Elitism, clarse and all that...

[B0ycey]

Oh my, I am sure Boysie is the chairman of his local Conservative party...

 :shock:



You wouldn't find me wearing a blue ribbon!

[Borchester]

Well it is true Dynamis, although it seems you are interested in subjects you don't fully understand.

 

Oh my, I am sure Boysie is the chairman of his local Conservative party having a bit of a laugh      



As far as I can see, Communism is about how we ought to live. Ananachism is similar but with a dash of humour. Conservatism is about how we want to live.



The result of the above is that the Commies come up with the good ideas but the Conservatives enforce them with the result that one way and another they have been and will be in power forever.

[DeppityDawg]

They are completely different, if you can't see that; it only reflects on you. And if you don't care what I think (and again you keep writing this to everyone on here who disagrees with you) then why keep replying, and more importantly..



..why should we care what you think?



 Anyway I've said my piece, enough now. It is boring.

C'mon guys? You've both got interesting things to say? And anyway...it makes a change for there to be a big feck off argument that I'm not responsible for  ::  ::  ::



Keep posting Cpt Dynamic

[Borchester]

I think the main weakness of communism is that in every country I have heard of where they proudly claim to be communist, the ruling elite are anything but equal.



The dream may sound good, but the implementation stinks.

 :hattip

[Borchester]

I think the main weakness of communism is that in every country I have heard of where they proudly claim to be communist, the ruling elite are anything but equal.



The dream may sound good, but the implementation stinks.

 :hattip

[Borg Refinery]

Objective vs political thought. The need for a government was the only thing that broke them up. The objective was the same. Besides, I don't care what you think. You are wrong. The only difference between the two is the route of achievement, Kropotkin referenced Marx and the book was in regards to human behaviour rather that political narrative anyways.

They are completely different, if you can't see that; it only reflects on you. And if you don't care what I think (and again you keep writing this to everyone on here who disagrees with you) then why keep replying, and more importantly..



..why should we care what you think?



 Anyway I've said my piece, enough now. It is boring.

[B0ycey]

Why do you think anarchists and communists fought and still fight so much?

Objective vs political thought. The need for a government was the only thing that broke them up. The objective was the same. Besides, I don't care what you think. You are wrong. The only difference between the two is the route of achievement, Kropotkin referenced Marx and the book was in regards to human behaviour rather that political narrative anyways.

[Borg Refinery]

USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

You wrote the S in SU stands for socialist. What? Everyone knows SU is shorthand for Soviet Union.



By the way, just out of interest, can you read Cyrillic? I can. Do you know any Russians?

Think what you like Dynamis. It doesn't distract from my original point which was human behaviour and just shows me you don't know what Anrachy is.

Try to understand; individualism vs collectivism.



Please don't make me start quoting anarch lit...

I never said without governance but without government.

That's what I said too, I don't know what you're talking about anymore..

And that basically Archary is merely a fast track to late stage Communism without the need of a state as a mediator. And if you must know Kropotkin was Anarcho-Communist anyways.

No it isn't.



And anarcho-communism is completely different to communism.



Why you keep denying this obvious fact is beyond me. Why do you think anarchists and communists fought and still fight so much?



Why do you think the largely anarchist sailors' rebellion at Kronstadt was brutally put down?



It is not me who doesn't understand these subjects. By the way you seem to accuse everyone else on here of not understanding what you're/they're talking about, when they point out something you got wrong. Something to ponder..

[Borg Refinery]

I think the main weakness of communism is that in every country I have heard of where they proudly claim to be communist, the ruling elite are anything but equal.

Correct, then again the next bit applies equally to Capitalism and its obese oligarchs (and wannabe oligarchs)..

The dream may sound good, but the implementation stinks.

[B0ycey]

USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics



Think what you like Dynamis. It doesn't distract from my original point which was human behaviour and just shows me you don't know what Anrachy is. I never said without governance but without government. And that basically Archary is merely a fast track to late stage Communism without the need of a state as a mediator. And if you must know Kropotkin was Anarcho-Communist anyways.

[johnofgwent]

The weakness of communism is that it requires everyone to accept it and to play by the rules. But there will always be those who are against the system, whatever the system is. There will also always be those who play the system from within to their own advantage.  These things are true with capitalism too, but they have less effect.



A fairer society doesn't mean everyone has to be equal, just more equal than they are now. I don't see more state ownership of key service industries as 'communism', after all the Army isn't a commercial company and nobody's saying state-owned military services are a communist idea!

I think the main weakness of communism is that in every country I have heard of where they proudly claim to be communist, the ruling elite are anything but equal.



The dream may sound good, but the implementation stinks.

[Borg Refinery]

Well it is true Dynamis, although it seems you are interested in subjects you don't fully understand.

You are projecting as the next very simplistic explanatory bit confirms..

Anarchy is merely a stateless system without government.

That's the sort of thing that someone who thinks 'Sweden is communist' would say.

ommunism is communal ownership that forms after a socialist society and would basically run the same way as an arachist society once government dissolves.

Government does not dissolve under Communism. It assumes a less overarching form but it never dissolves.



You are simply mistaken.

Kropotkin wrote after Marx and references his material so you are wrong on that point as well.

You are making up things that I never said -



"Kropotkin does not explain communism, mutual aid is rarely mentioned in commie lit."



Those are my exact words, please quote them instead.

As for the Spanish Revolution, Catalonia brief exercise of anarchism executed many of the communal aspects of society and wasn't some form of free for all people think it is.

Huh?  :shock:



The S stands for soviet, soviet means workers' council, it doesn't stand for socialist.



Borrowed from Russian сове́т (sovét, "council"), from Old Russian borrowed from Old Church Slavonic съвѣтъ (sŭvětŭ, "advice"). Compounded from со- (so-) + вѣтъ (větŭ, "agreement"), from Proto-Slavic *větъ ("council, talk"). Related words include наве́т (navét), изве́т (izvét), отве́т (otvét), приве́т (privét), обе́т (obét), ве́че (véče), отвеча́ть (otvečátʹ), отве́тить (otvétitʹ), завеща́ть (zaveščátʹ), and совещаться (soveščatʹsja). Probably cognate with Polish witać ("to welcome").

[patman post]

The weakness of communism is that it requires everyone to accept it and to play by the rules. But there will always be those who are against the system, whatever the system is. There will also always be those who play the system from within to their own advantage.  These things are true with capitalism too, but they have less effect.



A fairer society doesn't mean everyone has to be equal, just more equal than they are now. I don't see more state ownership of key service industries as 'communism', after all the Army isn't a commercial company and nobody's saying state-owned military services are a communist idea!

Communism requires an elite to agree its aims and enforce the rules on the rest of society.

A fairer society allows and encourages everyone to strive for equal opportunities.

I doubt a truly fair society exists.

Many groups and organisations have elites — there are even elite troops...

[B0ycey]

Sorry, but this is not true Boycey.



I'm not trying to be a pain.



Look, anarchists tend to believe in consensus and direct democracy without the bureaucracy.



 They believe in having it straightaway, and dispense with the whole state-capitalism>socialism>communism thing.



Communism (proper) is about soviets (workers councils) and delegated decisions, and votes and is really nothing like the anarchist ideal.



Kropotkin does not explain communism, mutual aid is rarely mentioned in commie lit. That's an anarchist principle.



Like the commies, the anarchists never really did what they said they'd do either - and if you don't believe me then read Orwell's "a homage to catalonia", events get in the way of things; also read up about the so called Makhnovist anarchist experiment in Ukraine.



The problem with anarchism and communism historically, is that they turn into inequal, monopolistic states that are just another type of oppression just like Capitalism. And the same is true for most (if not all) other systems.

Well it is true Dynamis, although it seems you are interested in subjects you don't fully understand. Anarchy is merely a stateless system without government. Communism is communal ownership that forms after a socialist society and would basically run the same way as an arachist society once government dissolves. Kropotkin wrote after Marx and references his material so you are wrong on that point as well.



As for the Spanish civil war, Catalonia brief exercise of anarchism executed many of the communal aspects of society and wasn't some form of free for all people think it is. And the SU never called themselves Communist (the S stands for Socialist) so any ideas or belief they achieved Communism is confusing what Communism actually is.

[Borg Refinery]

Do you know the difference between Communism and Anarchism? The route of achievement.

Sorry, but this is not true Boycey.



I'm not trying to be a pain.



Look, anarchists tend to believe in consensus and direct democracy without the bureaucracy.



 They believe in having it straightaway, and dispense with the whole state-capitalism>socialism>communism thing.



Communism (proper) is about soviets (workers councils) and delegated decisions, and votes and is really nothing like the anarchist ideal.



Kropotkin does not explain communism, mutual aid is rarely mentioned in commie lit. That's an anarchist principle.



Like the commies, the anarchists never really did what they said they'd do either - and if you don't believe me then read Orwell's "a homage to catalonia", events get in the way of things; also read up about the so called Makhnovist anarchist experiment in Ukraine.



The problem with anarchism and communism historically, is that they turn into inequal, monopolistic states that are just another type of oppression just like Capitalism. And the same is true for most (if not all) other systems.