Coalitions

Liche wrote:

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

I am more syndicalist than anarchist

Consider Marxism.

I have and the said thing is I'm still thinking about it...

When I try to find more information on it, the source is irellevant or the author as a libretarian....seriosly it gets annoying they only list the cons and no pros. But from what I do know about it, it sounds like a good concept.

You should read Marx then, its the best way to learn about Marxism.

Or read my posts, that's nearly as good.

Pannekoek wrote:

Or read my posts, that's nearly as good.

no, it is better to read for yourself.

mononokifool wrote:

Pannekoek wrote:

Or read my posts, that's nearly as good.

no, it is better to read for yourself.

Yep. Besides something tells me that other sources 'mite' have more information lol.

Riddler wrote:

WTF? Why are the socdems and the authoritarians in opposition to the communists? Me protest!

I agree, since the political ideologies of the people involved in the communist and socialist parties are authoritarian anyway. Are these coalitions still current?

Quote :

the political ideologies of the people involved in the communist and socialist parties are authoritarian anyway

What a charming boy you are

MarxistFreeman wrote:

Quote :

the political ideologies of the people involved in the communist and socialist parties are authoritarian anyway

What a charming boy you are

I wasn't trying to charm anyone. The dictatorship of the proletariat is authoritarian. The socialist transition is authoritarian. Just because you like it, doesn't make it wrong.

the dictatorship is most certainly not authoritarian

Watermelon wrote:

the dictatorship is most certainly not authoritarian

Authoritarian means the power of authority of one person - synonym of the dictature.

Riddler wrote:

Watermelon wrote:

the dictatorship is most certainly not authoritarian

Authoritarian means the power of authority of one person - synonym of the dictature.

capitalism is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat
communism is a classless society

the bourgeoisie being more than one person
same applies to the proletariat

dictator means class not person

Watermelon wrote:

dictator means class not person

it doesn't necessarily mean ONLY one or the other

for Marxism it does.

Watermelon wrote:

for Marxism it does.

We're not tryin to trap ourselves within the confines of marxism for this discussion; there's no point.

Quote :

Authoritarian means the power of authority of one person - synonym of the dictature.

According to who?

So why is
Marxism authoritarian

By the way I think we should boot the commies from our coalition.

Watermelon wrote:

So why is
Marxism authoritarian

I don't understand how you think it isn't. As long as there is a state, there is authority. During the dictatorship, the state will still exist, it will have just changed hands.

What is bad about a state? It is not bad if it is a proletarian state.

Watermelon wrote:

What is bad about a state?

Where'd you get that from? I do think it's bad, but i hadn't said that til just now.

Quote :

It is not bad if it is a proletarian state.

Any political state can be only for one class, at the expense of the rest. Proletarians aren't the only workers, they aren't even the majority of the workers. So why would i condone a dictatorship of a minority over the majority?

Lol the definition of proletarian is worker. also y is teh stayt badd.

Watermelon wrote:

for Marxism it does.

it says that it can include the dictatorship of one person ALSO

dictatorship of the proletariat is dictatorship of a class

Watermelon wrote:

Lol the definition of proletarian is worker. also y is teh stayt badd.

No, it's not. The definition of proletarian is generally tied to the industrial workers who produce, but do not own the means of their own production.

EDIT: Forgot to answer your question.

The state is bad because, by its very nature, it defends one class, either an existing one, or one it will inadvertantly create after a successful coup.

NoJustice.NoPeace wrote:

Watermelon wrote:

Lol the definition of proletarian is worker. also y is teh stayt badd.

No, it's not. The definition of proletarian is generally tied to the industrial workers who produce, but do not own the means of their own production.

how dare we correct him on that which he claimed to have improved!

the green miniority is in the majority rule. hahaha. by the way i emhbrace every function(excpet capitalism and aouthorian. so it seems fitting that i am with them.muahahahahahahaha.sorry to spam but i wanna get this out from what read from page 1

Quote :

No, it's not. The definition of proletarian is generally tied to the industrial workers who produce, but do not own the means of their own production.

Lol. you make me laff ver y muchly. I will give you the truth definitions.

1. bourgeoisie: Teh class in capitalism taht owns teh means of perduction. tehy dont werk. tehy hire proletariats to werk.

2. proletariat: teh class in captialism not owning tehy own means of perductions. tehy werk for teh bourgeoisies.

3. means of perductiins: things that are used to perduce shtuff. examples: factories tools. NO A GARDEN SHOVE L IS NOT A MEANS OF PERDUCTIONS.

teh ends

Don't trust proletarians. Thats all you need to know.