Anarchy...leds to mob state?

[Guest]

[Guest]

Communism needs to be global to work. In a global communism state you need to keep a large police force to keep the people from killing each other. If you have a large police/military force, then you have oppression. The USSR was not a real communist state, it was just state capitalism.

[NOne]

On a first view it seems attracting to find the cure to the evils of the world through seizing power. No problem, we (rather: they) create the vanguard party and claim the state to our (them-) selves. Then we smash the evil, smash the capitalist rule. That's it, simple. That's how it went in USSR too... And everyone who is against the rule of the Party and it's pre-established, scientific models of class war and revolutionary tactics - let alone it's ideas of future society's economics - may be nailed down as a counter-revolutionary (of course, because the Party has already all the knowledge and stands above the society, at least it must make all the decisions). That's what happened to anarchists in Kronstadt in 1921... You know, anarchists in Kronstadt were for the Workers' control. But Lenin thought that he should be the leader of the revolutionary movement (which he had never started) - because he knew what to do and the workers did not... - so he jailed and killed everyone standing for the Workers' control. Simple.

Dicatotorship of proletariat becomes dictatorship of the dictator. Why? Because the dictator was able to seize the power, to fool the people, to eliminate and threaten his opponents. The conclusion we draw from this is not that of leninists: statuing always a stronger Leader who just happens to stand on our side (thats' what the nazis and bushists do too...) but that you have to protect your autonomy on your own, collectively, joining together. "The liberation of working class can only be done by the working class on itself". You can't let no more politician than a party leader do it for you.

You know what happened in Paris May '68? The revolution could maybe have come, if the authoritarian socialists had not plead for calmness in order to try to take control of the movement. It was the communist party that accepted rises in wages as satisfying for the workers, not wanting anything better, eg. different kind of society... Workers and students were ready for a step further, but the leaders were not, and never will be. They got a good position, they don't want to feel them threatened. Never wondered, why leaders usually indeed are in a good position?

For my own experience, I've been involved in all kinds of anarchist and libertarian socialist activities and movements for years, always free to criticize their theories and practics. The times I have participated in authoritarian activities, have opened my eyes to the worth of individual autonomy - there is no-one that I could morally or empirically (psychologically) put above my own reason: it is always me who makes the decision for my actions (even if I were to decide to obey). And that's the way it should be if I am to be free and responsible agent, if there is to be any idea in making rational plans.

So I am not gonna trust any of you as a leader of the dictatorship, no more than I trust the members of the parliament, and even less would I trust the person you have chosen to be your Leader... Thank you vanguard party, but there's only one organization I wanna join and it's the one controlled by its members.

[Post_industrial]

Yes.

We need to abolish all dictators, and revolutionary vanguard parties.

State Communism turns into State capitalism, where there is equality for the most part, but only becuase everyone is equaly a slave.

Anarchists are socialists, but we are also libertarians.

I dont believe we could compromise our belief in libertarianism and anti-athoritarianism to make an alliance with a Communist group, any more than we could compromise our socialist and anti-property veiws in favor of some other system like libertarian capitalism.

[Guest]

Go smoke crack and OD you morons...we NEED order

[tsihcrana laicos]

thats why we advocate anarchy

[Nick]

Go smoke crack and OD you morons...we NEED order

"Anarchy is order"- Proudhon

You have to love when anonymous users display their ignorance and inability to read the topics they criticize us in.

Oh, wait...

[NOne]

Go smoke crack and OD you morons...we NEED order

Yes, order understood as somehow reliable, satisfying and controllable world where you can pursue your own life-projects - for everyone (not just for the rich & powerful as is the case nowadays). We do not need order understood as some uncontrollable, irrational authority, Orderer (eg g.w. bush). In a word, we need order that springs from bottom to up. Because freely functioning systems (no censorship, no barriers such as lack of material, money) that are under democratic supervision are capable of making most rational decisions.

Considering the society this means that all the institutions should be controlled direct-democratically, not by some contingent Ruler (or Führer, if you like), standing outside our reach. Direct-democratic control of the institution means in principle that the leaders of the institution can be fired at any moment if they don't do their job well enough, and that all the decisions made by the institution must be accepted by all the affected by the decision. This way it becomes possible to guarantee that those institutions really serve the interests of everyone, not just the elite. Of course it may be impossible to realize this completely, but that's just a problem of practics, it does not make the goal in itself less desirable.

[Guest]

Really...you guys have a good IDEA yet you dont act...and yes most people (with newly found freedom) would just go do drugs...sad fact

[tsihcrana laicos]

We do plenty of action.

Drugs are awesome sometimes.

[Guest]

We do plenty of action.

Drugs are awesome sometimes.

Behold the dumbarse! -Aslo sprach Zarartustra!

MAn that proves the other guests point....

And no you do nothing but sit and do your crappy job all day...go and FIGHT!