope every reactionary in the world, everywhere, has a change of heart? You can't violate your principles by coercing anyone! That would mean you were an authority, and you could never make yourself that, right?

 

Of course not. You have already admitted in the past - both you personally in words, and historical anarchists in deeds - that when Anarchism's utopian ideals fail, you can always just suspend them and start ordering people about at gunpoint. Yet you denounce those who don't have these ideals to break in the first place. (Anarchists: Military dictatorship is only bad when they're not in charge™)

 

This is one of the biggest contradictions of your ideology. You want a society that functions properly based on the values of anarchism. But the values of anarchism are such that any way of dealing with non-anarchists past leafleting automatically violates them. So you're just left with an idea that can only work if literally every single member of the population is already anarchist.

 

It's like loudly telling everyone how good it would be if your safe was open. Where is the key? Locked safely inside!

Edited by CBH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

We could set up an organization - let's call it something short and catchy, like "Communist Party" - which teaches positive communal values and discourages the negative, selfish ones.

Or we could have an organic, grassroots movement with a nice indicative name like 'the anarchist movement' that does all of those things but doesn't rely on a (no longer existent) imperial power to make progress, and that doesn't convince unscrupulous intellectuals that they can ride a revolution to a position of personal power.

 

I'm not sure our lack of an International Anarchist HQ is as much a problem as you're making it out to be.

 

 

 

We could also take measures to deal with those who cannot be reasoned with. If someone's opinion is "socialism is bad, you should give the MoP back to capitalists and return to your slums", then it would be sensible to exclude them from the political process. Why? Because it's plainly obvious what they would try to do with it.

 

In the extreme case, where that person decides to take action, and arms himself and likeminded people, and attempts counterrevolution, then we could lock him up and have him do something useful instead. If you're in a developed country perhaps they could do office work. If you're in somewhere chronically undeveloped then perhaps they could be used to mine coal or dig new canals or something.

Yeah and we'll have a small minority of the population handle that, right? We'll also kidnap the children of military officials and make them work for us. Of course I'd want to put a damper on all that once Capitalism is abolished, the MLs would be cool with that right? It wouldn't be like all those authoritarian leftist revolutions in the past where the anarchists were executed for suggesting the Vanguard shouldn't rule as a new elite?

 

 

 

Of course not. You have already admitted in the past - both you personally in words, and historical anarchists in deeds - that when Anarchism's utopian ideals fail, you can always just suspend them and start ordering people about at gunpoint. Yet you denounce those who don't have these ideals to break in the first place. (Anarchists: Military dictatorship is only bad when they're not in charge™)

lol anarchist societies were not 'military dictatorships.' There's a substantial difference between capturing POWs and setting up slave labour camps, and there's a difference between executing counter revolutionaries and executing literally anyone who disagrees, including leftists that have any disagreement with the new bosses whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Niobium

gotta love when people mix up anarchism with ML-ism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

Kropotkin is one of those rare figures who are loved by radical leftists of all tendencies, sort of like Rosa Luxemburg. That "Conquest of Bread" is really great, and this is coming from a Marxist. Rudolf Rocker is great too, I just started reading his stuff to get a feel for non-Marxist perspectives on syndicalism and his writing is very clear and straightforward.

Socialist friends, what type of economy do you guys advocate? Decentralized planning, market socialism, something else?

Edited by Black_MiD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CaptainMental

I dont understand why anyone would think communism would be a good idea. Its been tried many times and every time it failed. It has ended with starvation, oppression, corruption, stagnation, poverty, no freedom of speech or art, indoctrination, imperialism, massive inflation, militarism, torture, mass murder. Communism has killed more people than any other political ideology in the world.

 

And everytime there will be dumbasses saying "Hey, lets try this again, this time we promise it will be different!" or "All the other times this ideology has been tried they didnt do it right, it wasnt real communism, promise!". Like that would work defending nationalsocialism: "Hey, Hitler wasnt really nationalsocialist, this time around nationalsocialism wont commit any massmurders, I promise!".

 

The worst dumbasses are those who think that a anarchistic society would work. Or even that a communist society could be a path to anarchism for a society.

 

When will people learn....? *sigh*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hayduke

Well I don't understand why you thought posting that meaningless tripe would be a good idea, yet here we are.

Edited by Hayduke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz
Its been tried many times and every time it failed.

Not really, it was successful every single time it was tried, as history has it, and socialist or at least socialized modes of production continue to demonstrate their superiority to this day. I'm talking about socialism, which means workers' control of the means of production, distribution etc... But, according to expert political theorists like you, sir, when a hyper capitalist nation has a hammer and sickle in their flag, they're immediately socialist, even if not a single aspect of their society and economy even remotely resembles socialism and is just a reaffirmation of capitalist relations! Similarly, if I say that my chair is actually a table, it magically becomes a table... God, I love that liberal logic. Out of the more "mainstream" examples of socialism, the only one you can actually call socialist is Yugoslavia, as workers actually had control over production. Coincidentally, many people felt impelled to f*ck it over, even as soon as 1973, when the oil crisis occurred, as there were attempts to strangle Yugoslavia economically and stifle their market socialism.

 

starvation

http://www.poverty.com/

You know what's extra funny? Considering the USSR, Maoist China and similar regimes were state capitalist, you can add every single person that starved under them to the total number of deaths brought about by capitalism. Also, nice fifth-grade vision of the international framework of the Cold War, dumbass. Did you get that from the old McCarthyist cartoons?

 

oppression

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange_Espa%C3%B1ola_Tradicionalista_y_de_las_Juntas_de_Ofensiva_Nacional_Sindicalista

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_occupation_of_East_Timor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estado_Novo_%28Portugal%29

I could go on... I will if you want.

 

corruption, stagnation, poverty,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism

 

You know you're an idiot when your entire rambling can be shut down by simple Wikipedia links, m8. As for corruption, you support a system that is literally based on theft, so hmm, learn economics maybe?

 

no freedom of speech or art

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Mayakovsky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Neruda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Picasso

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwellhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#The_Spanish_Civil_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Saramago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_Padura_Fuentes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ary_dos_Santos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#Soviet_Union

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Hemingway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Davis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Ehrenreich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lvaro_Cunhal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Yesenin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#Politics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Wilde

 

Apparently none of those people existed... huh. Oh, by the way, did you know a good deal of them were arrested and tortured? Yes, under capitalist regimes! Oscar Wilde was jailed for being gay, Angela Davis was imprisoned for her Black Panthers activity (she had this radical idea that black people should have civil rights as well!), Ernest Hemingway was so intensely spied upon that he eventually became paranoid and committed suicide, Álvaro Cunhal was tortured and left with huge mental scars etc. etc.

 

The worst dumbasses are those who think that a anarchistic society would work. Or even that a communist society could be a path to anarchism for a society.

I'm not even an anarchist, but this sh*t is just too dumb. Here, educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Aragon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution_of_1936

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Korea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation

 

Socialist modes of production have been making their superiority known for quite a while now. The best thing about them is that they're actually democratic, as workers have control, and function with their interests in mind, as opposed to making some f*cking parasite rich through other people's work. As for how large-scale cooperative and socialist (or, well, socialized, as many are still trapped under a capitalist superstructure) production works, here's something to look at. Capital needs labor; labor doesn't need capital. 'Boss' is an utterly parasitic and useless position:

 

 

When will you sorry-ass liberals learn that you can't join a discussion on an ideological tradition with about 200 years of philosophy and a dense economic background without having read a page of anything related to it? I was asking other socialists here about heterodox economics, buddy, I wasn't really interested in a dumb rant by some "pro-West" wingnut who's so caught up in his pretentious attempt at "realism" (lol) that he feels the need not only to strawman anything that challenges the status quo, but also to rabidly insult his opponents for no reason at all. Open a book sometime.

Edited by Black_MiD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

I dont understand why anyone would think communism would be a good idea. Its been tried many times and every time it failed. It has ended with starvation, oppression, corruption, stagnation, poverty, no freedom of speech or art, indoctrination, imperialism, massive inflation, militarism, torture, mass murder. Communism has killed more people than any other political ideology in the world.

 

And everytime there will be dumbasses saying "Hey, lets try this again, this time we promise it will be different!" or "All the other times this ideology has been tried they didnt do it right, it wasnt real communism, promise!". Like that would work defending nationalsocialism: "Hey, Hitler wasnt really nationalsocialist, this time around nationalsocialism wont commit any massmurders, I promise!".

 

The worst dumbasses are those who think that a anarchistic society would work. Or even that a communist society could be a path to anarchism for a society.

 

When will people learn....? *sigh*

 

 

Jesus f*ck, did Glenn Beck join the topic? This is pretty much a more elaborate version of a parody post I made a while back, but this actually seems to be serious.

 

 

but even counting that, what exactly is wrong with fighting the capitalist patriarchy?

 

Because, according to Glenn Beck, it'll make you end up with a leader like Stalin, Mao, Hitler or Kim Jong-il etc.. Because all of those were progressives too, and that'll tend to eventually make you end up with eugenic policies murdering genetically inferiors (which are very progressive).. But maybe that is more something for this topic: http://gtaforums.com/topic/802974-anarchy-socialism-communism-and-community-gardens/page-7?do=findComment&comment=1067696454

 

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Socialist friends, what type of economy do you guys advocate? Decentralized planning, market socialism, something else?

There's a tendency to turn it into a discussion of what functions best and what is more productive, but I think that's a liberal impulse. It just depends on what we want- if everyone is fine with a computer, a couch, a bed and a fridge then we'd have a planned economy that builds water parks or whatever, if we want to keep producing clothing, technology, food and drugs of varying qualities we'd have a market economy. That is to say that we'd have to put firm limits on consumption, you couldn't pick up the latest gaming computer and a box fine cigars in the same week, so people would have to prioritise their standardised allowances.

 

It simply depends on how we choose to live, and one form of social organisation isn't inherently more rational than another, as long as both are socially just. Presumably a left-libertarian world would be a federation of communities with myriad forms of economic organisation; which is good because it allows technology to develop along different paths. If one community/nation focuses on scientific advancement, another on self-sustenance, another on entertainment, then they'd have a productive relationship. I suppose one that focuses on individual entertainment as we do now, is more likely to produce things like implants or like, clothes you can pee in, where as one that is focused on communal recreation might make more advancements in space and ocean exploration.

 

People should note that when we're on about 'markets' we don't mean anything resembling Capitalist markets. We mean ones with no private property or profit, 'market competition' doesn't mean firms are destroyed, it means someone makes a decision to have them reorganised or absorbed when they're out competed, so while one firm might make more money than another, this is essentially just a performance score. They wouldn't advertise or offer promotions and differences in price, and they wouldn't even control their own finances, a 'mutual bank' would. They don't get 'revenue' from the market, your money goes straight to the mutual bank when you buy something, and what a firm has to spend is partly or entirely decided by a process of the mutual bank or other central administrations as well. A conservative would probably consider this a form of central planning.

 

Likewise, 'money' in such an economy isn't an arbitrary point system of how much you can consume, it's either a rational limit system or simply a score of what and where you take things from. If your money reaches zero you can still get petrol, food, clothes, medicine, internet access just no bottles of aged cognac. Or if it's just a record system, 'negative money' might not matter and consumption is limited by social mores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

Mel, thanks for the insight! I'm primarily in favor of decentralized planning, but sympathize with market socialism as well. Yugoslavia was a particularly good experiment. I can see the advantages of MS, but I also feel that decentralized planning has never really been given enough time to develop fully, what with reactionaries crushing most the libertarian socialist communes that operated on it.

 

Short story about consumption and etiquette: a friend of mine was in Serbia earlier this year and managed to talk to an older man (who still actually identified as a Yugoslav at heart) about the old SFRY days, how work and day-to-day life were etc. The guy told him that, because factories were collectively run and there was so much cooperative labor power behind production, people generally tended to be moderate with consumption since consuming too much was socially seen as faux pas.

Edited by Black_MiD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Niobium

I dont understand why anyone would think communism would be a good idea. Its been tried many times and every time it failed. It has ended with starvation, oppression, corruption, stagnation, poverty, no freedom of speech or art, indoctrination, imperialism, massive inflation, militarism, torture, mass murder. Communism has killed more people than any other political ideology in the world.

 

1. "starvation, oppression, corruption, stagnation, poverty, no freedom of speech or art, indoctrination, imperialism, massive inflation, militarism, torture, mass murder" we already have all of those things under capitalism.
2. are you talking about russia or china being communist? because neither of these countries were socialist, let alone communist. the workers didn't own and control their workplaces and factories. the state did. ask any socialist and they will tell you that none of these countries were communist.

 

 

And everytime there will be dumbasses saying "Hey, lets try this again, this time we promise it will be different!" or "All the other times this ideology has been tried they didnt do it right, it wasnt real communism, promise!". Like that would work defending nationalsocialism: "Hey, Hitler wasnt really nationalsocialist, this time around nationalsocialism wont commit any massmurders, I promise!".

 

that was such a sh*t comparison. nazis wanted to commit genocide against non-Aryans, but communists do not want any mass starvation.

The worst dumbasses are those who think that a anarchistic society would work. Or even that a communist society could be a path to anarchism for a society.

 

no, the worst dumbasses are people who never bothered to do their research on this subject and just start spewing bullsh*t. kind of like you.

 

When will people learn....? *sigh*

 

the irony......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

7 years ago today, 15-year-old Alexandros Grigoropoulos was murdered by Greek police in the Exarchia district of Athens. In the wake of his death, thousands of anarchists took to the streets, clashing with police and attacking property for weeks on end.

 

 

 

 

Edited by make total destroy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBH

Or we could have an organic, grassroots movement with a nice indicative name like 'the anarchist movement' that does all of those things but doesn't rely on a (no longer existent) imperial power to make progress, and that doesn't convince unscrupulous intellectuals that they can ride a revolution to a position of personal power.

 

I'm not sure our lack of an International Anarchist HQ is as much a problem as you're making it out to be.

Except the Anarchist movement does not do this very well, because its effectiveness is highly limited by its refusal to coordinate its efforts. (coordinating your movement's efforts is what a formal organization is for.) This is why Anarchism has always been far behind in recruitment and mobilization. This is why anarchists collectivize abandoned buildings while MLs collectivize china.

 

The few areas where anarchists do manage effective recruitment and mobilization, they do it by creating organizations. Anti-fascist efforts are a big, glaring example. It's ironic that they carry anarchist flags because it's some of the most Leninist behavior I've seen in years. Maybe if they broadened their scope they'd get more done.

 

 

 

Yeah and we'll have a small minority of the population handle that, right?

The vanguard should be a mass organization - it should recruit as many of the working class and those who side with the working class as possible, and all must be held to account. This is the opposite of "a small minority of the population handl[ing] that".

 

 

 

We'll also kidnap the children of military officials and make them work for us. Of course I'd want to put a damper on all that once Capitalism is abolished, the MLs would be cool with that right? It wouldn't be like all those authoritarian leftist revolutions in the past where the anarchists were executed for suggesting the Vanguard shouldn't rule as a new elite?

You conflate two different things.

 

The first is the abolition of capitalism. If you more carefully considered the issue, you would know that capitalism is only defeated and unable to pose a threat when it has been abolished both worldwide and for long enough that the negative influence of the old society has faded away - so far in the future that the last generation to be socialized under capitalism have passed on. With that in mind, criticizing the socialist countries for continuing class struggle before these two conditions are met is foolish.

 

The second thing is anarchists getting rekkt by MLs. They were not "executed for suggesting the Vanguard shouldn't rule as a new elite"; they were defeated as an opposing, hostile faction in a civil war.

 

This happened long before any of the leaders of the then-young ML parties became an "elite", anywhere in the world. And the answer to the question of how they became "elites" is not in "they had a state" or "they were a formal authority" or any of that rubbish. The answer lies in the failure to keep tabs on opportunists within the party, with how the influence of those opportunists leads to revisionism, and how revisionism goes hand in hand with a premature declaration of "the end of class struggle" which allows the further influence of those opportunists to change the class character of the state over time.

 

 

lol anarchist societies were not 'military dictatorships.' There's a substantial difference between capturing POWs and setting up slave labour camps, and there's a difference between executing counter revolutionaries and executing literally anyone who disagrees, including leftists that have any disagreement with the new bosses whatsoever.

When "having disagreements" manifests as shooting at the red army you can get in the toilet. And hell yeah, your only notable anarchist territory was a military dictatorship. Makhno was it's ruler and he ruled by the force of the army which obeyed him. Dude had secret police and everything. Oddly he didn't seem bothered about all the capitalism going on there though.

 

 

And after all that you still haven't answered the question. How do you plan to turn everyone into your New Anarchist Man? I hope you've come up with some fresh tactics, because even though you hate the ML ones, anarchists have achieved far less. (again, china vs a squat)

Edited by CBH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

 

Except the Anarchist movement does not do this very well, because its effectiveness is highly limited by its refusal to coordinate its efforts. (coordinating your movement's efforts is what a formal organization is for.)

 

 

With the exception of some insurrectionists and post-left anarchists, anarchists generally do not reject formal organization, what we reject is hierarchical organization. But even then, the places where anarchists seem most adverse to formal organizations--i.e. Greece, Italy, Chile, etc.--anarchists are very well-organized, largest in numbers, and as militant, if not more militant than at the turn of the 20th Century. It's not the syndicalism of last century, either.

 

 

This is why Anarchism has always been far behind in recruitment

 

It's the anarchist movement, not the marines.

 

 

This is why anarchists collectivize abandoned buildings while MLs collectivize china.

 

 

If your gleaming example of ML is China, I don't even know what to tell you.

 

 

The few areas where anarchists do manage effective recruitment and mobilization, they do it by creating organizations. Anti-fascist efforts are a big, glaring example. It's ironic that they carry anarchist flags because it's some of the most Leninist behavior I've seen in years.

 

 

Anarchists don't necessarily reject vanguardist tactics--black blocs for example--where they may apply, anarchists reject vanguard parties. That's not really anything new, either.

 

 

 

Maybe if they broadened their scope they'd get more done.

 

 

lol the anarchist movement has a much, much broader scope in terms of tactics and ideas than a collection of personality cults forever stuck in time.

 

 

The vanguard should be a mass organization - it should recruit as many of the working class and those who side with the working class as possible, and all must be held to account. This is the opposite of "a small minority of the population handl[ing] that".

 

 

 

Yeh good luck with that.

 

You conflate two different things.

 

The first is the abolition of capitalism. If you more carefully considered the issue, you would know that capitalism is only defeated and unable to pose a threat when it has been abolished both worldwide and for long enough that the negative influence of the old society has faded away - so far in the future that the last generation to be socialized under capitalism have passed on.

You have an absurdly patronizing view of the working class. "The people aren't ready for us to emancipate them".
The f*ck are you waiting for, better weather?

 

 

 

When "having disagreements" manifests as shooting at the red army you can get in the toilet. And hell yeah, your only notable anarchist territory was a military dictatorship. Makhno was it's ruler and he ruled by the force of the army which obeyed him. Dude had secret police and everything. Oddly he didn't seem bothered about all the capitalism going on there though.

 

 

 

With MLs, the Black Army are always either 'bandits' or a 'dictatorship'. By the way you describe it, it just sounds like an ML state tbh

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

yeah, I think it's misleading to say that anarchy has been "limited by its refusal to coordinate its efforts."

 

just like so many people confuse fascists with communists, anarchy movements are often publicly miscategorized and lumped in with civil disobedience or criminal unrest. historically, anarchist propents have not been treated like common demonstrators or thought provoking lecturers. popular media has done a great job with associating anarchists with misnomers like 'outcasts' or 'dissidents' or 'fringe.' in reality, they likely/typically represent the silent majority.

 

take the United States. since it's what I know.

generally speaking - and in many places by definition - anarchy is treated like 'criminal' first and 'activist' second... if that. so it appears that anarchy is not so much averse to coordination or organization so much as it is made extremely difficult for them by societal forces. anarchy (in a broad sense) is one of the few movements that is still truly oppressed and unaccounted for by those in power; both in the government and in the mainstream media and their advertising affiliates. even the Ku Klux Klan can go around marching in full dress while adopting highways and holding BBQ cookout rallies.

 

we can start a list of all the racist, bigoted, sexist, intolerant, and hypocritical politicans currently serving in or running for office. guys of all stripes. men and women. left and right. virtually all self-professed god-fearing Christians. we'll be here for awhile because frankly the list is endless. but I couldn't name you a single politician who is openly atheist. I couldn't name you a single guy aside from Bernie Sanders who would be caught dead even entertaining the vaguest notions of socialsm. where is the anti-war candidate? not the cooky Rand Paul populist who talks talk but can't walk. where is the serious anti-Empire candidate? we've got enough foreign interventionists, where are the environmental interventionists? we're gonna' run out of f/cking trees long before we run out of bullets or bombs.

 

it sounds trite, but pot-smoking atheists [Non-affiliated] account for the largest unrepresented political minority. no one speaks for the Nons. no one really represents those of us who want peace and equality from top to bottom. no one stands up for the disruption of our social caste system. in the end, they all encourage the division because they want to be rich. they and them alone.

 

oh boy... let's go back to the point.

it's really not the anarchist fault. when you go to the zoo and see these gorillas stuck living inside the little enclosures? they know this charade isn't right but it's not their fault. they're trapped in this sh/t, and they might have some strong ass notions but their masters work very hard to keep them split up, outnumbered, and largely disenfranchised. that's how the bossman makes his pay man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBH

It's the anarchist movement, not the marines.

Do you not understand the point? You're not very good at increasing your numbers, because there's no coordinated push to do that. I suspect anyone trying to set one up would get a response of "you're not the boss of me, maaaan".

 

 

If your gleaming example of ML is China, I don't even know what to tell you.

MLs collectivized china. This is an undisputed true statement. If I say "I own a pair of shoes", it remains true even if you do not like what colour my shoes are.

 

 

Anarchists don't necessarily reject vanguardist tactics--black blocs for example--where they may apply, anarchists reject vanguard parties. That's not really anything new, either.

So anarchists have no problem with vanguardism... They have a problem with acknowledging the vanguard in any sort of formal sense. Lenin's greatest tyranny was he had a nameplate on his desk.

 

 

lol the anarchist movement has a much, much broader scope in terms of tactics and ideas than a collection of personality cults forever stuck in time.

I don't like taking the role of a tedious debatelord like sivispam or whatever, but this isn't actually a point you're making, just an insult.

 

 

Yeh good luck with that.

Not even an insult, this time. Just a "nah because [no reason]". Put some effort in.

 

 

You conflate two different things.

 

The first is the abolition of capitalism. If you more carefully considered the issue, you would know that capitalism is only defeated and unable to pose a threat when it has been abolished both worldwide and for long enough that the negative influence of the old society has faded away - so far in the future that the last generation to be socialized under capitalism have passed on.

 

You have an absurdly patronizing view of the working class. "The people aren't ready for us to emancipate them".

 

The f*ck are you waiting for, better weather?

So first you started out with a weak argument, then you went to an insult instead of an argument, then you did the textual equivalent of a shrug...

 

And this one, you didn't even actually read what I said. You've instead imagined I said something else entirely. What's up, can't hack it?

 

For the benefit of anyone else paying attention, since you'll probably stick it to the man by scrolling past, I'll reiterate:

 

If you abolish capitalism within your country, capitalism is not defeated. It is still a threat, it will still attempt to reinstate itself through both internal and external forces.

 

Internally, you have those of the former capitalist class. Many, if not most of these people will want their power and wealth back.

 

Externally, you have the worldwide capitalist-imperialist system. This views your new socialist country as an existential threat, because the growth of socialist territory and power can only be at the expense of capitalist-imperialists territory and power. They will do everything in their power to destroy you.

 

The internal problem will eventually go away. The old capitalist generation would die of old age. Eventually, even the concepts of capitalism we learn through cultural osmosis would be forgotten entirely - just like how today nobody in our centuries old capitalist society has an accurate conception of life as a feudal serf, even if they read about it in a history book.

 

The external problem doesn't go away on it's own. It has no be destroyed by revolutionaries out there, just like it was inside your socialist country. Until that happens, it is still a very real and very active threat.

 

You should pay more attention to history. The historical socialist countries never reached an age where the internal threat had died away. Never. The external threat, if you have any honesty, you wouldn't pretend you're unaware of - I mean for god's sake if you've got a pulse you've heard of the Cold War.

 

Now before that internal threat is gone, class struggle is not finished. It is simple, if class enemies still exist then you have not won the class war.

 

Class war was declared over in the USSR in the late 50s, the class enemies considered defeated despite them still existing. By 1968 they were trying to introduce capitalist economics - emphasis on the law of value, financial profit etc - though these attempts were not successful because they were for now still a minority. By the mid 80s the CPSU had a massive capitalist faction. By 1991, they got what they wanted. It is a similar story in China, where after the end of the cultural revolution, everyone forgave Deng Xiaoping so hard that he became the goddamned CEO of China inc.

 

So really, this is the deal. Capitalism isn't a movie badguy. You don't say "yippie ki yay" and throw Mr Capitalism off a building and then you live happily ever after. You have to finish the job.

 

 

With MLs, the Black Army are always either 'bandits' or a 'dictatorship'. By the way you describe it, it just sounds like an ML state tbh

ML states do stuff like "admit their defined territory with a gorvernment and an army is a state", "find all of the homeless people and give them a place to stay" and "teach the illiterate to read". The black army did none of that.

Edited by CBH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

You seem to be missing the point that socialism=workers' control of the means of production. Socialism died as soon as the soviets were undermined, undermining the workers' power along with them. The state owning the means of production is absolutely meaningless, as it's still, in effect, private ownership+wage labor, which is a capitalist relation with all the contradictions and exploitation that capitalism entails... Marxism 101. It's either worker-owned or it isn't socialism. Call it collectivization all you want, but as long as it's state bureaucrats controlling it, it's private ownership. Then again, you wear a Stalin avatar and a North Korean flag, so hurray for muh actually existing hyper capitalism socialism™. The Soviet Union failed at socialism because it abandoned it soon after its formation. It was essentially a very aggressive welfare state built on state capitalism. Because that's what tankies are: worshipers of state capitalism with absolutely anti-Marxist notions of reality and sh*tty treatment of anyone with legitimate criticism of their Soviet wet dream. Anyone who calls themselves a Marxist whilst genuinely celebrating Stalin and North Korea is a joke.

Edited by Black_MiD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

It's the anarchist movement, not the marines.

Do you not understand the point? You're not very good at increasing your numbers

 

And Marxist-Leninists are?

 

You are, to be quite frank, a f*cking joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

It's the anarchist movement, not the marines.

Do you not understand the point? You're not very good at increasing your numbers

 

And Marxist-Leninists are?

 

You are, to be quite frank, a f*cking joke.

 

Yeah one thing neither side in this debate is adept at is gathering popular support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

 

 

 

It's the anarchist movement, not the marines.

Do you not understand the point? You're not very good at increasing your numbers

 

And Marxist-Leninists are?

 

You are, to be quite frank, a f*cking joke.

 

Yeah one thing neither side in this debate is adept at is gathering popular support.

 

Hmm, depends. ML parties are popular in some parts of the world, but actual Stalinists are generally laughed at. Nepal is a good example, although the country is obviously nothing resembling socialism. Portugal has a strong communist party, but the thing is that it's actually quite a libertarian Marxist party these days, which is, in my view, one of the reasons it's so popular—nobody wants to associate themselves with USSR fetishists—, other than its contribution to the 1974 revolution and anti-fascist action under the previous regime. The only explicitly ML thing about it is democratic centralism, which isn't in and of itself a bad thing if you need cohesive action, I guess, but there's all types of Marxists in there: non-dogmatic MLs, Trotskyists, Luxemburgists (yay!), Chavistas, council communists even. It's hilarious to see tankies citing it as some Soviet delegation when the party declares decentralized planning and actual advanced democracy as some of its main goals.

Edited by Black_MiD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

The unwashed masses are drawn to the Stalin portraits like moths to flame. The revolution will finally come when the child-like proletariat gathers under the leadership of our Soviet Union re-enactment club. Glory to Marxism-Leninism-Paternalism. All power to the bureaucracy.

 

f*ckin anarchists can't coordinate anything

Black_Bloc_Hamburg.jpg

i bet they didnt even call the police to get a permit and set-up a designated route

wtf no stalin portraits

lumpenproles :v::v::v:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

f*ckin anarchists can't coordinate anything

 

 

Maybe that's why the ideology has failed every single time it was practiced.

 

"Nah that wasn't real anarchism"

 

"Nah they got taken over by an external power" - Maybe that's because anarchism can't guarantee security for people.

 

 

 

#shotsfired

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Maybe that's why the ideology has failed every single time it was practiced.

You can't really say anarchists are bad at organising. Compared to who? The Conservatives, who are led by demagogues and only persist in gaining support because they have their own f*cking cable channel? I think if we had our own cable channel, representation in the state, most of the newspapers and the unconditional financial support of the ruling class we could do a bit better than stalling legislation and throwing bluffs at the supreme court. Or the 'liberals' who exist only as an anti-Republican axis but don't really do much.

 

Anyway I think it's meaningless to talk about 'failed ideologies', are you Rush Limbaugh? It's not so much an ideology as an observation about human behaviour: that human beings tend towards equality and that those who declare themselves our betters have to go to extreme lengths to maintain their privilege and avoid inevitable scorn and violence, at which they all eventually fail. Anarchism is just the proposition that authority has to justify itself, but societies that revolve around maintaining class distinctions rely on arbitrary moral exclusion that isn't justified.

 

I mean if you think pretending society will break down without the rich means you never have to defend philosophically the institutions you support then good for you, like it's impossible to wash your hands of the starving children so why bother scrutinising your actions?

 

 

 

"Nah that wasn't real anarchism"

I really don't think you're aware of what is and is not anarchism. Do you think something is an example of anarchism but we disagree?

 

 

 

"Nah they got taken over by an external power" - Maybe that's because anarchism can't guarantee security for people.

Mexican anarchists successfully keep the state out of their territory, while anarchist societies in Europe were destroyed by Nazi Germany, the British Empire and the Soviet Union, which were hostile, hegemonic societies which revolved entirely around destroying and conquering people. They destroyed all of Europe, not just Spain, so I don't really see your point.

Edited by Melchior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

Maybe that's why the ideology has failed every single time it was practiced.

lol.

what an immature and ignorant response :sigh:

 

anarchy has never really been "practiced."

there's no saying whether it has failed or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

Around 2,500 people--mostly masked-up anarchists and autonomen--mobilized against a planned Nazi march in Leipzig a couple of days ago. It was estimated that at least 600 Nazis would be marching, but only 200 showed up. Due to the large antifa mobilization--a force which was rallied largely through leaflets, flyposts, and banner drops--the march never happened. 70 pigs were injured, mostly from their own teargas, and one antifa was severely injured by police.

 

 

LE1212_hatemag_07.jpg

 

23407507560_f3a99b434a_k.jpg

 

23594629192_c580e2a88a_k.jpg

 

23677119116_e99c3fbfbc_k.jpg

 

 

 

anarchists cant organize sh*t tho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

Around 2,500 people--mostly masked-up anarchists and autonomen--mobilized against a planned Nazi march in Leipzig a couple of days ago. It was estimated that at least 600 Nazis would be marching, but only 200 showed up. Due to the large antifa mobilization--a force which was rallied largely through leaflets, flyposts, and banner drops--the march never happened.

"You mean those antifa monsters suppressed the poor Nazi demonstrators' freeze peach? Gee, I wonder who the real fascists are... Goddamned commies!!!"

 

 

I saw a comment almost exactly like this on a video of antifas stopping that white supremacist march in England some months ago. Liberal reactionaries are the worst kind

 

Edited by Black_MiD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

As a mild aside, I'd probably have a bit more respect for Antifa if they didn't going around falsely alleging various Scandinavian metal bands were neo-Nazis or neo-Fascists. It does bring their credibility into question somewhat- after all, one of the bands in question used their music to specifically criticise the Nazi occupation of Denmark and the attacks conducted by axis powers on the citizens of the Faroe Islands, as well as praising the British for protecting them from Nazi aggression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

It just seems like a huge misunderstanding, Sivis, and it must have been a hassle, for sure, but I don't think it's that bad given Antifa's generally great record and their intensive fight against fascism. Every organization makes mistakes, but that shouldn't stop us from supporting them, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I'm not saying it brings the entire organisation into disrepute, just that their obsession with symbolism subverted by the Nazis which actually predates them by centuries leaves something of a bad taste in the mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.