Real Communism can not be reached with reformism

Well said Frank. I only want to add one thought.

Quote :

Though I will admit, as Chomsky does, that reformist movements reflect a society's openness to change and willingness to progress, but that's all.

I would go further even, and say that these reformist movements are manifestations of the natural democratic, anarchic tendencies of the people, within the framework of an anti-democratic system in place.

So i wouldn't doubt the revolutionary potential of these reformist movements if the situation was right.

Black_Cross, the republicans lost, bad time.
and not very nice either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War#Republicans_2

the collectivist system lasted less than 3 years wich proves nothing.

mattabesta wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War#Republicans_2

Never knew, thx.

mattabesta wrote:

Black_Cross, the republicans lost, bad time.
and not very nice either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War#Republicans_2

I already knew that the state was violent and reactionary... that's why i'm an anarchist. I'm in no need of a history lesson when it comes to the spanish "civil" war.

So what's your point?

Quote :

the collectivist system lasted less than 3 years wich proves nothing.

It proves that it's a functioning system, cos for its time (until it was violently disassembled by the Francoist forces and by the republic) it was a sturdy, proggressive, democratically run economy that had the approval of all involved (not to mention it was more efficient than the capitalist system it used to invoke; which goes to show that people are more apt to work hard when they feel they have something at stake in their place of work). There's nothing else that can legitimize a societal or economic system besides public approval, given that society and economy are tools for humanity's benefit. So it doesn't matter what you think, what matters is the reality of it.

Black_Cross wrote:

I already knew that the state was violent and reactionary... that's why i'm an anarchist. I'm in no need of a history lesson when it comes to the spanish "civil" war.

So what's your point?

Quote :

the collectivist system lasted less than 3 years wich proves nothing.

It proves that it's a functioning system, cos for its time (until it was violently disassembled by the Francoist forces and by the republic) it was a sturdy, proggressive, democratically run economy that had the approval of all involved (not to mention it was more efficient than the capitalist system it used to invoke; which goes to show that people are more apt to work hard when they feel they have something at stake in their place of work). There's nothing else that can legitimize a societal or economic system besides public approval, given that society and economy are tools for humanity's benefit. So it doesn't matter what you think, what matters is the reality of it.

1. that was a list of slaughter by the republicans.....

according to what I has reed collectivism is like evryone gets a share of the profit, according to what they do, isn't that just like capitalsim just riskyer for the employee?

mattabesta wrote:

1. that was a list of slaughter by the republicans.....

... No crap. What Is Your Point?

No where have i said anything to glorify the republic. It was reactionary by its nature as a state. It was also violent by its nature as a state. And under the conditions of a threat to its survival, it engaged in spy-mania and a brutal repression of its own population, a reaction to be expected (and also a large reason that the state is in need of annihilation). Need i say more to prove that i have no support for the republic or its actions?

Quote :

according to what I has reed...

Should read: 'according to wikipedia'

Quote :

...collectivism is like evryone gets a share of the profit, according to what they do, isn't that just like capitalsim just riskyer for the employee?

Maybe it's perceived that way to those content with a shallow interpretation of class struggle and the material relations that form the foundation of any economic system under any epoch of civilization. The material relations between boss and worker didn't exist in any significant form in the collectivized industry, therefore the workers were in control of their own subsistence, which subverts a pillar of capitalist production. So no, it's not the same. There are similarities, but nothing based on the inherent laws of capitalist production, but rather on collectivized spain's own need for subsistence.

Also, it was never my intent to say collectivized spain was perfect by any means.

I Declare Shenanigans.

I love how, we never come to a common conclusion on this site, or even, just figure out what the heck the other is trying to say.

^^^ And in almost every, if not all cases, you can tell where it comes from. In this case, it is an obvious misunderstanding of the history of the spanish revolution, republic, and the civil war.

Black_Cross wrote:

^^^ And in almost every, if not all cases, you can tell where it comes from. In this case, it is an obvious misunderstanding of the history of the spanish revolution, republic, and the civil war.

if you blame the republic then fuck you, im not even going to listen to your arguments because im a ignorant bastard. so dont be a phoney, the republic was standing for everything good, im tired of this shit "traitor" stuff. fuck off im really mad

I'm trying to get this, collectivesed means the emploees share profit, they share the loss as well too then?

Tyrlop wrote:

Black_Cross wrote:

^^^ And in almost every, if not all cases, you can tell where it comes from. In this case, it is an obvious misunderstanding of the history of the spanish revolution, republic, and the civil war.

if you blame the republic then fuck you, im not even going to listen to your arguments because im a ignorant bastard. so dont be a phoney, the republic was standing for everything good, im tired of this shit "traitor" stuff. fuck off im really mad

LOL!

Yeah we never get to conclusions here. But discussing is fun and totally not putting each other against each other(wat?) and all. Oh well.

Quote :

I'm trying to get this, collectivesed means the emploees share profit, they share the loss as well too then?

If it helps you to consider it in that bourgeois sense, then yes, that's basically it.

To be more concise though, the 'employees' are collectivists (since the employers are pussies, they took their money and left) and they share production (profit is misleading, since a collectivist industry isn't based on the valorization of capital). And sharing production naturally means they rise and fall together. But a collectivized industry wouldn't have all the contradictions that make capitalism prone to periodic crises.

Quote :

Yeah we never get to conclusions here.

No, but people give up on arguments, which is basically a concession.

Black_Cross wrote:

No, but people give up on arguments, which is basically a concession.

Smart thinking. But yeah, good enough for me. Or it will end with someone just dodging the point or just saying stupid shit without replying to the post.

CoolKidX wrote:

Black_Cross wrote:

No, but people give up on arguments, which is basically a concession.

Smart thinking. But yeah, good enough for me. Or it will end with someone just dodging the point or just saying stupid shit without replying to the post.

No, saying a shitload of self-contradictory crap, is often used here by some members, to discourage opponents from answering, wouldn't really considere that a concession. Simply, admitting the fact that the conversation will be going nowhere, but to no sense land.

AND he didnt even answered me! what an asshole ive totally lost every singel respect for you BLACK CROSS, you prove to be a simple stupid ignorant, an aristokrat who thinks that he is alllways right all the fucking way, not. things arent black and white you cumduster fuck you.
but seriusly. you just cant stop pissing me off? you are constantly refering to me as an idiot and a ignoratant in a undirect way.

and you foolkidx we all know what you are up to, just go. you are ruining this forum, seriously stop being an ass. your jokes arent even funny.

and i dont want any of you to insult spain again or i fucking come and cut you balls of with an old dull shears.

EDIT:

see you fucking ludicrous, keep accusing me for trolling and stuff,so narrowminded you are.

Stop trolling Tyrlop.

Quote :

No, saying a shitload of self-contradictory crap, is often used here by some members...

Certainly you can provide an example of this, since it happens so often.

Quote :

...to discourage opponents from answering, wouldn't really considere that a concession.

... Then it should be pretty easy to call them out on their bullshit. The less weight an argument holds, the easier it is to extinguish; intellectual discourse 101.

Quote :

Simply, admitting the fact that the conversation will be going nowhere, but to no sense land.

Or in other words, admitting you've got jack shit. A concession's a concession is a concession.

If you can't even defend your own point of view from so-called nonsense, then maybe you should have refrained from engaging in the debate. It would certainly save you some shame.

Tyrlop wrote:

AND he didnt even answered me! what an asshole ive totally lost every singel respect for you BLACK CROSS, you prove to be a simple stupid ignorant, an aristokrat who thinks that he is alllways right all the fucking way, not. things arent black and white you cumduster fuck you.
but seriusly. you just cant stop pissing me off? you are constantly refering to me as an idiot and a ignoratant in a undirect way.

and you foolkidx we all know what you are up to, just go. you are ruining this forum, seriously stop being an ass. your jokes arent even funny.

and i dont want any of you to insult spain again or i fucking come and cut you balls of with an old dull shears.

EDIT:

see you fucking ludicrous, keep accusing me for trolling and stuff,so narrowminded you are.

lol, you're posts are always funnier when i take them seriously. (There, i responded; get off my ass!)