Communism

[CTALNH]

Communism is not an Anarchist ideology!

Communism is Communism!

Anarchism wants a Social Revolution!

Communism wants a Socialist Revolution!

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/ ... hority.htm

Communism: Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

A stateless society would be the goal of anarchism.

In the last phase of communism.After the bourgoise and all other classes and variables are out of the equation the yes we do that.

Anarchism is bump no state.Communism is okay lets care of the bourgeois first and the capitalist system any means necessary us Engels said then lets start to dismantle the state.

[Sociobiology]

but species in which individuals help their relatives and hinder everyone else do even better.

Source?

kin selection.
evolution in general.

[CTALNH]

What has anarchism, at one time dominant in the Romance countries, contributed in recent European history?

– No doctrine, revolutionary teaching, or theory.

– Fragmentation of the working-class movement.

– Complete fiasco in the experiments of the revolutionary movement (Proudhonism, 1871; Bakuninism, 1873 Makhnovism,1917 CNT,1936 etc etc).

– Subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics in the guise of negation of politics.

[Sociobiology]

but species in which individuals help their relatives and hinder everyone else do even better.

They are still cooperating outside of the immediate benefit of their selves, even if it is with relatives. The point is that mutual aid is an essential tool for survival, and not some strict competitive nature of one against all.

no its my group against your group. species is not a "group" in any sexual animals.
and you can't get populations above around 150 without some kind of artificial hierarchy. groups natural split when you get much above that number due to a lack of of ability to recognized an individuals trustworthiness. Thus the artificial "hierarchy" of laws originated.

[Stanisburg]

Communism is not an Anarchist ideology!

Communism is Communism!

Anarchism wants a Social Revolution!

Communism wants a Socialist Revolution!

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/ ... hority.htm

Communism: Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

A stateless society would be the goal of anarchism.

The abolition of the state is the goal of an anarchist movement.

The goal of Marxist movements is the creation of a powerful one-party "workers' state." They think this will eventually cause the state to magically "wither away," but they aren't actively working to abolish it. In practice, they've tended to create very powerful states with very little respect for civil rights because they think it's in the "historical interests of the working class" for the state to stamp out "bourgeois democracy" and "bourgeois morality." These states have done anything but "wither away"--they've only ended due to outside intervention and/or organized mass movements against them, which they try to repress by force because they consider them "counter-revolutionary." (God, the irony kills me.)

I don't see either as especially practical, but at least the anarchists are logically consistent. They don't try to create a "stateless society" by creating a more powerful state, and they don't think freedom is slavery.

[CTALNH]

Informative really this spoiler.

The hub of modern social life is the class struggle. In the course of this struggle each class is guided by its own ideology. The bourgeoisie has its own ideology — so-called liberalism. The proletariat also has its own ideology —this, as is well known, is socialism.

Liberalism must not be regarded as something whole and indivisible: it is subdivided into different trends, corresponding to the different strata of the bourgeoisie.

Nor is socialism whole and indivisible: in it there are also different trends.

We shall not here examine liberalism — that task had better be left for another time. We want to acquaint the reader only with socialism and its trends. We think that he will find this more interesting.

Socialism is divided into three main trends : reformism, anarchism and Marxism.

Reformism (Bernstein and others), which regards socialism as a remote goal and nothing more, reformism, which actually repudiates the socialist revolution and aims at establishing socialism by peaceful means, reformism, which advocates not class struggle but class collaboration — this reformism is decaying day by day, is day by day losing all semblance of socialism and, in our opinion, it is totally unnecessary to examine it in these articles when defining socialism.

It is altogether different with Marxism and anarchism: both are at the present time recognised as socialist trends, they are waging a fierce struggle against each other, both are trying to present themselves to the proletariat as genuinely socialist doctrines, and, of course, a study and comparison of the two will be far more interesting for the reader.

We are not the kind of people who, when the word "anarchism" is mentioned, turn away contemptuously and say with a supercilious wave of the hand: "Why waste time on that, it's not worth talking about!" We think that such cheap "criticism" is undignified and useless.

Nor are we the kind of people who console themselves with the thought that the Anarchists "have no masses behind them and, therefore, are not so dangerous." It is not who has a larger or smaller "mass" following today, but the essence of the doctrine that matters. If the "doctrine" of the Anarchists expresses the truth, then it goes without saying that it will certainly hew a path for itself and will rally the masses around itself. If, however, it is unsound and built up on a false foundation, it will not last long and will remain suspended in mid-air. But the unsoundness of anarchism must be proved.

Some people believe that Marxism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that, in the opinion of these people, it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two trends.

This is a great mistake.

We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the "doctrine" of the Anarchists from beginning to end and weigh it up thoroughly from all aspects.

The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses."

Clearly, we have here two principles, one negating the other, and not merely disagreements on tactics.

The object of our articles is to place these two opposite principles side by side, to compare Marxism with anarchism, and thereby throw light on their respective virtues and defects. At this point we think it necessary to acquaint the reader with the plan of these articles.

We shall begin with a description of Marxism, deal, in passing, with the Anarchists' views on Marxism, and then proceed to criticise anarchism itself. Namely: we shall expound the dialectical method, the Anarchists' views on this method, and our criticism; the materialist theory, the Anarchists' views and our criticism (here, too, we shall discuss the socialist revolution, the socialist dictatorship, the minimum programme, and tactics generally); the philosophy of the Anarchists and our criticism; the socialism of the Anarchists and our criticism; anarchist tactics and organisation — and, in conclusion, we shall give our deductions.

We shall try to prove that, as advocates of small community socialism, the Anarchists are not genuine Socialists.

We shall also try to prove that, in so far as they repudiate the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Anarchists are also not genuine revolutionaries. . . .

[The united imperial sector]

Communism is a clever little lie that power hungry men use to get there nations poor to rise up and place them in power a few days latter the power hungry man use the army to take over the country and uses his pepole as slave labor while saying that everyone gets a fair share, while he lives in a palace his pepole live in hovles and slums dieing of hunger and disease.

[Virenna]

I love private property, I love owning my own things, I love competition, I love being in power, I love hierarchy, especially when I am the top. How would a communist society deal with me and others who are like me (which is a great many people, by the way)?

[CTALNH]

Communism is a clever little lie that power hungry men use to get there nations poor to rise up and place them in power a few days latter the power hungry man use the army to take over the country and uses his pepole as slave labor while saying that everyone gets a fair share, while he lives in a palace his pepole live in hovles and slums dieing of hunger and disease.

How not true.

[CTALNH]

I love private property, I love owning my own things, I love competition, I love being in power, I love hierarchy, especially when I am the top. How would a communist society deal with me and others who are like me (which is a great many people, by the way)?

No offense if you don't conform kick your ass....

[The united imperial sector]

Communism is a clever little lie that power hungry men use to get there nations poor to rise up and place them in power a few days latter the power hungry man use the army to take over the country and uses his pepole as slave labor while saying that everyone gets a fair share, while he lives in a palace his pepole live in hovles and slums dieing of hunger and disease.

How not true.

How isnt it? Have you seen russia under stalin or kin jonill even Lenin ordered massacares.

[Virenna]

I love private property, I love owning my own things, I love competition, I love being in power, I love hierarchy, especially when I am the top. How would a communist society deal with me and others who are like me (which is a great many people, by the way)?

No offense if you don't conform kick your ass....

But, at least in the West, a majority of people are materialistic like me. How would you subjugate a majority to a system which they do not agree with?

[CTALNH]

No offense if you don't conform kick your ass....

But, at least in the West, a majority of people are materialistic like me. How would you subjugate a majority to a system which they do not agree with?

Guns lot and lot of guns.

I sadly am not an idealist.

We gotta kill a lot of freaking people to make the rest fall in line.

[New Bierstaat]

It's a violation of the right to property, one of the three fundamental natural rights. So, no. No, no, no, no, no.

Not to mention all the other reasons I hate it.

I will mention one thing, though. If communism is so great, why does the whole world have to be taken over and forced into it? If it's so great and works so well, won't people want to be a part of it and won't a properly run communist state naturally attract people from capitalist nations elsewhere? I use the same argument against those who want world socialist government.

Please don't ignore this post like you did the last one along these lines.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

It's a violation of the right to property, one of the three fundamental natural rights. So, no. No, no, no, no, no.

How is the right to economically exploit other people a fundamental human right?

I will mention one thing, though. If communism is so great, why does the whole world have to be taken over and forced into it?

No-one's being forced into it. Capitalists are free to run capitalist communes provided all within them consent to living in said capitalist communes.

If it's so great and works so well, won't people want to be a part of it and won't a properly run communist state naturally attract people from capitalist nations elsewhere?

Communism is anarchistic. Also, capitalist states have tended to be rather enthusiastic in attempting to (and succeeding in) wiping out communist societies.

I use the same argument against those who want world socialist government.

It doesn't work. Your argument, that is.

[Virenna]

But, at least in the West, a majority of people are materialistic like me. How would you subjugate a majority to a system which they do not agree with?

Guns lot and lot of guns.

I sadly am not an idealist.

We gotta kill a lot of freaking people to make the rest fall in line.

How odd. Communism loves to sell itself as a peace loving and ideologically pure/moral system, yet you say you must literally kill billions to bring the rest of the world to your ideals. It would never work, just so you know; you can stockpile all the guns you want, but the majority of the world is materialistic and more than willing to fight the small minority of militant communists such as yourself.

[CTALNH]

How not true.

How isnt it? Have you seen russia under stalin or kin jonill even Lenin ordered massacares.

I don't care....

Not kidding!

[Sociobiology]

It's a violation of the right to property, one of the three fundamental natural rights. So, no. No, no, no, no, no.

No such thing as natural right.
rights are human constructs, like music, or justice.
rights are things created by states or chiefdom, societies with formal law.

[The united imperial sector]

How isnt it? Have you seen russia under stalin or kin jonill even Lenin ordered massacares.

I don't care....

Not kidding!

Thats a great argument typical commie the minute the fighting gets tough you run back off into the woods.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I don't care....

Not kidding!

Thats a great argument typical commie the minute the fighting gets tough you run back off into the woods.

He's a Stalinist. Not a communist.

[The united imperial sector]

Thats a great argument typical commie the minute the fighting gets tough you run back off into the woods.

He's a Stalinist. Not a communist.

Oh my bad in that case he supports a dictatorship nuff said.

[CTALNH]

Guns lot and lot of guns.

I sadly am not an idealist.

We gotta kill a lot of freaking people to make the rest fall in line.

How odd. Communism loves to sell itself as a peace loving and ideologically pure/moral system, yet you say you must literally kill billions to bring the rest of the world to your ideals. It would never work, just so you know; you can stockpile all the guns you want, but the majority of the world is materialistic and more than willing to fight the small minority of militant communists such as yourself.

Marxist communism?

Armed revolution? Revolutionary terror?

[Pragia]

But, at least in the West, a majority of people are materialistic like me. How would you subjugate a majority to a system which they do not agree with?

Guns lot and lot of guns.

I sadly am not an idealist.

We gotta kill a lot of freaking people to make the rest fall in line.

Yes, because the best way to achieve your goals is to kill everyone else. You sound like someone even younger than me, you'd kill everyone who doesn't conform to you so you could get what you think is best for everyone? That sounds near Nazi-ish and what of the good of everyone who died in any purge of non-communists?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

How odd. Communism loves to sell itself as a peace loving and ideologically pure/moral system, yet you say you must literally kill billions to bring the rest of the world to your ideals. It would never work, just so you know; you can stockpile all the guns you want, but the majority of the world is materialistic and more than willing to fight the small minority of militant communists such as yourself.

Marxist communism?

You aren't a Marxist.

Armed revolution? Revolutionary terror?

"Revolutionary terror" should not involve the mass-murder of proletarians. Or anyone, for that matter.

[CTALNH]

Thats a great argument typical commie the minute the fighting gets tough you run back off into the woods.

He's a Stalinist. Not a communist.

I follow Marx and Lenin and read Stalins works.

So I am not a communist?