My polipro

i am a stateless socialist. i rarely differ from Bakunin except in the departments of antisemitism and the fact that Bakunin believed in SLOW liquidation of church and state. i am a revolutionary NOT a reformist

1. What's your understanding of Democracy?
Power to the people. everyone seems to love democracy and hate the government. Anarchy is just that! democracy without government.
2. What's your understanding of Communism?
state regulated equality... i don't however have faith in the state's competence in such a task and am therefore opposed to communism except as a preliminary faze of anarchism
3. What's your understanding of Capitalism?
Competition, free market dictatorship, the bane of society, a source of false incentive and a perversion of social obligation (morality).
4. What's your understanding of Fascism?
totalitarian nationalism. often hyper militant in many ways it is antonymous with communism and democratic socialism
5. Make a list of the all human rights you consider essential
.The right to self govern
.The right to equal distribution of wealth
.Freedom of expression
.Freedom from law, authoritarianism and capitalist caste systems
6. What's your understanding of Freedom?
Anarchy. freedom from authoritarianism and free market dictatorships. to quote Bakunin "if there is a state then there is domination and in turn slavery"
7. What's your understanding of Equality?
no financial brackets segregating the poor from the rich. no man dictating the lives of others save a parent dictating the life of their child
8. What's your understanding of a prosperous society?
one which is void of violence, inequality, and racism. all products of capitalism and the conditions it has imposed upon us

your understanding of communism is wrong. In Communism there is no state. in the final stage of communism democracy will be erased as well being that democracy is still oppressive to those who are the minority.

but am i wrong in saying that during the processes there is a period of time in which a dictator rules?

yeah you are wrong, when marx says dictatorship of the proletariet he means that the workers will be the ruling class. In the transitional socialist period there will be democracy. This is a common misconception about us. Sure there are was Stalin and Mao but this is the minority and left wing communist dont agree with what happend.

mononokifool wrote:

yeah you are wrong, when marx says dictatorship of the proletariet he means that the workers will be the ruling class. In the transitional socialist period there will be democracy. This is a common misconception about us. Sure there are was Stalin and Mao but this is the minority and left wing communist dont agree with what happend.

fair enough. but democratic or not, there is still a state during the transitional period and for that reason i am opposed

Alek4A wrote:

mononokifool wrote:

yeah you are wrong, when marx says dictatorship of the proletariet he means that the workers will be the ruling class. In the transitional socialist period there will be democracy. This is a common misconception about us. Sure there are was Stalin and Mao but this is the minority and left wing communist dont agree with what happend.

fair enough. but democratic or not, there is still a state during the transitional period and for that reason i am opposed

there is not a state in its essence as you think it is. Lenin explains it like this. After the revolution there needs to be armed individuals to prevent counter revolution. What is an organized force but a state? that is the what it really is

mononokifool wrote:

Alek4A wrote:

mononokifool wrote:

yeah you are wrong, when marx says dictatorship of the proletariet he means that the workers will be the ruling class. In the transitional socialist period there will be democracy. This is a common misconception about us. Sure there are was Stalin and Mao but this is the minority and left wing communist dont agree with what happend.

fair enough. but democratic or not, there is still a state during the transitional period and for that reason i am opposed

there is not a state in its essence as you think it is. Lenin explains it like this. After the revolution there needs to be armed individuals to prevent counter revolution. What is an organized force but a state? that is the what it really is

and those armed individuals require central leadership

of course, one of marx's basic arguments against anarchism is this. Can you sail a large ship without a captain? No you cant.

mononokifool wrote:

of course, one of marx's basic arguments against anarchism is this. Can you sail a large ship without a captain? No you cant.

i don't intend on sailing a large ship. i (along with many other anarchists) believe in the creation of many independently functioning communes not some mythical mass utopia.

Alek4A wrote:

i don't intend on sailing a large ship. i (along with many other anarchists) believe in the creation of many independently functioning communes not some mythical mass utopia.

Which would probably bring us to the point we struggled to get away from.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Alek4A wrote:

i don't intend on sailing a large ship. i (along with many other anarchists) believe in the creation of many independently functioning communes not some mythical mass utopia.

Which would probably bring us to the point we struggled to get away from.

and what might that be?

that is not what he ment by this...Even within those communes someone or a group of people, may it be a council or what not, will make process of distribution of food and land and such easier and much more efficient

Alek4A wrote:

and what might that be?

Humanity's natural stage is anarchy, different groups were created and others gained supremacy over others.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Alek4A wrote:

and what might that be?

Humanity's natural stage is anarchy, different groups were created and others gained supremacy over others.

by groups i mean small non-militant non-authoritarian communities. and its not like it hasn't been successful in the past. might i remind you of the Ukrainian communes? Kropotkin had a large part in their formation and even Lenin considered his brand of anarchism feasible.

so you dont agree with my last statement?

Alek4A wrote:

by groups i mean small non-militant non-authoritarian communities. and its not like it hasn't been successful in the past.

Imagine that in a large scale-

Alek4A wrote:

might i remind you of the Ukrainian communes? Kropotkin had a large part in their formation and even Lenin considered his brand of anarchism feasible.

Kropotkin? Why shoudl he be important at all?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Alek4A wrote:

by groups i mean small non-militant non-authoritarian communities. and its not like it hasn't been successful in the past.

Imagine that in a large scale-

Alek4A wrote:

might i remind you of the Ukrainian communes? Kropotkin had a large part in their formation and even Lenin considered his brand of anarchism feasible.

Kropotkin? Why shoudl he be important at all?

i am imagining it... it looks beautifull.

and he is important because he is one of the great anarchist thinkers and your beloved lenin believed his ideas to be of value

Alek4A wrote:

i am imagining it... it looks beautifull.

Yes... I see the communists beating the capitalists while the monarchists are about to take the ecologists.

Alek4A wrote:

and he is important because he is one of the great anarchist thinkers and your beloved lenin believed his ideas to be of value

So? What if he's a great thinker? That doesn't give him any kind fo authority, not even intellectual.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Alek4A wrote:

i am imagining it... it looks beautifull.

Yes... I see the communists beating the capitalists while the monarchists are about to take the ecologists.

Alek4A wrote:

and he is important because he is one of the great anarchist thinkers and your beloved lenin believed his ideas to be of value

So? What if he's a great thinker? That doesn't give him any kind fo authority, not even intellectual.

the only large scale form of an anarchism is a lot of communes. a large society simply would not work (nor does it work with a state) =].

and i was only trying to make the point that one of the most respected communist leaders of all time had respect for some very anarchist thoughts and philosiphies

Alek4A wrote:

the only large scale form of an anarchism is a lot of communes. a large society simply would not work (nor does it work with a state) =].

And how do you get all those peaceful communes to exist and more over to peacefully interact?

Alek4A wrote:

and i was only trying to make the point that one of the most respected communist leaders of all time had respect for some very anarchist thoughts and philosiphies

Which doesn't quite adress my point. Perhaps it was poor wording from my part. What's the relevance Kropotkin could have for Anarchists, why is he even worth mentioning? Why are his thoughts important?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Alek4A wrote:

the only large scale form of an anarchism is a lot of communes. a large society simply would not work (nor does it work with a state) =].

And how do you get all those peaceful communes to exist and more over to peacefully interact?

Alek4A wrote:

and i was only trying to make the point that one of the most respected communist leaders of all time had respect for some very anarchist thoughts and philosiphies

Which doesn't quite adress my point. Perhaps it was poor wording from my part. What's the relevance Kropotkin could have for Anarchists, why is he even worth mentioning? Why are his thoughts important?

Firstly considering that the communes are anti-authoritarian and anti-militant peace is inevitable. there would be no reason to fight


he is valuable because his ideas made possible many successful communes. for me at least this solidifies his validity as a voice of value.

Alek4A wrote:

Firstly considering that the communes are anti-authoritarian and anti-militant peace is inevitable. there would be no reason to fight

But how do you achieve them to be like that? I don't think they just sprout from the ground like mushorooms. What's the process?

Alek4A wrote:

he is valuable because his ideas made possible many successful communes. for me at least this solidifies his validity as a voice of value.

And his value gives him at least some intellectual authority. His opinion would be respected by anarchists and his ideas be followed. Right?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Alek4A wrote:

Firstly considering that the communes are anti-authoritarian and anti-militant peace is inevitable. there would be no reason to fight

But how do you achieve them to be like that? I don't think they just sprout from the ground like mushorooms. What's the process?

Alek4A wrote:

he is valuable because his ideas made possible many successful communes. for me at least this solidifies his validity as a voice of value.

And his value gives him at least some intellectual authority. His opinion would be respected by anarchists and his ideas be followed. Right?

not authority but value. his idea would not be followed but they would be utilized where necessary... people seem to forget anarchy is not synonymous with autonomy.

well my personal theory is as follows:

when you eliminate state, currency and law you eliminate incentive. People use all those things to assert themselves above others, but in an Anarchist society there is no place of authority to strive for and there is no wealth but that of the collective group. so with time, the desire to ascend above others is augmented by the desire to improve upon society as a whole. This of course is because in a perfectly equal society, the only way to improve the individual's state of being is to improve upon the masses. it is not only a transformation of society but a push forward in the way humans interact as a whole. it takes the selfishness that capitalism leeches off of and directs it towards a communal purpose. in many ways anarchism is a much more optimistic view than any other. i am an anarchist out of faith in humanities ability to change.

That is utopean

Alek4A wrote:

not authority but value. his idea would not be followed but they would be utilized where necessary... people seem to forget anarchy is not synonymous with autonomy.

If utilized because of its high value, meaning its followed, it acquires a degree of authority.

Alek4A wrote:

well my personal theory is as follows:

when you eliminate state, currency and law you eliminate incentive.

Incentive for what? And how do you plan both to eliminate it and keep it eliminated?

Alek4A wrote:

People use all those things to assert themselves above others, but in an Anarchist society there is no place of authority to strive for and there is no wealth but that of the collective group.

Neither law nor state are intrinsically means through which people assert themselves above others. They're can be simple means of social organization, which, depending on their particular characteristics can be used or not by individuals to assert themselves above others.

Alek4A wrote:

so with time, the desire to ascend above others is augmented by the desire to improve upon society as a whole. This of course is because in a perfectly equal society, the only way to improve the individual's state of being is to improve upon the masses.

Are you implying that the only motive for a person to "improve him/herself" is to ascend above others?

Alek4A wrote:

it is not only a transformation of society but a push forward in the way humans interact as a whole. it takes the selfishness that capitalism leeches off of and directs it towards a communal purpose.

Through which process? How is it achieved? How is it preserved?

Alek4A wrote:

in many ways anarchism is a much more optimistic view than any other. i am an anarchist out of faith in humanities ability to change.

Communism to a great extent also relies on people's ability to change. Given the proper circumstances and methods.