Join our anarchist political movement!

Our goal is to establish a government founded on the principles of anarchy. Namely, we want to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, so that we can all be equal! How will we do this? Why, society will redistribute it, of course! (Don't worry, "society" is definitely NOT a euphemism for "communist government.")

We also think that everyone should vote on every single issue before the community, since any anarchist will tell you that it is the community's responsibility to decide every issue that will have any impact on anyone's life. People are too stupid to make decisions for themselves, so society will make them for them (again, "society" does NOT mean government)!

Some people will say that anarchists are all about individuality and capitalism, but these people are just corporate whores who don't understand the meaning of the word. Anarchy clearly is about collectivism and communism. Support our movement! Listen to Rage Against the Machine, wear your Che Guevara shirts (a great anarchist role model), and come out and march with us, since our current government isn't doing enough to make our decisions for us!

 

That is idiotic, grow up.

 

Dude, you nailed it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people think you're serious. I think I saw almost the same thing written on a flier in the park...

 

As fond as I am of overthrowing the US government, I must tell you that Rubin is correct in his classification of this idea as "idiotic". His proposition for you to grow up is also quite valid.

 

How not to build a mass movement:

 

Heh.

 

i swear to god that the poster must be like an alter ego of pressed rat or something..
obviously this guy is not serious and only intends to mock communism... another person with the damn rage against the machine/che guevera stereotype... its gotta be rat... or one of his fellow illuminati members.

Yes, communism is anarchy
Yes, the people are supposed to share on their own
Yes, communism is dependent on everyones approval, along w/ capitalism
No, che guevera wasnt an anarchist
No, communists do not approve of totalitarianism.
No, i dont believe in the "be communist or die" philosophy
No, Rage against the machine cant play musical instruments.

 

if your all about individuality why conform everyone to capitalism?

 

Isn't having an anarchy based government kinda... oxymoron-ish... they cancel each other out don't they?

 

yes, they do... who was talking about an anarchist-based government though... anarchy is the lack of government

 

Wha... WHAT! *rubs eyes* ?(damn machine shop) Can it be true? A vocal communist admitting that anarchy means without rule? And here I was starting to think that all communists were of the *stick fingers in ears and nanny nanny naa-naa* "My propaganda is better than your propaganda" type.

Bravo. Finally, a communist who understands a simple, latin-root word.

But then again, earlier you said "Yes, communism is anarchy"

Due to your remarkable display of average intelligence, when I look back on this comment I am bewildered. But then I understand.

You believe that democratic rule is not rule. An understandable belief for someone living in a one-party, two name, system, but rule is rule. Democracy is still not anarchy. Of course, even if you construed it to be so, you would have to assume that a communist state would retain it's unrealistic utopia status, which never happens due to a flaw in the philosophy in which it does not account for basic human nature.

But I digress. This dead horse has been beaten into a delicious spreadable paste. I'm just suprised that you actually admit that the word "anarchy" means what it has since it was coined in ancient rome. An = without in latin, archy = rule in latin. Anachy, without rule.

Perhaps there is hope for you yet my son. I only have one piece of advice for propaganda slaves who have started to tug at their yoke, be they communist or imperialist, democrian or republicrat: Study Reality.

Fantasy makes a nice playground, but if you don't come home before dark Charlie the Child Molester is gonna get you.

 

I see where you are coming from... how can anarchy be communism if democracy is supposed to be used in communism... but what is democracy? Is it a form of governing? I dont think so... I think democracy means equal power that everyone has.. and in an anarchist society democracy is simply the fact that no one rules over another, in the government sense of ruling.

Yes i've always thought anarchy was without rule.. i dont know where you thought i meant anything else.

Indeed, study reality... that includes the realities of the flaws of capitalism, the realities of dependencies that communism requires to "work", the realities of political figures during revolutions and how they abuse their power and lie to everyone.

 

It's just that just about every other follower of a communist-ish philosophy on this site seems to be confused, especially a particularly rude and vocal person who, in the "Capitalism and Anarchism" thread quite adamantly insists that all of the dictionaries of the world are wrong and infoshop.org (one of the most highly respected political websites in the world, it says so right on the front page!) is the only one who has it right. Read the thread, it's in politics, it's good for a laugh.

As for anarchy and democracy, in a true direct democracy up to 49% of the population can be subject to any sort of oppression. If 51% of the voting population says, for instance, that no one may wear green shirts on mondays, those who wish to wear green shirts on mondays are oppressed. The majority rules. With rule, there is no anarchy, except for the few who operate outside of the system. "Archy", or rule, does not require just one ruler. There can be millions of rulers, yet it is still rule.

If you want examples of real-life anarchists, I would think that the best example for a group would be the Hell's Angels, and the best example of a well-known individual living anarchy would be Aleister Crowley.

Why has this happened every single time communism has been attempted? I would put forth that it is because communist revolutions create a perfect environment for dictators to sieze power. Sure, capitalism isn't always perfect, but history has shown that free and prosperous societies can exist under capitalist economies, history has not shown the same of communism. The problems with "capitalism" today mostly stem from corporate entities gaining control of government and bypassing regulations put in place to ensure fair practice.

 

Well when i was thinking democracy, i think equal power, as in, we all equally have the same power of word, like in a society we all would have the same power of influence as our opinions would dictate... not in the "we are all going to sit down and vote on something and whoever gets the most wins"

well individualist anarchy is a lot different... my friend says when he goes to his house in Czech it is like anarchy there because the police just are no where to be found for miles and miles and miles... they never come around there... so he says its like anarchy.
but you could be living in anarchy as a "hell's angel" and than all of a sudden get arrested, than your not quite the anarchist are you.

That is correct... my point exactly BUT...

Well large scale "communist" governments hvaent really represented prosperity or freedom, but i think those living in smaller communal societies are free and prosperous... i wouldnt rule out the possibility of a larger prosperous communist like society, anything is possible... i think what would help is to instead of have a bloody revolution to change t he way of the government, to do it peacefully like gandhi using education and principles to gather enough people that want to live in this sort of society, to actually put them in a larger society and see how it works... instead of forcing those who dont want anything to do with it to live in it, we should let them live how they want, as long as they will let us live how we want to live.

Yep.

I just think that on a small scale, communism/marxism is effective if the people want to be in that kind of society... and sense i want to live in something like that, i think it makes me a communist... so i argue for communism... but than people bring up things like larger scale governments the ussr, cuba, china, and communism becomes a much bigger issue and people have a lot more emotion about it...

but its not like ide change my views because of failed bloody revolutions..
Obviously, if there is a fairly large and powerful elite rich class, they are not going to give up their wealth... if commies come and want to get rid of personal property they are going to have to do it through a bloody revolution because the rich are sure not going to give up their wealth.

But if the lower class could live seperately from the rich classes, which are somewhat dependent on the lower classes to run things for, in some sort of alternative society... the higher classes would crumble... no one would be there to flip their burgers, pump their gas, escort them around town, suck them off, etc.

 

com·mu·nism (kŏm'yə-nĭz'əm)
n.

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Communism

a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

b.The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

Anarchism ăn'ər-kĭz'əm)
n.

1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell).
an'ar·chis'tic (-kĭs'tĭk) adj.

As you can see, the two completely contradict each other. For communism to exist, there needs to be government; a big, fascist, oppressive government.

Anarchy means no government. To have no government at all would bring about chaos in these modern times. Since communism is an organized, controlled system of government, you need to have order and uniformity. If you don't have order, you have chaos, and chaos is certainly not conducive to the rigidity of communism.

Can anyone mention one instance where communism has brought about the freedom that these so-called "anarchists" supposedly cherish? Every communist regime I can think of has been oppressive and murderous -- the absolute antithesis of the visionary utopia in which they have been sold by the global-elites.

The fact is, many of these anarchist/socialist/communist types have been sold a lie that has been perpetrated on the minds of young and impressionable people for decades. These people often have no meaning in their lives, so they find it desirable to be part of a movement. And since that movement sells itself as "hip", "radical" and "anti-establishment", it's all the more appealing to those who are obsessed with image more than the free-thinking they supposedly embrace.

These people have no clue what communism really is, since the lie that is being sold is that communism = freedom and equality for all. Couple this with the fact that most of these people don't know shit about history or how the economy works. They do know a lot about fronting and playing the part, however.

These people will also deny the fact that modern socialism is a system created by the international banks. It was created to give an "opposing" side (rather the appearance of an opposing side) to capitalism, so those who opposed capitalism could instead embrace and advocate socialism. This would make the socialists think they were in support of an "alternative" system to the oh-so-oppressive-capitalist one, when it was actually playing into the hands of the banking-elite by bringing about more government control. (Keep in mind the international banks basically own the governments of the world.) Of course the people who embrace socialism and communism don't know this, or will selectively ignore the facts since their image means too much to them.

Socialism is sold to naive people that by giving all your earnings to an all-powerful government, it will result in the equality of everyone. What they don't understand is that it makes everyone equal by enslaving and impoverishing them. I believe this is where the word communism (or is it anarchism?) comes into place.

Yet, socialists and communists will deny this by saying that it means less government, further showing how uninformed and brainwashed they are.

The west funded communism and the Bolshevik Revolution, just like Wall Street and the Rothschilds funded dysfunctional losers like Marx and Trotsky to promote their agenda.

But noooooo, socialism and communism is against the banks.

That's what you think.

There is a term everyone needs to familiarize themselves with: HEGELIAN DIALECTIC. It's basically the idea of funding two opposing sides, making the people think one is different from the other, when the fact is that both are controlled by the same forces at the top. In this case, it's the central banks.

These anarchist-commies believe that all capitalism is bad capitalism, when it's the most free system of economy there is (even though under the Federal Reserve it isn't truly free at all), as it allows people to have control over themselves -- not the government having control over them. Capitalism has been tarnished by greed and cronyism, and I don't consider today's "Free Market" to be free at all. It is a global crime syndicate.

But all I can say is that you so-called "anarchists" and "communists" have got it all wrong.

 

Well this dictionary definition of communism at least points out that there is different versions of Communism... When someone says "Communism" i automatically think "Marxism"... in fact, i fail to see anything else as "Communism" yet dictionaries will still classify maoism, stalinism, as communism as well...and in Marxism, there is not supposed to be a government... that is the truth, and if you read the manifesto n kapital you will find the same thing.

Thats not true though, becuase communism exists in communes, on a small scale, with no "big fascist oppressive government"
And if Marxism were defined by all to be the one and only "Communism" than you could not say that it calls for a government...

Communism as in Stalinism is that, Communism as Marxism isnt..
Many different kinds of Communism, and Marx is one of them, the original if you will, and it warned against government, therefore i feel that any "government" trying to becoming "communist" has automatically went against marx.

Yes they were vicious and wrong, but did they follow marx... that is the question I ask... and the answer, i think, is no. Im a marxist, and i think that makes me a communist, but I dont believe in communism as brought to you by the ussr,et c.

I think that is going a little too far to say that we are all impressionable and have no meaning in our lives thus we follow communism...

Well obviously, to you, marxism is not communism. You think communism is what Stalin told everyone communism was, and what he showed to the world... before stalin, communism was against government, against ultimate rulers... i think that is what gets many to label themselves "Communists"

I wont ignore any facts if they are true... I've admitted a lot when it comes to requirements for a communist society, flaws in communism, things like that... but what makes me bug out is how people correlate marxism to the same Huge oppressive government that stalin had... becuase marx had no say in stalin, he couldnt see the future... he was just a philosopher with some ideas...

Well, in a way we are both right.

Marxism means less government, Stalinism/Maoism/Etcism means More government.. if i consider myself marxist, i dont consider myself to be for large government, i consider myself to be against governments because that is what is written by marx...

I do know that the west helped the bolshevic revolution -- but
I do think that the results of Marxist theory leads people to hate everything about the man... even call him a dysfunctional loser, but you cannot blame marx for what happened after he published his ideas... when he first published them they were just ideas, and people found that itd make great success as using it to persuade people for revolution, letting them gain power.

What happened after was a tragedy, but i still stand by Marx's words

When the "Free Market" cleans up its act, only than would I ever consider to call myself capitalist or be in support of it... But it hasnt yet, so I am a Marxist. The very fact that i can live in a small marxist society makes me label myself a marxist.

You do not have any other better ideas to offer to the table, all you do is point out the problems with everything. And you cant act like you have all the answers... or a complete understanding of communism... you use books like The Black Book of Communism in your debate as if they were unbiased and credible sources... but that is not objective research that is reading what you already agree with.
That book leaves out so many things, so much hatred for communism/communists exists out there because of books like that it makes me mad.. but you honestly cant consider them to be any better/worse than any capitalist person, because you do know that we all are TRYING to do what we think is best for the world..
none of us are trying to oppress the world, except for maybe those that do have power.

but it is really two equally oppressive sides fighting and quarreling with eachother... left vs right, democrat vs republican, communist vs capitalist... in the end everything is Wrong.

I never been too optimistic when it comes to humanity... i dont think we have answers for everything, i think our ignorance will lead to our extinction some day.

But instead of simply putting off all these commies/anarchists/socialists as simply following some sort of trend and not having value in their life, it'd be a better idea to possibly listen to what they are saying and give their side a chance... you are already stuck on the idea that communism means big oppressive police force, and it is partially true, but can you admit for a second that Marx never intended his philosophy to be used with government, especially big government... and if you honestly disagree with me on that, you really should read some letters Marx had wrote during his life... he really did despise government with a passion.
I dont blame him for the future.
We all disagree, but in a way we think marginally alike.

 

mui ...try reading "the conquest of bread " by peter kropotkin ....and then 'men against the state ' by james j martin .this will give good examples of the very wide differences in people who are ... all ...anarchists .....christian and athiest pacificits or revolutionaries ....and indivualist [not lesse fair capitolist] collectivist and comunitarian varietys //////dr seuse .... henery david thoroe , gandi tolstoy . bacunin ....emma goldman .....all anarchists .....the poster here has his head sooo far up his ass hes eating his own poop !

 

the unknown revolution ......by voline shows anarchists who fought the red and white armies to leave the ukraine free of laws for a few years .......in spain the anarchist revolution brought forth wonderfull things before hitler and franco crushed it with the help of the athoritarian comunists who sabotaged the effort

 

Please don't make this into another thread about Communism. We already have two such threads, both with very good and long replies from both sides. My good friend Companiero, a Macedonian student, pretty much proved there that all of your arguments against Communism are false. Don't repeat history, read instead of talking. Chances are everything you want to say has already been said and refuted.

 

Panarchy != Anarchy.