[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Martyn*)
I don't hate Jews. I might dislike Marx but I don't hate Jews. I dislike Marx because he is violent, undemocratic and a monster.

He was probably a Bilderberg pawn too, designed to distract the masses from the Masonic-corporatist machine.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Unfortunately, Marx, as almost all Jewish revolutionaries have done, was preaching class war and proletariat revenge against the forces of Capitalism when he envisaged that Socialism could 'lead to' communism.

I really don't see why you even had to mention that he was Jewish. Either all revolutionaries preach class war or only the Jewish ones do. If it is the former then your use of the descriptive 'Jewish' is redundant. If it is the latter then you are indulging in some form of conspiracy theory or are just plain bigoted (or both).

[snozzle]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Despite their historical existence.



So why didn't that happen in Catalonia? Or the Zapatistas?

Totalitarian societies come about out of reaction to revolution, not revolution itself.

Like I said they are historical oddities, what should we make of them? Do we really know what they actually were?

If totalitarianism follows revolution it hardly matters whether you call it a reaction or not.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by snozzle)
Like I said they are historical oddities, what should we make of them? Do we really know what they actually were?

It's the same theme everywhere where state authority collapses. People naturally and spontaneously self-organise and self-manage.

It's hardly surprising that when capitalism itself is only a couple of centuries old, that there aren't long-term examples of post-capitalist societies.

If totalitarianism follows revolution it hardly matters whether you call it a reaction or not.

I didn't say totalitarianism necessarily follows revolution, I said when it does it's a result of reaction. Sometimes even a reaction produces a better society than the pre-revolutionary one. An obvious example would be the French 1830 Revolution. The rich and bourgeois forced on France the Orleanist July Monarchy rather than the republic that was popular with the general population. But the July Monarchy was still undoubtedly better than the Bourbons who preceded them.

What you're essentially saying is 'Don't revolt against your oppressive government because it might open the door for totalitarians to seize power (maybe in six months, maybe in ten years)' and with that attitude there'd never have been capitalism in the first place.

[prog2djent]

I think the problem socialists/anarchist socialists face is that they are faced with the population of their countries, i.e hardly anyone agrees with what they say and wouldn't want to live that way, even if you explained to them what anarchy was and cleared up the "chaos everywhere" associated or thta socialism = North Korea, people still wouldn't buy it, the population of the UK has suprisingly more political clout than socialists think, I always hear owen jones banging on about how the labour and tory voting middle classes and working classes who couldn't give a toss about politics need to be "converted" to socialism.

Makes me chuckle.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by prog2djent)
I think the problem socialists/anarchist socialists face is that they are faced with the population of their countries, i.e hardly anyone agrees with what they say and wouldn't want to live that way, even if you explained to them what anarchy was and cleared up the "chaos everywhere" associated or thta socialism = North Korea, people still wouldn't buy it, the population of the UK has suprisingly more political clout than socialists think, I always hear owen jones banging on about how the labour and tory voting middle classes and working classes who couldn't give a toss about politics need to be "converted" to socialism.

Makes me chuckle.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/libra...y-surprise-you

It doesn't matter if people don't consider themselves anarchists, or don't have a clue about anarchism. When state authority collapses, and usually before, it's simply what people do - they organise. How many Argentinians were anarchists before 2001? How many were after? Yet self-management and community structures sprung up all over the places. People participated in anarchy without even realising it.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by anarchism101)
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/libra...y-surprise-you

It doesn't matter if people don't consider themselves anarchists, or don't have a clue about anarchism. When state authority collapses, and usually before, it's simply what people do - they organise. How many Argentinians were anarchists before 2001? How many were after? Yet self-management and community structures sprung up all over the places. People participated in anarchy without even realising it.

Irrelavent, nobody in this country apart from anarchists want anarchy and even the big "left" voting labourites frown on socialism.

The only country where socialism is possible, right now, is Greece.

Nowhere else is advanced enough, economically, or socially yet, 90% of the world still hasn't got past hating everyone else apart from that local culture/religion.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Irrelavent, nobody in this country apart from anarchists want anarchy and even the big "left" voting labourites frown on socialism.

Repeating stuff doesn't make it a better argument.

The only country where socialism is possible, right now, is Greece.

Nowhere else is advanced enough, economically, or socially yet, 90% of the world still hasn't got past hating everyone else apart from that local culture/religion.

Yes, social revolutions require crisis and currently that's what Greece is in, so 'right now', yes. However, 'right now' is not the be all and end all.

[snozzle]

(Original post by anarchism101)
It's the same theme everywhere where state authority collapses. People naturally and spontaneously self-organise and self-manage.

It's hardly surprising that when capitalism itself is only a couple of centuries old, that there aren't long-term examples of post-capitalist societies.



I didn't say totalitarianism necessarily follows revolution, I said when it does it's a result of reaction. Sometimes even a reaction produces a better society than the pre-revolutionary one. An obvious example would be the French 1830 Revolution. The rich and bourgeois forced on France the Orleanist July Monarchy rather than the republic that was popular with the general population. But the July Monarchy was still undoubtedly better than the Bourbons who preceded them.

What you're essentially saying is 'Don't revolt against your oppressive government because it might open the door for totalitarians to seize power (maybe in six months, maybe in ten years)' and with that attitude there'd never have been capitalism in the first place.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'reaction'. I am assuming this is your way to absolve the Bolsheviks say for any blame for the subsequent totalitarian society which preceded the October revolution?

As I dialectic I don't see how this is valid as the Bolsheviks didn't just tip over the Tsarist state and leave it at that, they necessarily set up Worker's councils and a state of their own...which morphed into totalitarianism and horror fairly rapidly not by any 'counter movement' / antitheses but by what I view as a kind of economic-political necessity.

Anyway regarding revolution I am extremely skeptical about the merit of tipping over any state given realities like the Soviet union and the French revolution. Without law we have no freedom only law of nature.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Repeating stuff doesn't make it a better argument.



Yes, social revolutions require crisis and currently that's what Greece is in, so 'right now', yes. However, 'right now' is not the be all and end all.

I didn't even know we were arguing.

Do you admit that most people in W.European countries, N.America/Canada, Oz, New Zealand, Japan, S.Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore (kind of) or Chile ... don't want a revolution, and don't want soicalism or anarchism, the most advanced post-industrial societies?

[anarchism101]

(Original post by snozzle)
I'm not sure what you mean by 'reaction'. I am assuming this is your way to absolve the Bolsheviks say for any blame for the subsequent totalitarian society which preceded the October revolution?

Quite the opposite in fact. I'm putting the blame squarely with the Bolsheviks (well, there were other factors, but it was largely the Bolsheviks' fault).

By reaction I mean attempts to reverse or halt/limit a revolution.

As I dialectic I don't see how this is valid as the Bolsheviks didn't just tip over the Tsarist state and leave it at that, they necessarily set up Worker's councils

They did neither. The Tsarist state was overthrown in February, not October. The workers' councils were established by the workers, not the state. The Bolsheviks destroyed the workers councils after October.

and a state of their own...which morphed into totalitarianism and horror fairly rapidly

That they did.

Anyway regarding revolution I am extremely skeptical about the merit of tipping over any state given realities like the Soviet union and the French revolution. Without law we have no freedom only law of nature.

You don't think the French Revolution was, on the whole, a good thing?

Social systems change because of two things; revolution and war.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by prog2djent)
I didn't even know we were arguing.

Well, this is a debate forum and you posted a contrary position.

Do you admit that most people in W.European countries, N.America/Canada, Oz, New Zealand, Japan, S.Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore (kind of) or Chile ... don't want a revolution, and don't want soicalism or anarchism, the most advanced post-industrial societies?

That's a ridiculous question in so many ways. As an analogy, most people in France want Francois Hollande and the PS to govern the country, and don't want someone else. Based on your logic, we should draw the conclusion that they'll never want anyone else and thus Hollande will be President for ever.

And no, I don't. If you'd asked most people on the eve of any revolution whether they wanted one, they'd probably say no. Revolutions generally begin without the participants even realising it.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by anarchism101)
they'll never want anyone else and thus Hollande will be President for ever.

And no, I don't. If you'd asked most people on the eve of any revolution whether they wanted one, they'd probably say no. Revolutions generally begin without the participants even realising it.

That's not what I was saying, peoples perceptions of opinions can change, I never said they can't.

So revolutions are completely undemocratic, not in the election sense, but in the way that you are forcing people to accept a system, or change of system ... they don't want.

I've always thought anarchists were extremely authoritarian if we look at certain issues in an isolated context. And tha's not even starting with forcing people to give up capital, private property, various items, jobs, life and such ... what not ... so and so.

[snozzle]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Quite the opposite in fact. I'm putting the blame squarely with the Bolsheviks (well, there were other factors, but it was largely the Bolsheviks' fault).

By reaction I mean attempts to reverse or halt/limit a revolution.

That is what I mean, you are taking this naturalistic view that the state is artificial and imposed on us....if only we throw it off we return to some 'natural' state of society...the state will only reappear if some bad men reimpose it.

It's an opinion but I am not sure a very good one.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by prog2djent)
That's not what I was saying, peoples perceptions of opinions can change, I never said they can't.

Exactly. So how can we judge what opinions will be like in a crisis situation where things can change in hours?

So revolutions are completely undemocratic, not in the election sense, but in the way that you are forcing people to accept a system, or change of system ... they don't want.

It works better when you read what I said.

What I said was that revolutions have usually started before even their participants have realised it. The French Revolution began with the Storming of the Bastille, or you could say slightly earlier with the Tennis Court Oath. But do you think the participants in either of those events knew, or even thought, that they were starting a revolution? But by the time they did realise the full implication of those events (at this point, having replaced an absolute monarchy with a constitutional one), virtually everyone was in support of the revolution.

I've always thought anarchists were extremely authoritarian if we look at certain issues in an isolated context. And tha's not even starting with forcing people to give up capital, private property, various items, jobs, life and such ... what not ... so and so.

I'll deal with private property/capital (in this context the same thing) and jobs, but the rest of that is utter nonsense.

A job is something you have out of necessity, not choice. Out of the necessity to survive you must give up part of what you produce. Obviously you're always going to need to work to survive, but to say being liberated from the need to give up a part of your product is being 'forced to give up' something is ludicrous.

As for private property, it's a social relationship, not something that can be 'given up', but rather abolished.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by snozzle)
That is what I mean, you are taking this naturalistic view that the state is artificial and imposed on us....if only we throw it off we return to some 'natural' state of society...the state will only reappear if some bad men reimpose it.

It's an opinion but I am not sure a very good one.

The state is of course artificial as it is made by men, and it is by definition imposed on us. To take the wiki definition;

"A state is a political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory."

[prog2djent]

(Original post by anarchism101)
But by the time they did realise the full implication of those events (at this point, having replaced an absolute monarchy with a constitutional one), virtually everyone was in support of the revolution.

A job is something you have out of necessity, not choice. Out of the necessity to survive you must give up part of what you produce. Obviously you're always going to need to work to survive, but to say being liberated from the need to give up a part of your product is being 'forced to give up' something is ludicrous.

As for private property, it's a social relationship, not something that can be 'given up', but rather abolished.

A revolution wont happen today beacuse the outcomes are pretty predictable, we know what systems would be attempted to be implemented, back then, perhaps not.

Of course I understand a job is a necessity (I'm suprised you avoided saying wage slavery). You claim that everybody needs to work to survive, which is true of overy type of system, when proudictivity falls people starve. But I don't see a difference between wage labour, and the anarchist alternative, of working for nothing or having the fruits of your labour taken for the comunity at large, we still have to do it. Slaverly of some kind is clearly a part of humanity. And if you tell people that they either keep their style of work now, in the capitalist system, or have the anarchist alternative, I'd say the vast majority would rather live in a system of capital, disposable income and profit. The number one thing people want in the UK above all is Job security, which is essentially why a revolution wont take place to abolish private property and capital, because everybody apart from egotistic and self important anarchists at the bottom of the feeder anyway are happy, i'd love to see a bunch of middle class socialists realise their dream, everything taken away.

Private property essentially doesn't exist, only land. The state needs to exist and everyone should pay tax for sharing that land. It is a natural relationship, not social.

[Zürich]

(Original post by pr0view)
Communism has historically always made its citizens poorer than capitalist countries due to lack of innovation or at least motivation to innovate. As well as this the people sacrifice their economic and political freedoms for worse living standards. Many millions end up paying for it with their lives such as in NK now, and in the USSR, PRC and Cambodia in the past.

Some communists might claim that the states mentioned in this aren't actually communist because they should have been democratic etc, however the economic model sucked bad enough for anyone with sense to have rejected the idea.

I guess it depends what socialism you mean, everyone seems to have a different definition and as far as i am concerned socialism isn't really a clever economic model as its very expensive because as Milton Friedman explains, there are four different ways of spending money, and socialism is the least effective way. (i can link video if anyone wants it)

I must conclude Communism and Socialism are ridiculously stupid 'ideas'! Capitalism has enriched the working classes much more that communism ever has or will. All 1st world countries on Earth are capitalist. We have private housing, private transportation, education, plentiful supply of clean and luxurious food, water, heating, electricity, clothing, pets, healthcare and literally hundreds of luxury goods such as phones and the very laptop i am writing this on now.

EDIT: Negged by soap dodgers

Capitalism is total freedom to own property, to hire or to fire who one wishes, to start a business if one wishes, to work harder if one wants to earn more...

Communism is slavery.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Zürich)
Capitalism is total freedom to own property, to hire or to fire who one wishes, to start a business if one wishes, to work harder if one wants to earn more...

Communism is slavery.

Can poor people afford property? They may have opportunites, but what If they just can't? To hire and fire on a whim is pretty grim in my opinion, in this climate, the state has a legitimate function to protect people and families. Agree with starting the business part, but, you can work hard, but you do need a certain amount of luck, not too much though, but aside from hard work, expertese and skill, to live a comfortable life, you need a great amount of look and "right place/right time" to become rich and very successful, unless you are just absolutely amazing and can cater for, and manipulate opinion to be in your favour, or you can exploit a certain trend, but this is short lived.

And slavery to whom?

[Zürich]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Can poor people afford property? They may have opportunites, but what If they just can't? To hire and fire on a whim is pretty grim in my opinion, in this climate, the state has a legitimate function to protect people and families. Agree with starting the business part, but, you can work hard, but you do need a certain amount of luck, not too much though, but aside from hard work, expertese and skill, to live a comfortable life, you need a great amount of look and "right place/right time" to become rich and very successful, unless you are just absolutely amazing and can cater for, and manipulate opinion to be in your favour, or you can exploit a certain trend, but this is short lived.

And slavery to whom?

Speaking from a personal level; my family went in 2 generations from peasant farmers who owned nothing but their clothes to prosperous, educated, property owning people through nothing but hard work and thrift. This would never happen in a communist country. This is total freedom. Freedom to sit on your ass all day or freedom to work 18 hours a day/7 days a week to get somewhere in life.

Fairness for you is everyone getting the same reward regardless of intelligent, talent or effort. Fairness for me is everyone getting rewarded for their intelligence, talent and effort.

And communism is slavery to others. ''I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.''