|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:44 am
Norm of Okinawa SoViEtTaNkT34 Norm of Okinawa SoViEtTaNkT34 Norm of Okinawa SoViEtTaNkT34 Not my point. Freedom doesnt exist for humans depend upon a social environment, the best example of this is simply the fact that you speak/type/write the English Language. To be free is to be without limits from a given social network is just impossible. What do you believe that I believe? Seriously..... Read, write, and speak english because I am NOT free. I am proposing that once the capitalists crumble under their own fascist regime, I may be truly free to be an anarchist at heart, to truly give up all things that make me bound by society. Clothes, speech. I wasn't saying I would live with a tribe of indians. I was meaning I would be on my own. However, I am still young. This is what I hold in my heart to be the truest bliss, not the most LOGICAL thing in the world. To me, the most logical thing is to help overthrow capitalism wherever it may be, and replace/uproot it and help instill a socialist/communist government in it's place. Right now, I'm reading up, AS A NEW MEMBER, the difference between the two. As I can tell, socialism is authoritarian and close to fascist, where as communism is the happy medium between it and capitalism. I am not fully aware of what socialism is, per se, or communism. But I have a vague idea of communism, liberation of the modern day indentured servant. What do i believe you believe? I believe you are smug. I believe you believe all things must be given to people to give them purpose, they must be told what to do and how to do it in order to survive, that people must have a government. What that government is exactly, I wouldn't know, you enlighten me. You have your liberal definitions mixed up. Socialism and communism in the communist sense of the words are essentially stage 1 and stage 2 and are not State Capitalists such as found in Europe. So, in the theory on how to bring about communism, the first part is to progress our current government towards a socialism, and then overthrow that government with a communism? Or is it slowly alter capitalism until it is so indistinguishable from socialism that it becomes socialism, and then just do the same towards communism? Nah. Socialism is what is created post rev. What it seems your talking about is State Capitalism which is different then socialism. So we create socialism, and communism is achieved when all the developed nations of the world become socialist, too, and that combined socialism is communism? The Capitalist state will be overtrown by a violent revolution which will establish a socialist state aka "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat". This state will start a change in society that will cause the state in general to "wither away" and become Communism, which isnt a state but is not anarchy either.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:05 am
Gracchvs Robespierre Sri Iskander I happen to include economic means in my definition of the State. Quote: Noun Singular coercion Plural coercions coercion (plural coercions) 1. (not countable) Actual or threatened force for the purpose of compelling action by another person; the act of coercing. 2. (law, not countable) Use of physical or moral force to compel a person to do something, or to abstain from doing something, thereby depriving that person of the exercise of free will. And here we have the definition of coercion. You'll note that a cooperative society based on mutual agreement is not, in fact, coercion. Shooting the exploiters, however, is. I take it that you're attempting to argue, now, that revolution is impossible because revolution is coercion. Sure, I'll agree that it can be seen as coercion. Wouldn't stop me, though. There's a great difference between a military campaign, which has always followed different rules than civilian life, and y'know, civilian life. razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:27 am
Sri Iskander Gracchvs Robespierre Sri Iskander I happen to include economic means in my definition of the State. Quote: Noun Singular coercion Plural coercions coercion (plural coercions) 1. (not countable) Actual or threatened force for the purpose of compelling action by another person; the act of coercing. 2. (law, not countable) Use of physical or moral force to compel a person to do something, or to abstain from doing something, thereby depriving that person of the exercise of free will. And here we have the definition of coercion. You'll note that a cooperative society based on mutual agreement is not, in fact, coercion. Shooting the exploiters, however, is. I take it that you're attempting to argue, now, that revolution is impossible because revolution is coercion. Sure, I'll agree that it can be seen as coercion. Wouldn't stop me, though. There's a great difference between a military campaign, which has always followed different rules than civilian life, and y'know, civilian life. razz No, I'm arguing that you cannot be a consistent anarchist while preaching or practicing revolution. If you do that, you essentially become a left-communist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:01 am
Rob and I have had this discussion before. I agree with a great deal of the goals of Communists, but I disagree on some of the methods commies use to get there. Commies tend to disagree with my methods for getting there. Beyond that, there's very little difference between us (general us, not a specific you and me).
My anarchy is, in fact, an extension of my long held Communist views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
