True free market capitalism, not the state sponsored cronie-corporatism many confuse for free market capitalism:
The refrigerator I have I own outright, and paid a really good price for. It has all the bells & whistles. And I can afford to actually fill it with food. And if it breaks I have my choice of competing repairmen to come out that day to fix it.
What about the free market makes any guarantees about competition existing?
Socialist things: All public facilities including but not limited to, roads, highways, schools, libraries, and the postal service.
And now I shall make a straw man of capitalism. If the road network was capitalist, every road would be a toll road and there would be so many competing road systems that there'd be no room left for buildings.
There is a better chance of competition in a true free market, than in the current heavily regulated market we have in the US today. Heavy regulation prevents new players from entering a market and protects existing monopolies/oligopolies of large corporations. In the current system corporations can use the authority of the state to suppress competition.
And I'll concede with the roads, that should continue to be a public thing. But schools, libraries & postal service would be better off privately owned with competing options.
I'm not the best at debating,(debate is just argument anyhow, I prefer sharing ideas) perhaps you should listen to a week of "free talk live" http://www.freetalklive.com Those guys have a better handle on the subjects I'm addressing here. Another good podcast is http://www.freedomainradio.com/
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."
-Muad'Dib
Typically, I do not argue such things directly... For example, as I did in the religious topic.
Instead of stating my beliefs/opinions, I usually just make references and explain how everything is simply just a life choice, and an opinion.
However, I have a very strong political belief. I am very much a Communist.
I think Capitalist societies rule with fear, terror, and extremism.
A -correct- Communism would be much more successful and well-practiced.
All governments are prone to corruption, and that is the reason the Soviet Union fell... as any government trying to establish itself could easily fall. Just look at history... when are new governments likely to be created? They surely are not established in times of peace and prosperity!
They are ALWAYS formed under pressure, turmoil, and panic. These governments have always been liable to fall.
And look at the U.S. government... today we have things like wikileaks trying to expose the corruption that is rampant all over our systems... We are lucky the U.S. is not in complete turmoil over these things.
And all of these things are caused by what? Nothing but corruption stemming from... Capitalism.
But if you look at history under the authority of Vladimir Lenin. He really had built up the framework of a successful nation.
It was only through Stalin that the Soviet Union was corrupted and disestablished unsuccessfully.
Stalin's idea of ruling a nation was to rule with Fear and Terror. He was an instigator of hate. Any man like that could make any struggling nation fall. Stalin was a complete mad-man... and it is history that shows us this. If it weren't for him, we WOULD have a successful communist nation today.... The Soviet Union would still exist.
Lenin was an amazing leader, and a revolutionary. If only we could have someone like that again, to lead a new Communist nation, one that would hopefully be successful through the trying times of forming a government...
Our world would be the better for it.
Typically, I do not argue such things directly... For example, as I did in the religious topic.
Instead of stating my beliefs/opinions, I usually just make references and explain how everything is simply just a life choice, and an opinion.
However, I have a very strong political belief. I am very much a Communist.
I think Capitalist societies rule with fear, terror, and extremism.
A -correct- Communism would be much more successful and well-practiced.
All governments are prone to corruption, and that is the reason the Soviet Union fell... as any government trying to establish itself could easily fall. Just look at history... when are new governments likely to be created? They surely are not established in times of peace and prosperity!
They are ALWAYS formed under pressure, turmoil, and panic. These governments have always been liable to fall.
And look at the U.S. government... today we have things like wikileaks trying to expose the corruption that is rampant all over our systems... We are lucky the U.S. is not in complete turmoil over these things.
And all of these things are caused by what? Nothing but corruption stemming from... Capitalism.
But if you look at history under the authority of Vladimir Lenin. He really had built up the framework of a successful nation.
It was only through Stalin that the Soviet Union was corrupted and disestablished unsuccessfully.
Stalin's idea of ruling a nation was to rule with Fear and Terror. He was an instigator of hate. Any man like that could make any struggling nation fall. Stalin was a complete mad-man... and it is history that shows us this. If it weren't for him, we WOULD have a successful communist nation today.... The Soviet Union would still exist.
Lenin was an amazing leader, and a revolutionary. If only we could have someone like that again, to lead a new Communist nation, one that would hopefully be successful through the trying times of forming a government...
Our world would be the better for it.
Isn't that a problem with Socialism as a whole, though? The application of theory into practice?
Isn't that a problem with Socialism as a whole, though? The application of theory into practice?
Like I tried to point out, that is the problem with EVERY new government. Because all governments are created by means of chaos and rebellions.
There has never been a time when a new government was formed through cooperation.
Governments are simply formed through chaotic times when there are a lot of people who look for someone to lead them... this causes the basic frameworks of new governments to be based on shaky foundations and therefore be prone to corruption and failure.
If you look at history, Communism is a relatively new political concept, at least the Marxist form of it...
So comparatively, you can't expect there to have been any Socialist or Communist governments that have been successful within such a small time frame of history... if you compare it to all throughout human history, we have gone through many governments, and there have ever only been an incredibly small amount who have even tried these new systems.
Typically, it has been a flow from Tyranny to Democracy almost always using some form of capitalism.
Edit: So the argument that 'Socialism/Communism doesn't work in practice' has absolutely no evidence to support it...
In fact, if you look at the Lenin era, you'll find the nation was economically prospering greatly by the Communist system.
Isn't that a problem with Socialism as a whole, though? The application of theory into practice?
Like I tried to point out, that is the problem with EVERY new government. Because all governments are created by means of chaos and rebellions.
There has never been a time when a new government was formed through cooperation.
Governments are simply formed through chaotic times when there are a lot of people who look for someone to lead them... this causes the basic frameworks of new governments to be based on shaky foundations and therefore be prone to corruption and failure.
If you look at history, Communism is a relatively new political concept, at least the Marxist form of it...
So comparatively, you can't expect there to have been any Socialist or Communist governments that have been successful within such a small time frame of history... if you compare it to all throughout human history, we have gone through many governments, and there have ever only been an incredibly small amount who have even tried these new systems.
Typically, it has been a flow from Tyranny to Democracy almost always using some form of capitalism.
Edit: So the argument that 'Socialism/Communism doesn't work in practice' has absolutely no evidence to support it...
In fact, if you look at the Lenin era, you'll find the nation was economically prospering greatly by the Communist system.
Yes and if Trotsky, who should've been the leader, was leader instead of Stalin, I'm sure things would be quite different. For the better. However, all political systems and societies are prone to corruption and imbalance and very rarely are balanced, regardless of system. However, there are also time where each and every type of political system (with very few exceptions) have shown to work and be very prosperous. Also, if one looks at democracy, that is also a relatively new concept (dating only 100 years before Marx or so) as well. I understand that Ancient Greece had a democracy but there wasn't another democracy for a couple thousand years or so after Ancient Greece (I could be wrong, however). Sure there were instances of small democracies within a state but that could be said about socialism as well.
Also, the reason for many (if not all) wars is the conflict of ideas (whether political, economical or otherwise). So, naturally governments wont change peacefully because there are usually major conflicts of ideas.
The flow from Tyranny to Democracy is a relatively new thing. If I remember dates and times right, this trend started after the idea of Marxist communism.
So, why are you saying that Marxism is too young to prove and yet you give much younger ideas/trends and give them as proven facts?
OP, read Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, and The Communist Manifesto, both by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, then perhaps Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses by Louis Althusser and form your own opinion. It's a better use of time then reading people argue about what it is that they're arguing about.
That's just called Anarchism and most Anarchists do not mix with communists as the theories are different
Please don't talk about stuff you don't know about that's pretty offensive. Anarchy Communism is "free communism" Wikipedia is a good friend.
Hey you're right:
here are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[5] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[2] Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.[6][7] Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[8][9] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics. However, anarchism has always included an individualist strain supporting a market economy and private property, or morally unrestrained egoism.[10][11][12]
Honestly Alcatraz, can you go a single day without being wrong?
Communism and anarchism stand miles apart. Though communism and anarchism view a society without a government, they cannot be the same in way.
Anarchist communism (also known as anarcho-communism and occasionally as free communism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, private property, and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[1][2] direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[3][4]
Some forms of anarchist communism such as insurrectionary anarchism are egoist and strongly influenced by radical individualism,[5][6][7] believing that anarchist communism does not require a communitarian nature at all. Most anarcho-communists view anarcho-communism as a way of reconciling the opposition between the individual and society[8][9][10]
Anarcho-communism developed out of radical socialist currents after the French revolution[11][12] but was first formulated as such in the Italian section of the First International[13]. The theoretical work of Peter Kropotkin took importance later as it expanded and developed pro-organizationalist and insurrectionary anti-organizationalist sections[14].
an Revolution, anarchists such as Nestor Makhno worked to create and defend—through the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine—anarchist communism in the Free Territory of the Ukraine from 1919 before being conquered by the Bolsheviks in 1921.
So, why are you saying that Marxism is too young to prove and yet you give much younger ideas/trends and give them as proven facts?
Well, the view of democracy is my point exactly.
If you view democracy, it has been around since ancient greece and rome. It was tried a few times during that era, and did not last.
Then for a very long period of time, there was no democracy but in small areas.
These events can be compared to the events of Socialism and Communism. As the Soviet Union, the true first government to rely on these principles, has fallen... it may be a long period of time before people will try once again.
But as with democracy, just because it did not catch on the first time does NOT prove that the theory can not be put into practice. As we have democracies living and surviving today... so we will have socialisms and communisms tomorrow.
(Sub-post: Wow a lot of people posted before I could post this... anyways, I don't believe in anarchy-communism or whatever they are referring to... I actually believe in a democratic, Marxist communism as being the most likely source of a stable, future government system.)
So, why are you saying that Marxism is too young to prove and yet you give much younger ideas/trends and give them as proven facts?
Well, the view of democracy is my point exactly.
If you view democracy, it has been around since ancient greece and rome. It was tried a few times during that era, and did not last.
Then for a very long period of time, there was no democracy but in small areas.
These events can be compared to the events of Socialism and Communism. As the Soviet Union, the true first government to rely on these principles, has fallen... it may be a long period of time before people will try once again.
But as with democracy, just because it did not catch on the first time does NOT prove that the theory can not be put into practice. As we have democracies living and surviving today... so we will have socialisms and communisms tomorrow.
(Sub-post: Wow a lot of people posted before I could post this... anyways, I don't believe in anarchy-communism or whatever they are referring to... I actually believe in a democratic, Marxist communism as being the most likely source of a stable, future government system.)
You're post makes much more sense now! Thank you! :happy.gif:
Anarchist communism (also known as anarcho-communism and occasionally as free communism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, private property, and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production
Exactly the same as communism.
But that's just it. Anarcho-Communists differ from other trends of Communism in basically the ways and means that communism must be achieved. The end goal is basically the same. Individualist Anarchism include the Cappies and (yes) the Individualists. Leftist Anarchism includes Anarcho-Communists, Anarcho-Syndicalists, Anarcho-Collectivists, Anarcho-Mutualists, etc. etc.
Anarchism is a totally different theory, a different set of rules, and a different set of supporters. Individualist communism is an oxymoron.
No. Anarchism is a theory with many Schools of Thought, same thing as Communism and its many divisions (Leninists, orthodox Marxists, Trots, Stalinists, Left Coms, etc.), it is not a single idea but an umbrella or subject.
You do highlight this sentence: "However, anarchism has always included an individualist strain supporting a market economy and private property, or morally unrestrained egoism."
This sentence speaks of the theory and of a strand of it: Individualist Anarchism and not the Leftist Anarchism.
Do read it again:
"Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[8][9] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics. However, anarchism has always included an individualist strain supporting a market economy and private property, or morally unrestrained egoism."
The many Schools of Thought of Anarchism are really diverse ranging from Individualists, to Communists, to Primmies, to even Nationalist Anarchist. Basically if you attach Anarcho- to anything, you get yourself an ideology even if it does not have any similarity with Anarchism.
However, I will state that one clear aspect that communism and Anarchism have in common is that they both don't work. This can be highlighted by the small sizes of such movements in the developed world today.
That's a really simplified version of the story. The small sizes of such movement in the developed world today can be attributed to many, many reasons some of which are: the ignorance of the vast majority, the simplification of politics into "Democracts vs Republicans", the direct shunning of the Communists partly thanks to the Red Scare, self-interest put before others, and many other reasons that I'll refrain from stating due to time constraint.
I do believe such systems as communism and Anarchism can work on a large-scale, having small movements does not mean otherwise. You do seem to know your share of (Statist) Communism, so I'll leave you to it.
However, I will state that one clear aspect that communism and Anarchism have in common is that they both don't work. This can be highlighted by the small sizes of such movements in the developed world today.
Honestly Alcatraz, can you go a single day without being wrong?
However, I will state that one clear aspect that communism and Anarchism have in common is that they both don't work. This can be highlighted by the small sizes of such movements in the developed world today.
Honestly Alcatraz, can you go a single day without being wrong?
I think I just did.
Gloating over your opponent after he humbled himself, even though it was another person that actually convinced him. Isn't that wrong?
Main poblem with communisim is incentive.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Basicly that means that I can do nothing and still survive.
Lazyness is human nature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"You messed up. Now I gotta mess you up. It's the law." —BA baracus (Mr.T)
"CREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!" --Tzneetch in regards to a chess match against Creed.
Hm, I have felt the need to clarify a few things...
Quote from histfanatic »
Quote from Sui »
Yes the ultimate equality within humankind, no gods or rulers.
But what is equality in man? For, true equality would mean that everyone is exactly the same in every aspect (Ideas, politics, social status, etc) would makes us unhuman philosophically. Likewise, one can only be equal in some senses and unequal in others while keeping their humanity. So, what kind of equality is it suppose to create? Again, I'm truly asking and I am also planning on rereading Communist Manifesto which should help answer my questions further as I have a better understanding of philosophy now.
The equality that is spoken of is not that of what you speak, Communists strive to reach social and economical equality, that is to say that social hierarchy (in the form of politicians, men of power, etc.) and economical inequality (in the form of the privileged bourgeoisie and the toiling proletariat in Marx's terms) are to be abolished.
Also, if one looks at democracy, that is also a relatively new concept (dating only 100 years before Marx or so) as well. I understand that Ancient Greece had a democracy but there wasn't another democracy for a couple thousand years or so after Ancient Greece (I could be wrong, however). Sure there were instances of small democracies within a state but that could be said about socialism as well.
[...]
The flow from Tyranny to Democracy is a relatively new thing. If I remember dates and times right, this trend started after the idea of Marxist communism.
I'll quote:
"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them in parliament." -Lenin, State and Revolution (1917)
"Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich — that is the democracy of capitalist society."
-Lenin, State and Revolution (1917)
"The greatest threat to democracy is the notion that it has already been achieved."
"In our representative democracy (or republic), the people don't have the power to decide, but they do have the power to decide who decides for them."
Need I quote more? Sure.
"Winston Churchill once famously quoted that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried."
Although democracy is not itself a specific type of government, many governments credit themselves as having "democratic character". Rhetorically, this is meant to imply that, through majoritarian decision-making, popular consensus can be achieved with coercion, exploitation, and violations of individual rights being kept to a minimum. However, as is immediately apparent upon serious examination and reflection, most if not all governments (whether "democratic" in character or not) are, as a requisite feature of their nature, structurally dependant upon precisely the types of coercion, domination, and exploitation which they claim to remedy. The word "Democracy" is Greek in origin. "Demo" meaning "people", and "Kratos" meaning "to rule"; democracy is a term which means that the people rule themselves. Not one person set above all (monarchy), not one group or party for themselves over others (oligarchy), but literally the people ruling themselves, not set above or below one another--- all for one and one for all, so to speak. Governments said to have "democratic character" claim to aspire to this state of affairs and seek to achieve it by employing means which are, both in theory and practice, antithetical to and destructive of this goal. " from: http://www.anarchy.net/archive/2009-07- ... Revolution
So what we currently have in most "democratic" countries, such as the US is actually republican parliamentarianism or representative democracy. That is to say that you do not have the power to vote for decisions that affect you personally and the whole nation at best, no, you have the power to vote for who takes the decision on behalf of you and millions of other citizens. It is a delusion, a sense given to the average citizen by the ruling elite that he is in control of the government and its affairs and not the other way around, that he is able, through voting, to determine what happens to the country. A carnival fanfare, a delusion. Marxists (certain strands) and Anarchists alike believe in what is called "Direct Democracy" or "Consensus decision-making", whereby the people themselves vote for the decisions that directly affect them and not vote for some stranger to falsely represent them in the parliament and take decisions for them. For instance, if a war is to be declared, it should not be a very small minority in power that decides if the war should be declared or not, it should be left in the hands of the majority to decide since the majority itself will have its economical foundations devastated as well as their sons and daughters recruited into the army. Need I refer to the Iraq war or the Vietnam war?
In conclusion, "democracy" doesn't currently exist in its actual true form. You are voting for "dictators" and not the decisions themselves, if you call that democracy then sure.
Main poblem with communisim is incentive.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Basicly that means that I can do nothing and still survive.
Lazyness is human nature.
Strawman. You do nothing, you get nothing. Simple as that.
Well to be honest, socialism and by extension communism, are both very romantic views of how a society should work. Unfortunately, and cliche as it is, human nature is not very compatible with such a society.
observe:
You grow eight turnips on a government farm, and you are given five because that is all you need.
Your neighbor grows six turnips on another government owned farm, but gets nine because his family is large.
You begin to wonder why you work hard, but get rewarded less than someone who you see as lazy. You demand more turnips, the officials refuse and you start a riot.
You have just burned down the farms you both work on and the people starve.
Capitalism, although not as morally upright, has a different approach.
observe:
You grow ten turnips on a farm you own, and sell the four you do not need to make a profit.
Your neighbor is not as good a farmer as you, he only grows four turnips and sells one to help put a dent in the debt he is in.
You use your profit to buy stock in his farm so you are a shareholder. Eventually you own his farm and he works for you as a subordinate. You treat him like the dirt he works on, but keep him fed because he won't be a good worker to you hungry.
Both farms prosper and you become wealthy, but your neighbor hates you.
I hope I didn't dumb this down too much but I wanted it to be easier to read, and give my opinion in a short concise manner.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"May god have mercy on my enemies, because I will not." - George S. Patton
There is a better chance of competition in a true free market, than in the current heavily regulated market we have in the US today. Heavy regulation prevents new players from entering a market and protects existing monopolies/oligopolies of large corporations. In the current system corporations can use the authority of the state to suppress competition.
And I'll concede with the roads, that should continue to be a public thing. But schools, libraries & postal service would be better off privately owned with competing options.
I'm not the best at debating,(debate is just argument anyhow, I prefer sharing ideas) perhaps you should listen to a week of "free talk live" http://www.freetalklive.com Those guys have a better handle on the subjects I'm addressing here. Another good podcast is http://www.freedomainradio.com/
-Muad'Dib
Instead of stating my beliefs/opinions, I usually just make references and explain how everything is simply just a life choice, and an opinion.
However, I have a very strong political belief. I am very much a Communist.
I think Capitalist societies rule with fear, terror, and extremism.
A -correct- Communism would be much more successful and well-practiced.
All governments are prone to corruption, and that is the reason the Soviet Union fell... as any government trying to establish itself could easily fall. Just look at history... when are new governments likely to be created? They surely are not established in times of peace and prosperity!
They are ALWAYS formed under pressure, turmoil, and panic. These governments have always been liable to fall.
And look at the U.S. government... today we have things like wikileaks trying to expose the corruption that is rampant all over our systems... We are lucky the U.S. is not in complete turmoil over these things.
And all of these things are caused by what? Nothing but corruption stemming from... Capitalism.
But if you look at history under the authority of Vladimir Lenin. He really had built up the framework of a successful nation.
It was only through Stalin that the Soviet Union was corrupted and disestablished unsuccessfully.
Stalin's idea of ruling a nation was to rule with Fear and Terror. He was an instigator of hate. Any man like that could make any struggling nation fall. Stalin was a complete mad-man... and it is history that shows us this. If it weren't for him, we WOULD have a successful communist nation today.... The Soviet Union would still exist.
Lenin was an amazing leader, and a revolutionary. If only we could have someone like that again, to lead a new Communist nation, one that would hopefully be successful through the trying times of forming a government...
Our world would be the better for it.
Isn't that a problem with Socialism as a whole, though? The application of theory into practice?
Like I tried to point out, that is the problem with EVERY new government. Because all governments are created by means of chaos and rebellions.
There has never been a time when a new government was formed through cooperation.
Governments are simply formed through chaotic times when there are a lot of people who look for someone to lead them... this causes the basic frameworks of new governments to be based on shaky foundations and therefore be prone to corruption and failure.
If you look at history, Communism is a relatively new political concept, at least the Marxist form of it...
So comparatively, you can't expect there to have been any Socialist or Communist governments that have been successful within such a small time frame of history... if you compare it to all throughout human history, we have gone through many governments, and there have ever only been an incredibly small amount who have even tried these new systems.
Typically, it has been a flow from Tyranny to Democracy almost always using some form of capitalism.
Edit: So the argument that 'Socialism/Communism doesn't work in practice' has absolutely no evidence to support it...
In fact, if you look at the Lenin era, you'll find the nation was economically prospering greatly by the Communist system.
Yes and if Trotsky, who should've been the leader, was leader instead of Stalin, I'm sure things would be quite different. For the better. However, all political systems and societies are prone to corruption and imbalance and very rarely are balanced, regardless of system. However, there are also time where each and every type of political system (with very few exceptions) have shown to work and be very prosperous. Also, if one looks at democracy, that is also a relatively new concept (dating only 100 years before Marx or so) as well. I understand that Ancient Greece had a democracy but there wasn't another democracy for a couple thousand years or so after Ancient Greece (I could be wrong, however). Sure there were instances of small democracies within a state but that could be said about socialism as well.
Also, the reason for many (if not all) wars is the conflict of ideas (whether political, economical or otherwise). So, naturally governments wont change peacefully because there are usually major conflicts of ideas.
The flow from Tyranny to Democracy is a relatively new thing. If I remember dates and times right, this trend started after the idea of Marxist communism.
So, why are you saying that Marxism is too young to prove and yet you give much younger ideas/trends and give them as proven facts?
Please don't talk about stuff you don't know about that's pretty offensive. Anarchy Communism is "free communism" Wikipedia is a good friend.
Anarchist communism (also known as anarcho-communism and occasionally as free communism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, private property, and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[1][2] direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[3][4]
Some forms of anarchist communism such as insurrectionary anarchism are egoist and strongly influenced by radical individualism,[5][6][7] believing that anarchist communism does not require a communitarian nature at all. Most anarcho-communists view anarcho-communism as a way of reconciling the opposition between the individual and society[8][9][10]
Anarcho-communism developed out of radical socialist currents after the French revolution[11][12] but was first formulated as such in the Italian section of the First International[13]. The theoretical work of Peter Kropotkin took importance later as it expanded and developed pro-organizationalist and insurrectionary anti-organizationalist sections[14].
an Revolution, anarchists such as Nestor Makhno worked to create and defend—through the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine—anarchist communism in the Free Territory of the Ukraine from 1919 before being conquered by the Bolsheviks in 1921.
Well, the view of democracy is my point exactly.
If you view democracy, it has been around since ancient greece and rome. It was tried a few times during that era, and did not last.
Then for a very long period of time, there was no democracy but in small areas.
These events can be compared to the events of Socialism and Communism. As the Soviet Union, the true first government to rely on these principles, has fallen... it may be a long period of time before people will try once again.
But as with democracy, just because it did not catch on the first time does NOT prove that the theory can not be put into practice. As we have democracies living and surviving today... so we will have socialisms and communisms tomorrow.
(Sub-post: Wow a lot of people posted before I could post this... anyways, I don't believe in anarchy-communism or whatever they are referring to... I actually believe in a democratic, Marxist communism as being the most likely source of a stable, future government system.)
You're post makes much more sense now! Thank you! :happy.gif:
But that's just it. Anarcho-Communists differ from other trends of Communism in basically the ways and means that communism must be achieved. The end goal is basically the same. Individualist Anarchism include the Cappies and (yes) the Individualists. Leftist Anarchism includes Anarcho-Communists, Anarcho-Syndicalists, Anarcho-Collectivists, Anarcho-Mutualists, etc. etc.
No. Anarchism is a theory with many Schools of Thought, same thing as Communism and its many divisions (Leninists, orthodox Marxists, Trots, Stalinists, Left Coms, etc.), it is not a single idea but an umbrella or subject.
You do highlight this sentence: "However, anarchism has always included an individualist strain supporting a market economy and private property, or morally unrestrained egoism."
This sentence speaks of the theory and of a strand of it: Individualist Anarchism and not the Leftist Anarchism.
Do read it again:
"Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[8][9] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics. However, anarchism has always included an individualist strain supporting a market economy and private property, or morally unrestrained egoism."
The many Schools of Thought of Anarchism are really diverse ranging from Individualists, to Communists, to Primmies, to even Nationalist Anarchist. Basically if you attach Anarcho- to anything, you get yourself an ideology even if it does not have any similarity with Anarchism.
That's a really simplified version of the story. The small sizes of such movement in the developed world today can be attributed to many, many reasons some of which are: the ignorance of the vast majority, the simplification of politics into "Democracts vs Republicans", the direct shunning of the Communists partly thanks to the Red Scare, self-interest put before others, and many other reasons that I'll refrain from stating due to time constraint.
I do believe such systems as communism and Anarchism can work on a large-scale, having small movements does not mean otherwise. You do seem to know your share of (Statist) Communism, so I'll leave you to it.
I think I just did.
The night's still young.
Gloating over your opponent after he humbled himself, even though it was another person that actually convinced him. Isn't that wrong?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Basicly that means that I can do nothing and still survive.
Lazyness is human nature.
"CREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!" --Tzneetch in regards to a chess match against Creed.
The equality that is spoken of is not that of what you speak, Communists strive to reach social and economical equality, that is to say that social hierarchy (in the form of politicians, men of power, etc.) and economical inequality (in the form of the privileged bourgeoisie and the toiling proletariat in Marx's terms) are to be abolished.
I'll quote:
"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them in parliament." -Lenin, State and Revolution (1917)
"Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich — that is the democracy of capitalist society."
-Lenin, State and Revolution (1917)
"The greatest threat to democracy is the notion that it has already been achieved."
"In our representative democracy (or republic), the people don't have the power to decide, but they do have the power to decide who decides for them."
Need I quote more? Sure.
"Winston Churchill once famously quoted that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried."
Although democracy is not itself a specific type of government, many governments credit themselves as having "democratic character". Rhetorically, this is meant to imply that, through majoritarian decision-making, popular consensus can be achieved with coercion, exploitation, and violations of individual rights being kept to a minimum. However, as is immediately apparent upon serious examination and reflection, most if not all governments (whether "democratic" in character or not) are, as a requisite feature of their nature, structurally dependant upon precisely the types of coercion, domination, and exploitation which they claim to remedy. The word "Democracy" is Greek in origin. "Demo" meaning "people", and "Kratos" meaning "to rule"; democracy is a term which means that the people rule themselves. Not one person set above all (monarchy), not one group or party for themselves over others (oligarchy), but literally the people ruling themselves, not set above or below one another--- all for one and one for all, so to speak. Governments said to have "democratic character" claim to aspire to this state of affairs and seek to achieve it by employing means which are, both in theory and practice, antithetical to and destructive of this goal. " from: http://www.anarchy.net/archive/2009-07- ... Revolution
So what we currently have in most "democratic" countries, such as the US is actually republican parliamentarianism or representative democracy. That is to say that you do not have the power to vote for decisions that affect you personally and the whole nation at best, no, you have the power to vote for who takes the decision on behalf of you and millions of other citizens. It is a delusion, a sense given to the average citizen by the ruling elite that he is in control of the government and its affairs and not the other way around, that he is able, through voting, to determine what happens to the country. A carnival fanfare, a delusion. Marxists (certain strands) and Anarchists alike believe in what is called "Direct Democracy" or "Consensus decision-making", whereby the people themselves vote for the decisions that directly affect them and not vote for some stranger to falsely represent them in the parliament and take decisions for them. For instance, if a war is to be declared, it should not be a very small minority in power that decides if the war should be declared or not, it should be left in the hands of the majority to decide since the majority itself will have its economical foundations devastated as well as their sons and daughters recruited into the army. Need I refer to the Iraq war or the Vietnam war?
In conclusion, "democracy" doesn't currently exist in its actual true form. You are voting for "dictators" and not the decisions themselves, if you call that democracy then sure.
Strawman. You do nothing, you get nothing. Simple as that.
I won't bother explaining this, check; http://www.revleft.com/vb/some-sort-con ... index.html
observe:
You grow eight turnips on a government farm, and you are given five because that is all you need.
Your neighbor grows six turnips on another government owned farm, but gets nine because his family is large.
You begin to wonder why you work hard, but get rewarded less than someone who you see as lazy. You demand more turnips, the officials refuse and you start a riot.
You have just burned down the farms you both work on and the people starve.
Capitalism, although not as morally upright, has a different approach.
observe:
You grow ten turnips on a farm you own, and sell the four you do not need to make a profit.
Your neighbor is not as good a farmer as you, he only grows four turnips and sells one to help put a dent in the debt he is in.
You use your profit to buy stock in his farm so you are a shareholder. Eventually you own his farm and he works for you as a subordinate. You treat him like the dirt he works on, but keep him fed because he won't be a good worker to you hungry.
Both farms prosper and you become wealthy, but your neighbor hates you.
I hope I didn't dumb this down too much but I wanted it to be easier to read, and give my opinion in a short concise manner.