Liberal hypocrites

Anarchism is as far right as communism is. It's the same thing.

 

I've never said it was a system of government. It's not a lack of government. It's a social system.

There's many forms of anarchism, but the one the vast majority of anarchists hold, is anarcho-communism.

 

Actually it is you who preaches the ignorance... Stalinism is super big government, but Stalin wasnt in the Communist Party of the USSR... Stalin was in his own shit.... Lenin started the communist part and pushed for Anarcho-Communism (as that is what true marxism/communism is)

Communism = Big Government is just the stereotype they teach you in school... theres many sects of anarchism/communism... No one in the world is a totalitarian communist.

Under stalins orders... trotsky died... just shows how much stalin hated true communism... and trotsky was in the same league as lenin, trying to change the government into a true communist government... thats why Stalin killed em.

 

Seriously, go read something about the russian revolution.
The temporary government that was supposed to transition into real communism was the Provisional government... and during that time lenin wanted the power into the hands of the people rather than a dictator, the Provisional Government was destroyed, lenin was outcasted and Stalin took power... not in the name of communism... but in his own lust for power.

You all knock communism yet know so little about it...

 

I agree with ye balby.. Its all just labels... it seems like no one knows what to call themselves these days... i mostly blame it on the media... all of americas shitty news channels and "debate" shows use the word liberal like its deragatory. The whole left-right scale is bullshit... it was made so falsely (left = big govt, right = small govt... left=liberal, right=conservative)... its no wonder americas elections are so fraudulant... everyones so confused... and it matters not who wins... democrat or republican they are still working for the same death machine.

 

There's a lot of confusion in defining the words "liberal" and "conservative", they mean very different things in today's American political scene than they did at the end of the French Revolution when they first came into the popular vocabulary.

Back then, "liberal" meant what we in American generally call "conservative"--that is--a free market laissez faire capitalist system based entirely on self-interest (wow, how redundant was that sentence?) don't forget, private property was one of the three inalienable rights laid out by John Locke, the prototype of classical liberal thought (Life, Liberty, and Property).

"Conservative" referred to people who wanted to maintain the Old Order that existed before the rise of the bourgoise: the Church (the
Roman Catholic church, that is), the Aristocracy, and Absolute Monarchies. Therefore, in terms of the classical definitions of these terms, conservatism is dead as a doornail, what we today call "conservatism" in America is actually classical liberalism, and what we today call "liberalism" is kind of a half-assed noncommital brand of socialism (economically speaking, that is).

Socialism arose in the 19th century from people who thought that the liberals had all the right ideas in prinicple, but in practice were full of shit. That is, they believed in individual rights to life, liberty, and property, but saw that the emphasis on private bourgoise property was leading to infringements on the life and liberty of the masses. Some liberal believed that the wealthy intellectual class should work for the greater good of the masses but were unwilling to say they had an obligation to. Socialists saw that wealthy liberals were not about to start helping the poor out of the kindness of their hearts and decided the poor could not be expected to wait around until they did. Therefore they decided the state should confiscate excess wealth and property from the wealthy and redistribute it to the poor according to need.

Did you say Marx never spoke of a state Mui? are you fucking kidding me??? I mostly agreed with everything you say up until that point, but that is total hooey. The following are all direct quotes from the communist manifesto, more specifically his "10 measures" towards the creation of socialist society:

5.) Centralist of credit in the hands of THE STATE by means of a national bank with STATE capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6.)Centralisation of the means of communication of transport in the hands of THE STATE.

7.) Extentsion of factories and means of production owned by THE STATE

Dude, you seriously need to reread the manifesto if you think Marx doesn't believe in the state. Other than that, I think your posts were right on, I particularly agree with your statement that "left-right" is a piss-poor way of understanding the political spectrum, I'd love to talk more about that but this post is long enough already. The main difference between anarchism and revolutionary marxism in my opinion is that revolutionary marxism begins on the national level that is, THE STATE, with the eventual goal of international revolution rendering THE STATE obsolete, while anarchism begins closer to home, on a county, city, town, or even village level, and it that sense is closer to the pre-Marx Utopian Socialism of the early 19th century.

I do not ascribe to either anarchism or revolutionary communism, I believe in democratic socialism (at least as far as the U.S.A. is concerned, more militant tactics may be appropriate in some parts of the 3rd world). That is, I believe that we should empower the masses to take control of their own lives through public education (I can't stress this enough, public education in the United States is soooooo weak and is the most important aspect of a democracy, education education education!), and that they should do so by exercising the rights and freedoms that we are already so lucky to have in this country such as those laid out in the 1st amendment of the constitution (speech, press, assembly, etc) as well as the right to vote and perhaps most importantly of all the right of workers to organize and strike (our grandfathers fought and died for this right back in the 30's so we wouldn't have to, we should be eternally grateful for it and use it to our collective advantage).

Holy shit, that must've been my longest post yet, I just wrote a midterm paper for my history class on a very similar topic so I guess I'm still in that mode of thought. Thank you to anyone who actually took the time to read it all, peace.

 

Yeah, but that is natural law, not something forced.

I understand when and why there was a need for law, which is exactly why I don't think it is possible to ever go back. It is a nice thought, but people need to look for something new rather than those things that worked that we completely threw away for a different lifestyle.

 

How about economiclly wrong? Mao's economics contributed to a massive famine in China in the late 50's early 60's. About 30 million people are believed to have died from it.

 

Yeah, strongest rule is natural, but it's certainly forced... nobody want's a Mongol comming in and telling them what to do.

 

Goddamn Mongolians, always tearing down my shitty wall as soon as I put up, goddamn Mongolians!

 

Don't be so quick to cannonize Lenin, Mui. Lenin was a staunch opponent of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy, and a lot of other freedoms that we're slowly losing in this country. Maybe him and Bush have more in common than we thought...

 

Are there any links that touch on Che's views on democracy?

 

I haven't read any, but I could give you a general outline of the theory he followed, ie marxism-leninism. That pretty much explains whawt he believes in. I think that, if you want to know Che's views on democracy, it would be a good solution to read "The State And The Revolution", by Lenin. Here he talks about democracy, the state, class society, and dictatorship.

I think you will get a general idea what he and other people with his view, really think about democracy, dictatorship, etc.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm


I would believe that the Chapter V: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State, would be the most important chapter to read, but the others might also prove worthwhile. It covers a lot of marxist thought. If you read this work, I think you will read the thoughts of a million marxists, including Guevara.




By "social democracy", I do not mean democracy... Social democracy is basically capitalism with a political solution that gives the workers a few benefits. I am pretty sure Che liked democracy very much. He loved the ordinary people, and I am 99 percent certain his wish was a free and secure world without poverty, a communist society with a direct democracy, without oppression or injustice.


Marxist theory can have quite a few "strange" words or terms, and there might be some things you might understand right away (as it was with me), so if you need any help, or just wonder "What the fuck did Lenin mean by this?", then I'd be more than willing to help.

Tell me how it goes