My polipro

mononokifool wrote:

That is utopean

why not strive for utopia?

in capitalism the only way to improve your life is to step on others! People in our capitalist society use: Free market, to get money and improve their financial positions "of course in america if its in your hands then its been taken from someone else" they use the state in the sense that you can run for mayor or governer or president and give yourself power over your life and the lives of the masses. not only that but money and politics always go together in capitalism. the oval office is practically a thing to bought. and it therfore must be abolished.

in a society without economy or state the only way to improve the individual's state of being is to add to the collective wealth and quality of life. this is achieved by working hard and acting in a manner which fufills the social obligations of said community.

im confused as t owhy you are so opposed to anarchy. it is in many ways the ideal final state of communism. i would be a much larger supporter of communism if there was a communist society that ever reached the "final stage" with the USSR it only got more authoritarian with time

Alek4A wrote:

in a society without economy

Imagine you didn't eat ensured yourself a shelter and provided yourself with commodities of any kind. That's the implications of no economy.

Alek4A wrote:

or state the only way to improve the individual's state of being is to add to the collective wealth and quality of life. this is achieved by working hard and acting in a manner which fufills the social obligations of said community.

The state serves as a TEMPORARY organizative institution, that is the state ensures revolution to be kept and social accords to be respected until people is finally able to organize without something like a state.

Alek4A wrote:

im confused as t owhy you are so opposed to anarchy. it is in many ways the ideal final state of communism.

The ideal form of communism, as I see it, is "an archo-communism" that is a communist anarchy. But for something like that to happen there has to be a process leading to people's education, to people's formation of that anarchist culture. And even so we will always need to have some sort of leadership.

Alek4A wrote:

i would be a much larger supporter of communism if there was a communist society that ever reached the "final stage" with the USSR it only got more authoritarian with time

USSR was never communist. USSR was a socialist state capitalism (or deformed workers' state as Trots call it) and that's one of the main problems that lead to its corruption and ultimately its collapse.

yea, just watch (or read) animal farm.

that is what made me understand the USSR.

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.

But both Lenin and Marx (don't remember the time period, so it could've been old Marx) condoned the idea of a single person or group in the position of utter authority. And if the state is the repression of the bourgeoisie, i.e., an armed force under the command of one individual or group of individuals, who's to make sure, after they have fulfilled their task, that they will be disbanded?

Quote :

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

Did Marx test this theory? If so, may i see the results?

Quote :

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

You're trying, it seems to me, to make a point that has absolutely no pertanance. Anarchists don't deny all authority, only that which is coercive and forceful. I recall a Bakunin quote. Something to the effect that, of course, when you want to learn how to make a shoe, you defer to the authority of the shoemaker. Tryin to say we defy all authority is fallacious.

Quote :

The ideal form of communism, as I see it, is "an archo-communism" that is a communist anarchy.

But how do you actually see the communities being set up? As one giant nation? You seem so opposed to multiple communes, that you must have some idea of how one would work.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

But both Lenin and Marx (don't remember the time period, so it could've been old Marx) condoned the idea of a single person or group in the position of utter authority. And if the state is the repression of the bourgeoisie, i.e., an armed force under the command of one individual or group of individuals, who's to make sure, after they have fulfilled their task, that they will be disbanded?

I don't know how mononokifool will answer to this one but this is my view: If you've educated the masses aiding them in getting critical thought and have got them to revolt, don't you think that same critical thought, the very same basis of revolution would ensure repressive forces to be eliminated from within the society?

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

You're trying, it seems to me, to make a point that has absolutely no pertanance. Anarchists don't deny all authority, only that which is coercive and forceful. I recall a Bakunin quote. Something to the effect that, of course, when you want to learn how to make a shoe, you defer to the authority of the shoemaker. Tryin to say we defy all authority is fallacious.

Actually I'm adressing Alek4A. That's precisely what I wanted Alek4A to understand, that you anarchists do not defy all authority. He made it seem to me that HE opposes any kind of authority which is in my view absurd and I wanted him as an anarchist to understand that.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

But how do you actually see the communities being set up? As one giant nation? You seem so opposed to multiple communes, that you must have some idea of how one would work.

I don't visualize the communities as a "single giant nation". I actually oppose the widespread communist idea that there should be no countries. I think communism can be stablished without eliminating national and cultural diversity. I see the world working as a set of several cooperative communities each with an identity but all sharing communism.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

But both Lenin and Marx (don't remember the time period, so it could've been old Marx) condoned the idea of a single person or group in the position of utter authority. And if the state is the repression of the bourgeoisie, i.e., an armed force under the command of one individual or group of individuals, who's to make sure, after they have fulfilled their task, that they will be disbanded?

Becuase by that time everone will be armed. and if someone decides to take power the people will be able to defend themselves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_EcpFLmUaU

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I don't know how mononokifool will answer to this one but this is my view: If you've educated the masses aiding them in getting critical thought and have got them to revolt, don't you think that same critical thought, the very same basis of revolution would ensure repressive forces to be eliminated from within the society?

I wrote that response poorly. I'm sure if the armed force accomplished its reason for existence, it would likely disband (They just haven't been able to accomplish their goal). The problem is making sure the state doesn't fall into the wrong hands, like with Stalin.

Quote :

Actually I'm adressing Alek4A. That's precisely what I wanted Alek4A to understand, that you anarchists do not defy all authority. He made it seem to me that HE opposes any kind of authority which is in my view absurd and I wanted him as an anarchist to understand that.

Fair enough, though i didn't catch the same drift you did.

Quote :

I don't visualize the communities as a "single giant nation". I actually oppose the widespread communist idea that there should be no countries. I think communism can be stablished without eliminating national and cultural diversity. I see the world working as a set of several cooperative communities each with an identity but all sharing communism.

Well damn, now i'm confused for sure... How is this any different from what Alek proposed? Except for the fact that individual communes would likely be smaller in size than countries. They'd still be federated, as in your proposal.

Quote :

Becuase by that time everone will be armed. and if someone decides to take power the people will be able to defend themselves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_EcpFLmUaU

Like i admitted at the beginning of this post, my rebuttal was poorly written. Yes, if the state accomplished the repression of repressive forces, it would dissolve. But if the Red Army is the army of labour, then they forcefully re-enslaved themselves (if they could've ever been regarded as free) when they allowed Stalin to come to power. And if it's that easy for the working class to be decieved like that, then what redeeming quality is their in dictatorship or centralized authority? Efficiency? Is that worth risking an entire revolution for?

You cant know for sure just like you cant now for sure that after an anarchist revolution everyone would want to live peacefully. Whos to say some group decides after the revolution not to disband? There are no absolutes in anything. But if the masses become educated they will know if someone is false. If all of russia was educated you cant believe Stalin would have come to power.

mononokifool wrote:

You cant know for sure just like you cant now for sure that after an anarchist revolution everyone would want to live peacefully. Whos to say some group decides after the revolution not to disband? There are no absolutes in anything. But if the masses become educated they will know if someone is false. If all of russia was educated you cant believe Stalin would have come to power.

I dunno about that last point, since Stalin was an ally of the communists (Or, at the very least, he made people, and himself, believe that he was).

As for the rest, you're absolutely right. Nothing is definite, especially at this point. But shouldn't that fact be enough to make people understand the threat that this sort of authority poses? If after an anarchist revolution, there is violence in certain areas, there's little to be done about it, unfortunately; but at least an anarchist revolution (if it was truly anarchist) would not, by its nature, allow for the possibility of the state machinery falling into the hands of those who would see the revolution done in, or those who aren't capable of running a state in revolution. Sure, it's possible that a new state would be created, but this is possible always, since authority and the state (government) are abstract, so all that is needed to successfully establish a state is for the people to support it, or believe it has some sort of authority.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I wrote that response poorly. I'm sure if the armed force accomplished its reason for existence, it would likely disband (They just haven't been able to accomplish their goal). The problem is making sure the state doesn't fall into the wrong hands, like with Stalin.

I side with mononokifool. If the people has been prepared well enough for revolution, if the people posseses the knowledge of what brought them to revolt, if people know what the revolution is aiming for, they'll be able to identify and reject any threat to it.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

Fair enough, though i didn't catch the same drift you did.

Well, he likes to replace the word "authority" with "value". Going back to your example he seems to imply that a shoe-maker does not have authority in making shoes but has valuable ideas that can be applied to shoe-making.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

Well damn, now i'm confused for sure... How is this any different from what Alek proposed? Except for the fact that individual communes would likely be smaller in size than countries. They'd still be federated, as in your proposal.

My example of my ideal communist world goes like this: There exists a communist France, a communist Mexico a communist Germany, a communist Russia, etc. French keep their territory, traditions and culture just like anybody else, France still has a territorial demarcation. The term "French" still exists and the French language is predominant within French territory. The same applies for all nations. All nations have their government yet all share a common point: all are communist nations. They're ruled by communist principles, they've got communist rules, they cooperate with each other meaning more developed nations will aide the undeveloped to develop, that nations with massive ammounts of resources and production will share their excedents with those of which peroduction does not suffice their needs, that citizens of a given nation will be able to freely travel to other nations and be treated like a citizen of that nation.

That's pretty much the way an ideal communist world would exist for me.

Now, what's the difference with Alek4A's proposal? Well, to me Alek4A seems to imply that there would be several diferent communities, that there would be no law nor an economic system per say. He seems to imply that communities would inherently be pacific and cooperate with each other but I don't see that happening without establishing codes of cooperation or a "pan-communitary" system. I don't see that happening without communitary organisation.

What I call "anarcho-communism" is a system in which communism is well-rooted enough within people's culture that every individual practices communism without the need of an upper structure coordinating communism's development and people's complete adaptation to it. That way there wouldn 't be need for a structure to educate people nor to repress counter-revolution.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I dunno about that last point, since Stalin was an ally of the communists (Or, at the very least, he made people, and himself, believe that he was).

As for the rest, you're absolutely right. Nothing is definite, especially at this point. But shouldn't that fact be enough to make people understand the threat that this sort of authority poses? If after an anarchist revolution, there is violence in certain areas, there's little to be done about it, unfortunately; but at least an anarchist revolution (if it was truly anarchist) would not, by its nature, allow for the possibility of the state machinery falling into the hands of those who would see the revolution done in, or those who aren't capable of running a state in revolution. Sure, it's possible that a new state would be created, but this is possible always, since authority and the state (government) are abstract, so all that is needed to successfully establish a state is for the people to support it, or believe it has some sort of authority.

But if there was armed people they would protect this from happening. Also a communist revolution would not allow for this either, we want the smashing of the state and Marx says not to use the ready made state machinery so like i said if they were educated this would most likly not happen

I'm not against all authority. i simply said 1 man should never dictate the life of any other man. Decentralized authority is fully acceptable.

Alek4A wrote:

I'm not against all authority. i simply said 1 man should never dictate the life of any other man.

agreed

Alek4A wrote:

I'm not against all authority. i simply said 1 man should never dictate the life of any other man. Decentralized authority is fully acceptable.

Good to know that. Anyway, how can a man dictate the lives of men that have been freed from the yoke of ignorance?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Alek4A wrote:

I'm not against all authority. i simply said 1 man should never dictate the life of any other man. Decentralized authority is fully acceptable.

Good to know that. Anyway, how can a man dictate the lives of men that have been freed from the yoke of ignorance?

Well, America was formed with the intention of being a great free democratic nation and it was spurred by a great philosophical and scientific enlightenment. And look at us now...

Alek4A wrote:

Well, America was formed with the intention of being a great free democratic nation and it was spurred by a great philosophical and scientific enlightenment. And look at us now...

Are you sure that the people's were enlightened? Are you sure that was the real intention?

For an instance, capitalism can't thrive unless someone allows himself to be exploited by others that will live better on his expense. USA was created as an inherently capitalist nation.

You can't at all compare the "American Revolution" to what we socialists want to do.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I side with mononokifool. If the people has been prepared well enough for revolution, if the people posseses the knowledge of what brought them to revolt, if people know what the revolution is aiming for, they'll be able to identify and reject any threat to it.

I wonder... Was there any indication of what Stalin would do if in power, before he came to power? As i recall, there was only the issue of nationalism that the people could've noticed if educated (Stalin did a lot of his jockeying in the dark). If there is no evidence that would suggest a corrupt (or stupid, maybe?) leader, then there's no way the people could know what's coming. And hell, if even the educated communists were fooled by Stalin, what chance of stopping his ascension is there?

Zealot wrote:

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

Fair enough, though i didn't catch the same drift you did.

Well, he likes to replace the word "authority" with "value". Going back to your example he seems to imply that a shoe-maker does not have authority in making shoes but has valuable ideas that can be applied to shoe-making.

Maybe he just didn't want to confuse anyone by saying he approves of authority. I'm sure not everyone on this site is as educated in anarchist theory as you are. But i merely conject.

Quote :

Now, what's the difference with Alek4A's proposal? Well, to me Alek4A seems to imply that there would be several diferent communities, that there would be no law nor an economic system per say. He seems to imply that communities would inherently be pacific and cooperate with each other but I don't see that happening without establishing codes of cooperation or a "pan-communitary" system. I don't see that happening without communitary organisation.

Well, i don't know how 'no economy' would work. If i took a guess (mostly unfounded, since i don't remember him ever speaking on the subject of which economy would be best), i'd say he believes in the right to self-determination, and as such doesn't push any one type of economic system (again, just a guess).

I really don't forsee the end you do. I don't think it would revert us to competition, because mutualists, individualists, and communists (libertarian) all have the same principles as far as authority goes. I don't think there is any more chance for imperialist warring under an anarchist form of society than yours, where countries would maintain the same borders.

And ya, there would be no law (i'm confident that this is an accurate representation of his belief). Do you forsee law in a communist society? And if so, for what reason, if i might ask?

Quote :

Anyway, how can a man dictate the lives of men that have been freed from the yoke of ignorance?

If he's got the guns. I'm being dictated to, yet i'm not ignorant of this fact. I just know i can't take the cops and the armed forces on my own.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I wonder... Was there any indication of what Stalin would do if in power, before he came to power? As i recall, there was only the issue of nationalism that the people could've noticed if educated (Stalin did a lot of his jockeying in the dark). If there is no evidence that would suggest a corrupt (or stupid, maybe?) leader, then there's no way the people could know what's coming. And hell, if even the educated communists were fooled by Stalin, what chance of stopping his ascension is there?

Being the people well educated (something that didn't happen in USSR) they would have stopped him as soon as he acquired power.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

Maybe he just didn't want to confuse anyone by saying he approves of authority. I'm sure not everyone on this site is as educated in anarchist theory as you are. But i merely conject.

It's probable but I don't think it's necesary. He could easily explain "the kind of authority" he is refering to, explain that anarchism doesn't mean "oppose any given authority" and explain the context.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

Well, i don't know how 'no economy' would work. If i took a guess (mostly unfounded, since i don't remember him ever speaking on the subject of which economy would be best), i'd say he believes in the right to self-determination, and as such doesn't push any one type of economic system (again, just a guess).

I would understand it that way. Though I also think he may have an incorrect concept of "economy" thinking that economy is inherently linked to money thus capitalism.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I really don't forsee the end you do. I don't think it would revert us to competition, because mutualists, individualists, and communists (libertarian) all have the same principles as far as authority goes. I don't think there is any more chance for imperialist warring under an anarchist form of society than yours, where countries would maintain the same borders.

Imperialism, more than dependant on authority depends on the idea that a given group of people should assert or try to assert themselves over others to exploit them for the benefit this brings. In a system in which mutual assistance has been applied internationally and serves as one of the principles of every society I don't think there would be chance of Impeialism developing.

However, if you create a system in which you have lots of different communities some of which do not employ cooperative economies and some of which may be located in non-prosperous regions, either they may try to assert themselves over others to keep their right to self determination or they'd have to join other communities to thrive.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

And ya, there would be no law (i'm confident that this is an accurate representation of his belief). Do you forsee law in a communist society? And if so, for what reason, if i might ask?

I think there would be something like "de facto law" meaning thing like rapes, murder, counterrevolution and slacking for example would be punishable in some way. Else, I think law is to serve in communism as the way to distribute production meaning law will serve to fix things like the ammount of square meters per person, the maximum ammount of a given product person can have, etc.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

If he's got the guns. I'm being dictated to, yet i'm not ignorant of this fact. I just know i can't take the cops and the armed forces on my own.

In the event of a succesful revolution we'd get the guns as well.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Being the people well educated (something that didn't happen in USSR) they would have stopped him as soon as he acquired power.

And the communists?

Zealot wrote:

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

Well, i don't know how 'no economy' would work. If i took a guess (mostly unfounded, since i don't remember him ever speaking on the subject of which economy would be best), i'd say he believes in the right to self-determination, and as such doesn't push any one type of economic system (again, just a guess).

I would understand it that way. Though I also think he may have an incorrect concept of "economy" thinking that economy is inherently linked to money thus capitalism.

Ya, it happens.

Zealot wrote:

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I really don't forsee the end you do. I don't think it would revert us to competition, because mutualists, individualists, and communists (libertarian) all have the same principles as far as authority goes. I don't think there is any more chance for imperialist warring under an anarchist form of society than yours, where countries would maintain the same borders.

Imperialism, more than dependant on authority depends on the idea that a given group of people should assert or try to assert themselves over others to exploit them for the benefit this brings.

How is that not authority?

Quote :

In a system in which mutual assistance has been applied internationally and serves as one of the principles of every society I don't think there would be chance of Impeialism developing.

I agree, but i don't see how this means that keeping borders and cultures the way they are is more likely to have this result, as opposed to smaller communities that are federated for mutual assistance (Even if they choose individualism [which i don't think would last long, since i think communism is much more desirable], they'd just end up isolating themselves and wouldn't involve themselves in "foreign struggle").

Quote :

However, if you create a system in which you have lots of different communities some of which do not employ cooperative economies and some of which may be located in non-prosperous regions, either they may try to assert themselves over others to keep their right to self determination or they'd have to join other communities to thrive.

If it came to that, i hardly believe war would be the result. The communist communities, if they are truly established upon communist principles, would always be willing to lend a hand. If the individualist communities found that they weren't as prosperous (due to lack of resources or what not), would they not just choose federation? If they see how good it is to us, then why wouldn't they federate rather than sacrifice their lives and their economy (since they are probably, at this point, on the brink of poverty, if not worse off) .

Zealot wrote:

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

And ya, there would be no law (i'm confident that this is an accurate representation of his belief). Do you forsee law in a communist society? And if so, for what reason, if i might ask?

I think there would be something like "de facto law" meaning thing like rapes, murder, counterrevolution and slacking for example would be punishable in some way. Else, I think law is to serve in communism as the way to distribute production meaning law will serve to fix things like the ammount of square meters per person, the maximum ammount of a given product person can have, etc.

A rationing system? If communism was achieved, that wouldn't be necessary.

And by law, what do you mean? As it is now, with cops and courts and prisons? That's what seems to be implied by the word 'punishment' (which is no way to deal with people).

Quote :

In the event of a succesful revolution we'd get the guns as well.

That seems optimistic. I think we'd get guns, but not anywhere near enough (I don't think the army will have any part in a revolution. I think they'd resist us forcefully). I think in these times, what we would require is great numbers, and not so much weaponry.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

And the communists?

Were all people well-educated by them?

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

How is that not authority?

What I was trying to imply is that authority is not per say the origin of Imperialism but from the idea others should be exploited in behalf of the community. An implication of this is excertion of authority over the target of exploitation.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I agree, but i don't see how this means that keeping borders and cultures the way they are is more likely to have this result, as opposed to smaller communities that are federated for mutual assistance (Even if they choose individualism [which i don't think would last long, since i think communism is much more desirable], they'd just end up isolating themselves and wouldn't involve themselves in "foreign struggle").

I'm not precisely arguing that my version would more likely have the results we're expecting than several smaller communities. I liike the communities that exist now, how they are arranged and I would like the change to occur merely to be the implementation of communist economy and principles. That is the world as we have it today but communist.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

If it came to that, i hardly believe war would be the result. The communist communities, if they are truly established upon communist principles, would always be willing to lend a hand. If the individualist communities found that they weren't as prosperous (due to lack of resources or what not), would they not just choose federation? If they see how good it is to us, then why wouldn't they federate rather than sacrifice their lives and their economy (since they are probably, at this point, on the brink of poverty, if not worse off) .

I am understanding that you would advocate for the existance of lots of differen self-determined communities. As I udnerstand that, all communities would have great variations, some would be collectivist, others would be individualist. "Communitary identities" would vary greatly. Some could be based on mutual assistance while others could be based on explotation of other communities. That udnerstanding it as you advocate for total self-determination.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

A rationing system? If communism was achieved, that wouldn't be necessary.

How so?

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

And by law, what do you mean? As it is now, with cops and courts and prisons? That's what seems to be implied by the word 'punishment' (which is no way to deal with people).

Well what do you do with criminals then?

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

That seems optimistic. I think we'd get guns, but not anywhere near enough (I don't think the army will have any part in a revolution. I think they'd resist us forcefully). I think in these times, what we would require is great numbers, and not so much weaponry.

Who produces the guns?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Were all people well-educated by them?

I was asking what their excuse is, for being fooled by Stalin.

Zealot wrote:

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

How is that not authority?

What I was trying to imply is that authority is not per say the origin of Imperialism but from the idea others should be exploited in behalf of the community. An implication of this is excertion of authority over the target of exploitation.

But its origins wouldn't really matter, as i see it. Because if people were brought up with anarchist principles, they would know that authority is wrong. And if they were to try to exploit a neighboring community, that would be an act of authority, and i'm sure they would see that most obvious of facts.

Quote :

I am understanding that you would advocate for the existance of lots of differen self-determined communities. As I udnerstand that, all communities would have great variations, some would be collectivist, others would be individualist. "Communitary identities" would vary greatly. Some could be based on mutual assistance while others could be based on explotation of other communities. That udnerstanding it as you advocate for total self-determination.

I don't think its ideal, but i doubt there will be much choice in the end. Not every community is going to have the same opinion about how their community should be run. And even if some choose capitalism, it would have to be pretty tyrannical to be able to maintain itself, since it would only consist of those who would willingly put themselves into slavery.

Zealot wrote:

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

A rationing system? If communism was achieved, that wouldn't be necessary.

How so?

Production would have met consumption. People can have what they want.

Quote :

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

And by law, what do you mean? As it is now, with cops and courts and prisons? That's what seems to be implied by the word 'punishment' (which is no way to deal with people).

Well what do you do with criminals then?

I don't care for that term, cause it's just seeing an appearance of things. Are there really people who willingly make it their purpose to disrupt order? I don't think there is anyone who commits crime for the sake of committing crime. Its like curing an illness. They need to be diagnosed with a material or mental disorder, and need to be prescribed a treatment.

Zealot wrote:

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

That seems optimistic. I think we'd get guns, but not anywhere near enough (I don't think the army will have any part in a revolution. I think they'd resist us forcefully). I think in these times, what we would require is great numbers, and not so much weaponry.

Who produces the guns?

Again, i don't think this is the most relevant question to be asked here. Even if we get a hold of the industry needed to produce the weapons, what makes you think we could make them fast enough to match the enormous number of weapons that we've already produced for them, now held at the ready by the armed forces?

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I was asking what their excuse is, for being fooled by Stalin.

I don't think those that were well educated were fooled by Stalin. Stalin mainly fooled the majourity getting the upper hand.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

But its origins wouldn't really matter, as i see it. Because if people were brought up with anarchist principles, they would know that authority is wrong. And if they were to try to exploit a neighboring community, that would be an act of authority, and i'm sure they would see that most obvious of facts.

The thing is that maybe their conditions may divert them out of their anarchist principles.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I don't think its ideal, but i doubt there will be much choice in the end. Not every community is going to have the same opinion about how their community should be run. And even if some choose capitalism, it would have to be pretty tyrannical to be able to maintain itself, since it would only consist of those who would willingly put themselves into slavery.

Which could happen meaning there would be again tyrannic communities eager to excert their authority not only over the members of their own community but over other communities.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

Production would have met consumption. People can have what they want.

How come would production have met consumption?

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I don't care for that term, cause it's just seeing an appearance of things. Are there really people who willingly make it their purpose to disrupt order? I don't think there is anyone who commits crime for the sake of committing crime. Its like curing an illness. They need to be diagnosed with a material or mental disorder, and need to be prescribed a treatment.

That's why I was talking about capitalist reactionaries with full conviction on their capitalist ideals.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

Again, i don't think this is the most relevant question to be asked here. Even if we get a hold of the industry needed to produce the weapons, what makes you think we could make them fast enough to match the enormous number of weapons that we've already produced for them, now held at the ready by the armed forces?

First of all I think armies could split in factions, secondly, in the case of attrition, where would they get supplies from? And there are lots of ways to create improvised weapons which given the proper tactics and some training are useful enough. In the end we would end up winning.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

The thing is that maybe their conditions may divert them out of their anarchist principles.

I think it would most likely divert them from their individualist principles if the communist societies were prosperous. And if the communist societies are not prosperous, then we would have wasted all our fuckin time with political activity.

Quote :

Which could happen meaning there would be again tyrannic communities eager to excert their authority not only over the members of their own community but over other communities.

I was being hypothetical, i don't think there would be any that choose capitalism. But even if there were some communities that stayed capitalist, if there was any indication of imperialist activity, i think the egalitarian communities would be well justified in taking pre-emptive action to ensure that their livelihood is secured.

Quote :

How come would production have met consumption?

Maybe our definitions of communism differ, but I believe that to be a necessary prerequisite for communism.

Zealot wrote:

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I don't care for that term, cause it's just seeing an appearance of things. Are there really people who willingly make it their purpose to disrupt order? I don't think there is anyone who commits crime for the sake of committing crime. Its like curing an illness. They need to be diagnosed with a material or mental disorder, and need to be prescribed a treatment.

That's why I was talking about capitalist reactionaries with full conviction on their capitalist ideals.

I was under the impression that you were speaking, as a capitalist would, of criminals. My misunderstanding then. But i still don't think prisons would be necessary to secure the true, full-on capitalists. I think they'll be sufficiently incapacitated if the revolution was successful in securing private property. Maybe you're thinking of a different circumstance than i am.

Quote :

First of all I think armies could split in factions,

Depending on which countries we're talking about here, i could agree, but i think america's army would be unified (except of course those that may join the workers).

Quote :

secondly, in the case of attrition, where would they get supplies from?

Well, they've already got the guns; if they moved fast enough, they could get supplies.

Quote :

And there are lots of ways to create improvised weapons which given the proper tactics and some training are useful enough. In the end we would end up winning.

Would that really be enough? They have a lot of weapons (advanced weapons), whereas we begin with virtually nothing.