Question to liberals

Why do you use the anarchist "A", pictures of Ernesto Guevara among other leftist "symbols", while yourself do not believe in either anarchism or what Che stood for?

 

You can still have the same ideals though of fighting for what you believe in.

 

Still, by having a picture of Che on your wall or on your T-shirt, you are supporting on of the most hardcore and determined communists that has ever existed.


Che supported Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Marx, Engels etc. He hated liberalism.


Anarchists do also support the communist sytem. In fact, they are the same. We just differ on how to get there. Anarchists hate liberalism.






So why would a liberal support people who hate their ideology, except if the symbols seem "cool" and "fancy"?

 

^ Famous communist











^ Famous anti-capitalist symbol

 

Anarchy isn't anti-capitalist, it's anti-government. Capitalism thrives in an anarchist society due to complete lack of regulation.

In fact, if the world was to fall into anarchy, it would probably end up being run by corportions.

 

They are not mutually exclusive, but I think it's a reach to call them the same...

 

"Anarchy isn't anti-capitalist, it's anti-government."

No, it's anti-capitalist, and anti-government. Anarchists fight are just as busy studying class struggle as communists are.



"ANARCHISM HAS NOTHING to do with the exploitative, rule-based and oppressive system of capitalism."

Quoted from www.anarchism.net.

http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_anarchismcapitalismandanarchocapitalism.htm


"Capitalism thrives in an anarchist society due to complete lack of regulation."

Anarchism is a society without money. IT is a society without rulers. It cannot be capitalist.

 

"They are not mutually exclusive, but I think it's a reach to call them the same..."


Communism - Classlesss, stateless society without money or markets

Anarchism - Classless, stateless society without money or markets


Sounds about the same to me

 

Whereas Marxism wants to get away from the entire structure of capital, believing that it is a dangerous form of control, the anarcho-capitalists believe that free market capitalism is a necessary part of freedom.

Even leftist anarchism and Marxism are two very different political philosophies, although there is some similarity between the methodology and ideology of some anarchists and some Marxists, and the history of the two have often been intertwined.

The International Workingmen's Association, at its founding, was an alliance of socialist groups, including both anarchists and Marxists. Both sides had a common aim (stateless communism) and common political opponents (conservatives and other right-wing elements). But each was critical of the other, and the inherent conflict between the two groups soon embodied itself in an ongoing argument between Mikhail Bakunin, representative of anarchist ideas, and Karl Marx himself. In 1872, the conflict in the First International climaxed with the expulsion of Bakunin and those who had become known as the "Bakuninists" when they were outvoted by the Marx party at the Hague Congress

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Anarchism_and_Marxism

 

There's a good chance that in a TRUE anarchist society -- no rules, no rulers -- we'd be living essentially as the cavemen did, and if you were not one of the physically mighty, you'd be fucked. You'd be victimized by anyone stronger or more capable than you are.

Imagine being at a grocery store, or in a better example, in a field full of fruit-bearing trees. In an anarchy, if you sauntered on into this orchard to pick some fruit, and there are no rules, rulers, or rule enforcers, what stops some bigger, stronger guy in an alliance with some of his friends from waiting til you did the work to pick yourself a bushel of fruit, and then beat you to a dead, bloody pulp and take your fruit for themselves?

That's the REALITY that is conveniently ignored by the idiotic, never-been-in-the-real-world, pseudo-intellectual, theory-obsessed/practical-example-deprived, so-called "anarchists". I remember the kids in school who liked to go around wearing studded leather and other stupid crap, goth makeup, wearing that "A" symbol as though they even knew what anarchy would entail if we had it in the real world... Sad, really, how self-deceived these kids were. Chances are, in a real anarchy, they'd be among the first to end up dead. So would just about anyone who currently subscribes to the so-called "liberal" credo that includes forced defenselessness, i.e. gun control, which means that there is no equalizer of might. If I am stronger than you, and you have no gun, I'm gonna oppress you. I think the irony is funny; people supporting the same "anarchy" that would rob them of any form of comfort in their lives, including the ability to go on living.

-Jeffrey

 

A lot of people support Communism, or the IDEA of Communism. Because hey, if it could ever be done right without people's greed getting in the way, maybe regulated a bit, then Communism could make everyone happy. Of course that can never ever happen because people are so damn greedy, but the idea can still be good. And for that reason, many people support Che Guevara. Do you even knoiw what kind of a place Argentina was while Che was protesting? Many people also believe in Che's ideas and revolutionary spirit, as opposed to his specific ideas.
And don't say that all liberals use the anarchy sign, because I'm a big liberal but I DON'T believe in anarchy. Anarchy and Communism are completely different. They're actually almost complete opposites...Anarchy is the belief that there should be no government and that people can make their own rules...which would be complete chaos, as we'd be running around killing each other. Communism is where the government takes control of EVERYTHING. So I don't understand where you're coming from when you're saying that anarchy (no government control) is the same as Communism (complete government control)...

 

Do you agree with how I (and anarchists) see it, that anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists?

Not very different I would say, but there are differences. Basically, marxists believes in a traditional stage (socialism) in order to advance to communism. Anarchists wants, and believes a anarchist (communist) society can be created without a traditional stage.

True. Most of it were of not so big things. The left argues with each other all the time. Marxists against marxist-leninists. Marxist-leninists against marxists. Leninists against leninists. I think it's healthy.

In a anarchist/communist society, you are free to take what you want. The people will be the police. Instead of having a few professional police, there will be 6 billion. If there is open conflicts against persons, the local communities can and will establish meetings where these things will be dealt with.

No, not at all. Communism is a stateless society. There will be no rulers.

They are not complete opposites.

That's what the dictionary says, yes.

There's a lot of anarchists and marxists on www.che-lives.com/forum, and ALL believe in the same system. We're like one big happy family.

No. That's the exact opposite of what we want.


Like a friend of mine said:

"Communism deprives nobody of liberty. All it does is to prevent people from subjugating others by acquiring the means of productions.
It guarantees freedom.
With inequality comes hierarchy. With hierarchy come subjugation of the underclass and subjugation and a lack of freedom. Communism establishes equality and therefore freedom."


Communism is not about complete government control. In a communist society, there will be no goverment. The USSR, for example, was socialist (therefore the name: Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics). The only major difference between anarchists and communists is that communists believe in a transitional stage, anarchists do not.



And Anarchy is so much more then no government control.




Let me quote che-lives dictionary, although not complete, it gives you an idea:


Anarchism

A philosophy advocating the abolition of all forms of hierarchical authority, including capitalism and the state. Anarchists are opposed to the idea, advocated by most Marxists, that a transitional dictatorship is necessary to achieve a classless society and instead argue for the simultanious abolition of capitalism & the state.



Here's "Anarchism for dummies":


http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6421

 

I always get mad when the topic of Communism comes up...people are often confused about what it is...Communism is a system of economics, not government...you could easily have a democratic communist state...

It was Stalin who ruined Communism for its good name, but i am still a die hard democratic socialist.....

 

Cute little toes, AND you're obviously smart! WOW!

I agree with everything you say, especially the part about the world being so friggin' greedy that even great systems don't have a chance of working.

-Jeffrey

 

You can't have a communist democratic state since the goal of communism is to get rid of the state.

 

Why do you red staters claim to be more patriotic than we are but wave the confederate flag; a faction that rebeled against the united states.

 

I'm not patriotic. I don't like countries. I don't like borders. I'm not an American. I don't like the United States either.

So I've never claimed to be "more patriotic". I'm not, and proud of it. I would have been ashamed if I was an American.

 

Amen
Just like the Bush-ies that call Democrats unpatriotic because we question them...doesn't it make us MORE patriotic if we use our rights as Americans to speak out against the government? Apparently not anymore...let's renounce our freedom of speech, everybody! :-D!

 

Anarchism is anti-authoritarian, not necessarily anti-government. And if anyone has studied anthropology, you know hunter gatherers have successfully lived egalitarian hunter-gatherer lifestyles for hundreds of thousands of years.

I am not necessarily advocating it, but if I may quote Daniel Quinn "Ther is no one right way to live."

I think it is just important not to force how you want to live on other people

 

Well, a governemnt is neccesarily authoritarian.