Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by TheHouseAlwaysWins, May 13, 2020.
That was a general post.
Yeah, they were trotskyist, still a little weird to me though because it was a time of war.
Communism is the complete abolition of state, and class, so I would hardly call it contradictory. We may colloquially refer to the USSR as communism, but we've never gotten to that point (and I don't think we will), and they got stuck in the state socialist mire and either failed there or started liberalizing markets, either due to corruption, economic failure, shift in public desire, or the want to westernize.
But how does one 'enforce', the communist utopia? Someone had to draft the laws and someone has to enforce the laws. Hell, the presence of 'law', itself violates the anarchy principle alone.
Even the most remote and primitive tribes, which some would attribute to as an example, have some kind of leadership caste, which ruins the whole idea of it bring anarcho commie.
Dude, I never said it would work, hence the "(I don't think we will)" part.
My point is that Anarcho-Communism is not a contradictory ideology (and probably more ideologically accurate and pure) than Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, or Maoism.
Homeslice just No True Scottsman'd Communism. Brah must be the Pope of Commies if he can dictate what a real one is.
IIRC it was kind of a "direct democracy" sort of system where literally everything is voted on, most 'anarchist' societies were Anarcho-syndicalist which basically means that pretty much all services that used to be performed by the state were now done through an alliance of dozens (even hundreds) of little worker's unions.
Obviously this all sounds like a weird and convoluted experiment when ends up just recreating The State and calling it something different, which is kind of one of the huge problems I have with Anarchism personally.
How are the two systems NOT contradictory when even, as you say, we talk about it in a purely ideological sense.
Anarchist means no laws or rules. Communism as an idea, is meant to operate on a very specific, while small, set of rules. The rule is each to his own need.
As you point out, the fact that these groups agree or work as 'allies', is proof at some level of organisation or order.
I would say that it means "No Rulers" more so than "No Rules"
Dawg, all i said is that Anarcho Communism is not contradictory because the meaning of communism is a stateless classless society and also added on that No society will likely ever reach that point in development, because, every society has had a state, and/or class. No one is saying "yeah that wasn't real socialism" because that's stupid. It's important to understand ideological distinction between the 2.
Do you just like to make up arguments in your head, do you deliberately misinterpret the things people say for the kicks, or do you just have shit reading comprehension?
1. That's not at all what Anarchism means, the original latin means "without rulers" however the ideological notion is "no unjustified rulers or hierarchy" meaning a hierarchy must justify itself, the community democatically decides on rulers and rules for the community and as such is enforced by the community it self (not arguing that it would work, but you have zero understanding of what anarchism as a political philosophy means.
2. Communism as stated by Marx is anarchism (Hello, a Stateless and Classless Society where everyone gives what they are able and takes what they need). Please read Marx or Kropotkin, I fucking beg of you
And before you go on another message of how that won't work, I'm not arguing for it, I'm correcting your misinterpretations of ideology
Even if we go your route, is not the group who gets their wishes fulfilled over the group that doesn't constitute a ruling caste or at the very least, a majority?
Following that route, do we not inevitably arrive at the problem of tyranny by majority?
The world of the marxists will be shocked that some random jagov on a fan site for a FPS game with shitty graphics just redefined all of marxist theory.
The Majority of the population is Majority of the population, and that is the consequence of direct democracy. The arguments I've seen is ensuring the minority is armed and has the ability to defend themselves from oppression of the majority. (which would most likely fail due to the majority having the raw numbers advantage.)
You are genuinely retarded dude, I'm sorry.
I like how I said that "Socialism has been tried and failed" and then links a video saying "wasn't real socialism" lmfao fucking moron.
Don't ya think you have enough brainpower to maybe, JUST MAYBE read what I'm saying before making up shit.
Communism is not the same socialism, however communism is a progression of socialism over a period of time, Communism is a society that is stateless and classless, and thus saying that "communism has never been tried" is objectively a correct statement, because every socialist nation on Earth has failed and or westernized, meaning Socialism never progressed into Communism.
Does that help?
there we go again. It wasn't real communism because I said so even though they called themselves communists, it didn't count.
this is you.
Also I'm pretty sure you're a racist too.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm#18 "Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain."
think you might be on the wrong forum lmao