Your ideal form of government ?

enviro wrote:

can i choose facsit dicatorship, but in reality its more like an ion fisted green dictaotship.
yeah

the Nazi party was pretty Green.

enviro wrote:

can i choose facsit dicatorship, but in reality its more like an ion fisted green dictaotship.
yeah

woah ecofascism.

here you go scope out this party

lol.
full of fail.

hahaha

dude wered did you find that??i could use that as my desktop background

still green facism
dont knowck it till you try it

i went to the libertarian national socialist green party's website, and i print screened it.

you have to be joking enviro.

beatnikzach wrote:

i went to the libertarian national socialist green party's website, and i print screened it.

you have to be joking enviro.

Or trolling.

trolling.

insight poll?

beatnikzach wrote:

trolling.

insight poll?

What do you mean?

By the way... this thread degenerated horribly.

it has horribly.
i'd like to change my vote to no government.

i was not joking, thats just my kind of humor
and no i was not trolling
anyway i said that mine was an ARW green gov't

enviro wrote:

i was not joking, thats just my kind of humor
and no i was not trolling
anyway i said that mine was an ARW green gov't

so, you are a megalomaniac, fifteen year old, free market dictatorship supporting, environmentalist?
what the fuck.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Wakizashi wrote:

Even if the bourgeoisie loses all its power, it will still try to regain it.

You didn't answer my questions and virtually dodged my entire post.

Bourgeoise stop existing, they can't regain power because capitalism stops existing. As simple as that they don't have any tools whatsoever to gain power again because what brought that power down is the workers' understanding of capitalist economics and their conviction in socialism.

Please read my post prior to replying to it.

Wakizashi wrote:

We must always remain vigilant for a return of capitalism, and fight against it.

Capitalism can't return once socialism is stablished unless everyone suffers from mass amnesia and they get no way to regain the knowledge they had gained on economics.

Wakizashi wrote:

That's where Gorbachev failed, which caused the fall of the USSR.

USSR failed because it was built wrongly since its very foundations. Gorbachyov just like the whole Soviet apparatus, was product of that misconceived state capitalist system.

I ave devoted entire previous posts to explain this so I ask you to read them.

You still got to answer several questions and adress several points you haven't.

You really don't get it, do you?

The bourgeoisie is stripped of their power by the Revolution, but THEY'RE NOT ALL DEAD. THE BOURGEOIS PERSONS STILL LIVE AND WILL TRY TO REGAIN THEIR LOST POWER. THEY ARE NOT BOURGEOISIE ANYMORE, BUT STILL LIVE AND WANT THEIR WEALTH AND POWER BACK. ONLY A SOCIALIST PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT CAN STOP THEM FROM REGAINING THIS POWER.

Yes, and you can tell they are bourgeous because of their big noses and funny hats. Every good German citizen should report this to the proper authority, so these enemies of the state can be dealt with.

Wakizashi wrote:

You really don't get it, do you?

The bourgeoisie is stripped of their power by the Revolution, but THEY'RE NOT ALL DEAD.

"Bougeoise" is not a race that should be eliminated. It's just a class that stops existing once they've been stripped from their power by the workers. The Bourgeoisity of Bourgeoisie relies on their grip over the workers.

Wakizashi wrote:

THE BOURGEOIS PERSONS STILL LIVE AND WILL TRY TO REGAIN THEIR LOST POWER.

Many of them, however it will be invain since they don't have superhuman powers.

Wakizashi wrote:

THEY ARE NOT BOURGEOISIE ANYMORE, BUT STILL LIVE AND WANT THEIR WEALTH AND POWER BACK.

Which they can't get because the workers have revolted and seized control of the means of production.

Wakizashi wrote:

ONLY A SOCIALIST PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT CAN STOP THEM FROM REGAINING THIS POWER.

Only the people's conviction and knowledge on socialism and capitalism, the motor behind the revolution, is what can prevent Bourgeoisie or anyone else from gaining power over the workers.

Liche wrote:

Yes, and you can tell they are bourgeous because of their big noses and funny hats. Every good German citizen should report this to the proper authority, so these enemies of the state can be dealt with.

This was gorgeous, Liche, simply gorgeous.

I know, Im proud of it.


I was also kind of nervous you wouldnt get it D: but you did!

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Wakizashi wrote:

You really don't get it, do you?

The bourgeoisie is stripped of their power by the Revolution, but THEY'RE NOT ALL DEAD.

"Bougeoise" is not a race that should be eliminated. It's just a class that stops existing once they've been stripped from their power by the workers. The Bourgeoisity of Bourgeoisie relies on their grip over the workers.

Wakizashi wrote:

THE BOURGEOIS PERSONS STILL LIVE AND WILL TRY TO REGAIN THEIR LOST POWER.

Many of them, however it will be invain since they don't have superhuman powers.

Wakizashi wrote:

THEY ARE NOT BOURGEOISIE ANYMORE, BUT STILL LIVE AND WANT THEIR WEALTH AND POWER BACK.

Which they can't get because the workers have revolted and seized control of the means of production.

Wakizashi wrote:

ONLY A SOCIALIST PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT CAN STOP THEM FROM REGAINING THIS POWER.

Only the people's conviction and knowledge on socialism and capitalism, the motor behind the revolution, is what can prevent Bourgeoisie or anyone else from gaining power over the workers.

Liche wrote:

Yes, and you can tell they are bourgeous because of their big noses and funny hats. Every good German citizen should report this to the proper authority, so these enemies of the state can be dealt with.

This was gorgeous, Liche, simply gorgeous.

Many of the bourgeois would still want their power back and fight for it.

The Proletariat are in power then, but still has to watch out for counterrevolution.

Quote :

Many of the bourgeois would still want their power back and fight for it.

The Proletariat are in power then, but still has to watch out for counterrevolution.

no one is going to be in power.
if so, then what would stop the proletariat from just becoming a larger more oppressive form of the bourgeoisie?
happened in russia, happened in china, happened in vietnam and laos and cambodia, happened in cuba...
but what about spain and even burkina faso?

Wakizashi wrote:

Many of the bourgeois would still want their power back and fight for it.

And how would they? What could they do? Who the hell is going to follow them in the crusade to oppress everyone again?

Wakizashi wrote:

The Proletariat are in power then, but still has to watch out for counterrevolution.

The proletariat will be in control of all the economy but it won't excert power over anyone either within itself or those outside society for those who won't work for their own wish won't form part of the working class and thus won't get the benefits provided by economy unless it is by the charity of some workers.

What force could there be behind the counterrevolution? From where would counterrvolution sprout?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

And how would they? What could they do? Who the hell is going to follow them in the crusade to oppress everyone again?

Simple. they would lie just as you guys did, and promise the people they would be better off in Capitalism, along with promising them wealth and everything they could dream of.

Liche wrote:

Simple. they would lie just as you guys did,

On which basis can you argue that we'd lie?

Liche wrote:

and promise the people they would be better off in Capitalism, along with promising them wealth and everything they could dream of.

You don't quite get how and why people would revolt in te first place do you? They revolt because they understand capitalism fails to provide the with what they need, they revolt because they understand how capitalism works and why it fails.

We revolutionaires don't come to the workers preaching we'll bring them to the land of honey, milk bread and peace. We do what we can to help them understand the workings of capitalism and we compell them to arise and take charge of the economy for they're the only essential piece in the economic equation. What we tell them is "worker, arise and take control of your destiny".

If the system fails to provide the workers with their needs it will be their mistake and it will be corrected for everything will depend on them, and if the system succeeds it will be their merit. It won't depend on a handful of greedy assholes but in the organizational models adopted by the workers, their effectiveness and the resources available.

We tell the workers to make it up to themselves to decide what to produce, how much to produce, how to produce and how hard to work, that's what we tell them to do, we explain them why it is not only possible but neccesary and we can't go further than proposing our models of organization if we believe them to be useful.

Where's the lie if we don't tell them to grant us power? Where's the possibility of counter revolution if everything depends on the workers themselves?

But, Capitalism dosent fail, that is the lie.

Liche wrote:

But, Capitalism dosent fail, that is the lie.

It has been scientifically demonstrated how it fails. We're not trying to make them think it fails but to let them realize how it fails even simply by logical analysis.


As an economic system it fails to provide the society to suffice its needs, it fails to provide freedom, it fails to provide stability, it fails to provide social organization, it fails in its lack of scientificity, it fails to get knowledge difusion all over society, it fails overall to provide a workable society.

It relies on having minorities exploit majorities so it definitely fails for majorities and, said minorities (or many of those within them), often suffer problems originated by this unequalty that is overall social unstability, strikes, crime and several other problems, just to mention things from a shallow perspective.

Whether something fails or not is relative to the objectives of the subject. Since it's a proven fact that capitalism relies on the exploitation of majorities by minorities the latter of which enrich at the expense of the majorities's labor meaning those minorities enjoy not only much better conditions but actually power over said majorities and that it is absolutely impossible for everyone within this framework to enjoy equalty regardless on efforts, that is, it wouldn't matter if all the workers worked equally hard and managed their economy equally, they would still be workers under the orders of the bourgeoisie, workers whose life is determined by the bourgeoise at practically every level. This aside the facts already mentioned above.

Taking all that into account... is it the workers' objective to break their backs working to have someone getting richer at their expense? Considering that it is impossible for the broad majority of workers to stop being exploited under capitalism, is it their objective to allow this exploitation?

And taking into account that most workers don't understand this situation nor understand the alternatives to this situation nor get either the knowledges or the time to think this over, is the arguement that they willingly and knowingly accept their conditions defensible?

Another important question is also related to imperialism since its yet another tool to mitigate civil unrest within imperialist nations. Through imperialism Imperialist nations exploit "weaker" nations in order to provide their populations with te ilusion of welfare, the illusion that everything is being evened up. This whole delusion relies on the effectiveness with which empires hold their grip on these weaker nations exporting to them the greater burdens of exploitation.

Given all those facts... what's the success of capitalism?

beatnikzach wrote:

Quote :

Many of the bourgeois would still want their power back and fight for it.

The Proletariat are in power then, but still has to watch out for counterrevolution.

no one is going to be in power.
if so, then what would stop the proletariat from just becoming a larger more oppressive form of the bourgeoisie?
happened in russia, happened in china, happened in vietnam and laos and cambodia, happened in cuba...
but what about spain and even burkina faso?

Anarchism=chaos.

There will always have to be someone in power.

Here's a simple prove of the fact the bourgeoisie wants their power back: the Russian Civil War.
The Revolution has succeeded, the bourgeoisie was no bourgeoisie anymore, but still they wanted their power back and fought for it.
They did indeed find people (if you can call them "people") and mercenaries to fight for the counterrevolution.
If the Proletariat wasn't in power then , the counterrevolution would have succeeded.

Wakizashi wrote:

Anarchism=chaos.

Anarchism stands for "no hierarchy" not for "chaos". Chaos is lack of order, lack of coherence. A community can perfectly organize itself without someone ruling over it.

Wakizashi wrote:

There will always have to be someone in power.

Yeah, everyone which means no one will have power over anyone.

Wakizashi wrote:

Here's a simple prove of the fact the bourgeoisie wants their power back: the Russian Civil War.
The Revolution has succeeded, the bourgeoisie was no bourgeoisie anymore, but still they wanted their power back and fought for it.

Actually the burgeoisie did have a state on its side, in fact 18 states, and had some industrial back up, so, they were still burgeoise.

Either way, the workers were not emancipated, they simply changed ruling elite.

It was a battle between the ruling elites again in which portions of the working class were still divided within the same community meaning the burgeoisie hadn't been deprived still completely from their grip on the means of production due to the existance of a state rival to the bolsheviks' state.

As a summary it was a battle between 2 states, one supported by several foreign ones, and other involved factions.

Wakizashi wrote:

They did indeed find people (if you can call them "people") and mercenaries to fight for the counterrevolution.

They still had a State on their side which means they were not deprived from their power.

Wakizashi wrote:

If the Proletariat wasn't in power then , the counterrevolution would have succeeded.

The proletariat was never in charge, just a State that claimed to serve their interests and which ultimately failed.

there have been people more screwed up
im sure some of the dictators had a lust for power they never can quech

i just also happen to hug trees