Political Change

[TrevorOfCrete]

In the classless (and "state"less) communist society there'll likely be no money at all.

There is no living example of a class less communist society. ***Members of the Communist Party in the soviet union lived lives of luxary, ***Generals in Cuba share a similar treatment, ***and dont even make me go in to the 'class less' societys of the 'communist' south east asia nations.

I understand in theory its meant to be equal. But even marx recognised the need for the dictatorship of the proletarian in the early stages. Once you give people that sort of power, unless they have a heart of gold, there not going to swap it in for a life among the masses.

[Akira]

I think those people in western countries crying about how bad the current system is, are just too lazy to work on the improvement of what they already got. Of course it's not perfect, in fact when you look at it closely you'll find a lot of flaws, but it's the best we have. And instead of whining one should put more energy into figuring out how to improve the system.

Besides that I'd like to see how those punks propagating anarchy would survive in truely anarchic country. Perhaps one should organise field trips to Somalia or something like that.

Anarchy does not necessarily mean lack of all government.

Many theories of anarchy merely call for an end to borders and states and other forms of un-natural divisions of humanity. A form of "statelessness" if you will.

Many also understand the need for a form of government, but that the government would be disbanded after its business done (and reformed if business is needed). The government would not be a permanent entity, nor would it be controled by career politicians.

I voted that a radical change is needed, and in my view some form of stateless socialism would be the best. In my view capitalism does far more to divide humanity than it does to bring us together. I also find the sole purpose of life being to collect and amass wealth to be nonsensical at the least and contemptible with the extremes that some people go to.

Course realistically I know that won't happen anytime soon, nor any other form of change. As through most of human history, some form of cataclysmic event would have to proceed any radical cultural change as that.

[CameronMcDonald]

Quote[/b] ]I also find the sole purpose of life being to collect and amass wealth to be nonsensical at the least and contemptible with the extremes that some people go to.

I agree that the extremes of such behaviour (and all forms of pure materialism) is to be abhorred, but to work to better one's own standing and amass value for oneself is human nature.

Dystopic, but truthful.

[Akira]

Quote[/b] ]I also find the sole purpose of life being to collect and amass wealth to be nonsensical at the least and contemptible with the extremes that some people go to.

I agree that the extremes of such behaviour (and all forms of pure materialism) is to be abhorred, but to work to better one's own standing and amass value for oneself is human nature.

Dystopic, but truthful.

I agree, but there are numerable examples in other cultures around the world where that is accomplished by other means than monetary and physical object collection.

Does getting a Porsche really increase one's standing or add value to your life? Oh I know there are some out there that would yell "Yes" but they are sad shadows of what humanity can and should be.

It is the culture that has driven into our heads that you have to have a big house to be happy and that small pieces of paper are important and hold disproportionate value. And this culture is brought about by capitalism, and because of it humanity has stagnated and divided itself.

[Chops]

Who cares? I want to go shopping .

[TrevorOfCrete]

I think those people in western countries crying about how bad the current system is, are just too lazy to work on the improvement of what they already got. Of course it's not perfect, in fact when you look at it closely you'll find a lot of flaws, but it's the best we have. And instead of whining one should put more energy into figuring out how to improve the system.

Besides that I'd like to see how those punks propagating anarchy would survive in truely anarchic country. Perhaps one should organise field trips to Somalia or something like that.

Anarchy does not necessarily mean lack of all government.

Many theories of anarchy merely call for an end to borders and states and other forms of un-natural divisions of humanity. A form of "statelessness" if you will.

Many also understand the need for a form of government, but that the government would be disbanded after its business done (and reformed if business is needed). The government would not be a permanent entity, nor would it be controled by career politicians.

I voted that a radical change is needed, and in my view some form of stateless socialism would be the best. In my view capitalism does far more to divide humanity than it does to bring us together. I also find the sole purpose of life being to collect and amass wealth to be nonsensical at the least and contemptible with the extremes that some people go to.

Course realistically I know that won't happen anytime soon, nor any other form of change. As through most of human history, some form of cataclysmic event would have to proceed any radical cultural change as that.

indeed, anarchy is one of the most mis-understood politiocal ideologies. ***People seem to automaticly assosiate it with 17 year old kids who have mohawks and masturbate over the sex pistols, or rogue nations like Afganistan prior 9/11. ***Neither is true anarchy compared to Proudhon's anarchaic principles.

I think capitalist anarchists are quite fun. ***They believe everything will be run through capitalism, so basicly the private sector is everything. ***For example the Police would be a privatly run company, and would operate similar to recovery companies like the AA, you would have to be a member. ***Also every piece of road would be privatly owned and tolled, meaning there would be no need for a central 'road agency' etc etc...

[Spokesperson]

In the classless (and "state"less) communist society there'll likely be no money at all.

There is no living example of a class less communist society. ***Members of the Communist Party in the soviet union lived lives of luxary, ***Generals in Cuba share a similar treatment, ***and dont even make me go in to the 'class less' societys of the 'communist' south east asia nations.

I understand in theory its meant to be equal. ***But even marx recognised the need for the dictatorship of the proletarian in the early stages. ***Once you give people that sort of power, ***unless they have a heart of gold, there not going to swap it in for a life among the masses.

Of course there is no example of a class less communist society at this very moment. In the same way there was no example of modern day "democracy" 200 or 2000 years back. That doesn't mean that "democracy" is impossible, but who thought it would be?

Even if you think it's impossible, what stops you from improving the situation by working for a class less society? We can do better than this. But it's not in the current ruling class' interests, so they work against everything that will abolish their privileges and power. They spread lies about socialist countries like Cuba, they invade them, coup them, do acts of terrorism (like blowing planes and shooting tourists from the sea), they murder and silence people who know too much and pose a _real_ threat against them, and so on. You're free to say what you want as long as you want as long as what you say poses no danger to them.

The Soviet Union was no communist country, they never claimed it to be either. USSR is Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Communism is no where to be found in that name. The liberal press which the ruling class owns has journalists that don't know what they are talking about, they are paid to spread lies (Like those who were on the CIA payroll in the Miami Herald), and the news centrals focus on antisocialist news-items. How often do you hear about Haiti and the US mil intervention there, or maybe the dictatorship Saudi Arabia or Thailand? Compare that to the articles about Cuba and Venezuela and you'll find that the proportions are very "odd".

The dictatorship of the proletariat as Marx thought it would be means nothing else than the dictatorship of the majority. It's meant to maintain the revolution against reactionaries. In the early USSR all workers and peasants had voting rights while priests didn't for example. Dictatorship of the proletariat is that the working class rules instead of the bourgeoisie.

We live in the dictatorship of the owners, the bourgeoisie.

Communism is only possible when the whole world is socialist. First socialism (or the dictatorship of the proletariat), then communism.



Also, It's not anarchy but anarchism. They want the class less society without any socialist transition stages. Which is naive in my opinion.

Anarchocapitalists are worse than nazis. They don't care if people starve or die of a lack of health care. They say it's free to choose between death and slavery. That's a choice which isn't very free.

[TrevorOfCrete]

Quote[/b] ]Anarchocapitalists are worse than nazis. They don't care if people starve or die of a lack of health care. They say it's free to choose between death and slavery. That's a choice which isn't very free.

well i would disagree, i would argue its brutally free. ***Make your own way in life or perish. ***Its freedom to the extreme. ***But its a political view i could never believe in, but i dont think there worse than Nazis, ***Not caring if people starve is not as bad as purposly starving them. ***Millions of people die in africa from starvation, ***and many people in developed countries dont really care, but i wouldnt say they were Nazis, just pretty ignorant.

Personally i think if communism is ever to get a proper grip there needs to be absolutely massive international economic crash. ***Otherwise there too much for people to loose out of it. ***That includes myself, ***im not rich by any means, but i quite like the car i bought through my labour so i would quite like to keep it. ***However we have also seen from history that economic crashes turn people to the right aswell as the left, so to me there will always be a pointless a futile struggle neither side will win. It will only bring death and destruction, for a percieved view of freedom.

[Spokesperson]

The anarchocapitalist "freedom" includes the one to own a private security force. With it anyone could eliminate competitors or opposition. It's no freedom taken to extreme in my opinion. It's no freedom at all for those who got no money. And most people definately don't have the chance to get that money, so it's not about people who "fail" or "succeed".

Your car story just reflects the liberal propaganda in our current society. Private property will be abolished yes. That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to own a car, a home or a toothbrush. Private property = means of production. Factories, big machines, industries, raw natural resources, woods, streams, oil etc. It's a common misconception.

Yes many people will turn to the extreme right and to the left in economic crises. The extreme right are the ones who are sponsored by the capitalists (to keep their grip on society, but now in a fascist manner like under Hitler, Pinochet, Franco) and who are driven by racism, nationalism and/or religion.

[TrevorOfCrete]

well i disagree on the capitalist anarchist, again i see it slightly different, its not really a set ideology but there will be people who see it like you do, and people who do not. I just take an interest in it becuase its a really qwerky ideology and seems a bit contradictory when you first see it. Personally i dont really believe it is a form of Anarchy. The only similarity is the call to rid of the state.

My car example, what i mean is not owning a car, but purchasing a car of a certian quality. ***I dont want to be bogged down in the car the state distributes to me. ***I want the freedom of choice to go out and buy a expencive car, ***because to me thats important. ***I think in certian respects communism stops people being what they want to be. ***Ofcourse all idiologys do this, they have to. ***

Also just to set thing straight, im not talking like i know everything, ***and i know what is right, ***i dont. ***Im just giving how i see it. I take an interest in your views and fully respect them. ***That in my view is the only way to deal with politics in order to prevent angry confrontation.