Zack de la Rocha Network Forum _ .:: Best and Worst... ::. _ Anarchy Debate

: Jingle Sep 16 2003, 03:02 PM

Hey wavenew.gif

I want to have a debate on the myths and the reality of anarchy.

I am not an anarchist, and i do not beleive that an anarchist would be part of any forum like such. I think anarchy is; Fuck politics, fuck morality, fuck authority, and do what you have to, to supremely reach your goal. I don't beleive we could take out the government with non violence. I beleive the idea of anarchy is not just the destruction of government, i beleive that the point would be to destroy the current society as a whole in order to start things over again. Take things apart and let the latter destroy itself. Not saying it is good or bad.

Let's go i want to debate...productively wavenew.gif

-J

: smooth FeEdBak Sep 16 2003, 04:27 PM

Im not an anarchist but I think its better than being exploited by a higher authority.

I would love to see man working side by side with each other, alot of people think to have no government is to have no order so naturally people are gonna think that anarchists want total chaos. This is something that anarchists want to change, it sort-of runs hand and hand with socialism, which i prefer over capitalism.

This is my 2 cents feel free to agree or disagree.

: Jingle Sep 16 2003, 04:35 PM

But the idea of complete equality as a community has never worked. I would love to see it happen, but i beleive it would take hundreds of years of transistion. I think if world wide anarchy occurred that maybe the working side by side could be possible. But the latter effect would kill off many people and leave people to survive and to do so the "community" idea would fit ever so perfectly.

An anarchists supreme goal is to take out the sytem as fast and effectively as possible. What do you think of that!

-J

PS-I want this to get hot man lets get aggressive zmat2.gif wink.gif

: ImperialAerosolKid Sep 16 2003, 05:12 PM

Well, the old west was an anarchy....

: Recor S. Sep 16 2003, 06:02 PM

I think people's minds are corrupted at home....when they grow up, ideas are implanted in them and that's how racists and the such become that way....so to live in equality....how would we stop racism altogether?....it seems impossible....and of course with anarchy and the removal of the current corrupt government among other things would come rebels that would run against it....so i don't see there ever being change....though something has to for us to survive in peace....

: Rage Man Leca Sep 16 2003, 08:19 PM

well lets see i wouldn't call myself a anarchist (im a part of anaarchist group though)

in Montreal there's a little anarcho community, which i stayed at for two weeks. it was a really good experience and time spent.

anarchy isn't all about fuck this, bomb this.....its all about producing for youself. not consuming consuming consuming consuming. people always say "ah it will just be total choas etc" well its not, its all about people comign together helping out etc. anarchist are the smartest people around, and so nice.

when i stayed there everyone helps each other, if i need a tomatoe someone would help me out, then i give them my veggie burger etc. no one is better then you, no one is walkign all over you cause they have more money.

the cool thing about that community is there is no money. NO MONEY. i lived two weeks with no money. didn't have to worry about anything, and if you needed veggie burgers you go steal them. people grew there own vegetables shit like that.

total freedom, it was one of the best experieces of my life!

: Lunke Sep 16 2003, 11:21 PM

Anarchy is, from my point of view, a great idea but it would never work in large scale
It would only work in smaller communities. Anrachy is a utopia, still there are better
alternatives

And another thing which sortof bothers me, have you ever thought about that
alot of kids which call themselfs anarchist mix it up with socialism or vice versa.
I mean socialism is about as far left as you can be while anarchy is an extrem form of liberalism, far right in other words...

: resist Sep 17 2003, 02:02 AM

some will agree with anarchy, some will disagree,
some will want something else,

it will be a long time before humans are able to co-exist
together without conflict,
there will be hundreds or thousands of years of death and destruction
before we finally relise that in order to survive we must
forget about race/religion/sex/ etc, and do what is best for
us and the enviroment.

the only problem is, is that everyone has different views and
they always will.

: zapatista Sep 17 2003, 02:46 AM

http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secAcon.html
Take a look at this site... There is so much to read you might loose your mind... but it's worth it...

My thouhts on Anarchism are this.... the IDEA is very, very good. Who wouldn't want to live in a world without oppression. People working side by side as brother and sisters.. instead of doing everything they can to get ahead. Sounds perfect to me... but I don't think It could ever work in real life.. not on the large scale that is. I mean.. come on.. you see the people out there.. It's nuts.. I don't think 99% of people would be capible of living in a state of Anachy.

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/chomsky/noa.html <--- Nice Chomsky piece. smile.gif

: Radisshu Sep 17 2003, 04:11 AM

QUOTE (Jingle @ Sep 16 2003, 11:02 PM)
Hey wavenew.gif

I want to have a debate on the myths and the reality of anarchy.

  I am not an anarchist, and i do not beleive that an anarchist would be part of any forum like such.   I think anarchy is; Fuck politics, fuck morality, fuck authority, and do what you have to, to supremely reach your goal.  I don't beleive we could take out the government with non violence.  I beleive the idea of anarchy is not just the destruction of government, i beleive that the point would be to destroy the current society as a whole in order to start things over again.  Take things apart and let the latter destroy itself.  Not saying it is good or bad.

Let's go i want to debate...productively  wavenew.gif

-J

i'm, err, sorry you feel that way. i'm an anarchist, but I believe that is a good way for society to be... like, seriously ,if you wanna rob a bank, you rob a bank. that's why banks get robbed. if you kill a man, you kill him, that's why people die, (i mean, if they removed penalties for killing people, does that mean people would go rampage and start killing everyone?) DESPITE our "ordered society". people who really ARE going to do something don't care for the laws, therefore they're useless, since they don't hold back the crimes.

problem is, anarchy cannot be implemented without the people BELIEVING IN IT... which is annoying =P

i think the WORD anarchy comes from a greek (?) word meaning "no ruler" ... er.. anarchos, i think, with ARCHOS being ruler and AN being a prefix.. meaning sorta like "no" or "nothing" ... or sumthin.. Blargh

: Gunman2112 Sep 17 2003, 08:46 AM

I have always thought that given the Sheep like tendencies of the vast majority of the "general population" and the fact that through out history the "weak" have always followed the strong, Anarchy would just end up as Feudalism... with lots and lots of little "fiefdoms" spread out all over. One person will always be able to portray her or himself as stronger and get the terrified masses to follow them. We are pack animals after all, look how so many people follow political leaders

Just my take on anarchy… maybe I am just too pessimistic

--Gunman2112

: nothing Sep 17 2003, 09:09 AM

Anarchy is like Communism. Both sound good on paper, but unfortunately they will never work out in reality. As long as the human race exist there will never be worldwide peace or equality. And besides if Anarchy ruled the world, there would be no decent hospital care and no internet site to debate this in.

: rampage Sep 17 2003, 10:23 AM

Zapatista honey, I wanted to read your links but they're not working... fucking anarchy!
Actually I believe total control is real anarchy. Kind of like trying to hold the orbiting earth in one place ~ anarchy!

: Radisshu Sep 17 2003, 10:51 AM

QUOTE (nothing @ Sep 17 2003, 05:09 PM)
Anarchy is like Communism. Both sound good on paper, but unfortunately they will never work out in reality. As long as the human race exist there will never be worldwide peace or equality. And besides if Anarchy ruled the world, there would be no decent hospital care and no internet site to debate this in.

why? anarchy means "no ruler", not "no society"
it's socialism, but without a state to control you...
that doesn't automaticly remove things such as hospitals, schools, etc...

: Lunke Sep 17 2003, 11:51 AM

QUOTE (Radisshu @ Sep 17 2003, 06:51 PM)
why? anarchy means "no ruler", not "no society"
it's socialism, but without a state to control you...
that doesn't automaticly remove things such as hospitals, schools, etc...

Anarchy is NOT socialism, but without a state. The state is almost everything in
socialism, if remove it you do not get anrchism.
Socialism and anarchy is as diffrent as black and white

: zapatista Sep 17 2003, 12:08 PM

QUOTE (rampage @ Sep 17 2003, 01:23 PM)
Zapatista honey, I wanted to read your links but they're not working... fucking anarchy!

ohmy.gif What in the tootie fruity is going on here!! They worked for me.. freakin Anarcy.. well.. those links are from http://flag.blackened.net/ a very good and informative site.. tongue.gif

: Jingle Sep 17 2003, 01:05 PM

QUOTE (Rage Man Leca @ Sep 17 2003, 04:19 AM)
well lets see i wouldn't call myself a anarchist (im a part of anaarchist group though)

in Montreal there's a little anarcho community, which i stayed at for two weeks.  it was a really good experience and time spent.

anarchy isn't all about fuck this, bomb this.....its all about producing for youself. not consuming consuming consuming consuming.  people always say "ah it will just be total choas etc" well its not, its all about people comign together helping out etc.  anarchist are the smartest people around, and so nice. 

when i stayed there everyone helps each other, if i need a tomatoe someone would help me out, then i give them my veggie burger etc.  no one is better then you, no one is walkign all over you cause they have more money.

the cool thing about that community is there is no money.  NO MONEY.  i lived two weeks with no money. didn't have to worry about anything, and if you needed veggie burgers you go steal them.  people grew there own vegetables shit like that.

total freedom, it was one of the best experieces of my life!

There are different things to be taken into consideration here. Sure anarchist communities are great, but there is a difference. These people are living as a society in a world of complete oppisite view points. However as a society their views are similar. I am not disagreeing with you, but different opinions change things. Like you say total freedom is one of the best experiences in life...sure there is no greed no one to look down upon...fantastic. But what about the survival aspects. I am all for a survival style life, living out in the wilderness without technology and everything. That would be amazing, but then your mindset changes. Like the stealing for example, sure when you have nothing that is ok, but when you are living in a society with the oppertunity of getting a job and making money and where "stealing" is "wrong", how can it be justified? You are living outside the law, is that freedom? Is it wrong? I don't know myself...

QUOTE
i'm, err, sorry you feel that way. i'm an anarchist, but I believe that is a good way for society to be... like, seriously ,if you wanna rob a bank, you rob a bank. that's why banks get robbed. if you kill a man, you kill him, that's why people die, (i mean, if they removed penalties for killing people, does that mean people would go rampage and start killing everyone?) DESPITE our "ordered society". people who really ARE going to do something don't care for the laws, therefore they're useless, since they don't hold back the crimes.

problem is, anarchy cannot be implemented without the people BELIEVING IN IT... which is annoying =P

i think the WORD anarchy comes from a greek (?) word meaning "no ruler" ... er.. anarchos, i think, with ARCHOS being ruler and AN being a prefix.. meaning sorta like "no" or "nothing" ... or sumthin.. Blargh


I don't understand what you are trying to prove. And don't pity me. I feel what i feel. I beleive anarchy is what i beleive it is. No matter how violent it may seem through my eyes and how horrible it may seem, I think it is necessary in a corrupt situation.

We are a society in decline. Look back at past cultures and civilizations. We are going down baby. 5000 bucks to shoot naked strippers with paint ball guns? Wow, we are going places now! sad.gif I think we need a violent fuckin revolution where the leaders are hanging from light posts. I think we need the general population to be killed in a blood bath war. People are violence addicts. What can we do to stop that. Hang billboards, yell over a loudspeeker? Or burn buildings, fuck shit up and destroy our current culture as a whole. Is this idea corrupt? Is this idea evil? Or is it watching movies with peoples necks getting sliced, watching pornographic films, shooting paintballs at strippers, watching hours of television, going to work everyday, and coming home for the same thing...I don't want that...can an anarchist society do that? A sub-culture of pacifists and brilliants, maybe that's anarchy, I don't know. Maybe something similar, Ted Kazinski...

-J

: Jingle Sep 17 2003, 02:55 PM

that was sort of harsh by me... ermm.gif

-J

: Jingle Sep 17 2003, 03:11 PM

QUOTE (Lunke @ Sep 17 2003, 07:21 AM)
I mean socialism is about as far left as you can be while anarchy is an extrem form of liberalism, far right in other words...

You got it mixed up. Anarchy with socialism are left. Anarchy being further left than socialism. Right would be with the facist dictators and reactionaries. wink.gif smile.gif

-J

: TinaRATM Sep 18 2003, 07:12 AM

I believe in anarchy conseption and ideology speccialy ideas from Bakunin
But it's beautiful in the theory but hard in the pratice, it's hard a whole country or state be anarchist, I follow my rules, what I think it's right I do. Don't consider myself an anarchist. It;s hard to find REAL anachist now a day. ppl who don't follow rulz and stuff...

: Radisshu Sep 18 2003, 09:50 AM

Lunke wrote:
" Anarchy is NOT socialism, but without a state. The state is almost everything in
socialism, if remove it you do not get anrchism.
Socialism and anarchy is as diffrent as black and white "


the answer is NO, anarchism IS a type of socialism, and that is where most people misunderstand.
socialism is a BIG tree of political ideologies,
e.g social-democracy, communism (which can be split to stalinism and lenism, etc..) (which you point to here), and ANARCHISM.

socialism does NOT have to have a state, it simply is anti-capitalism (to put it simple). in fact, other words for anarchism are "liberatian socialism" or "free socialism". anarchy is a socialism WITHOUT a hierarchy, and without a capitalist run society, without society classes such as the working class, middle class, upper class... anarchism as socialism was, in fact, unknown to me until i read at that page, but to label all socialism as communism would almost be to say that all kind of metal is iron. while, of course, all type of iron is metal, as in all communists are socialists, but all socialists are not communists.

: Radisshu Sep 18 2003, 09:55 AM

QUOTE (Jingle @ Sep 17 2003, 10:55 PM)
that was sort of harsh by me... ermm.gif

-J

i've had worse things said to me.. er.. anyway, for a better idea of anarchy, read this: http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secA1.html#seca11
the link was posted by zapatista (i think..er..) on an earlier page.. from the anarchistic website Blackened Flag (since one of the symbols of anarchy is a black flag)... it even gave me a better idea of anarchism, even though i already was one.. errr.. huh.gif

: Radisshu Sep 18 2003, 09:56 AM

QUOTE (zapatista @ Sep 17 2003, 08:08 PM)
QUOTE (rampage @ Sep 17 2003, 01:23 PM)
Zapatista honey, I wanted to read your links but they're not working... fucking anarchy!

ohmy.gif What in the tootie fruity is going on here!! They worked for me.. freakin Anarcy.. well.. those links are from http://flag.blackened.net/ a very good and informative site.. tongue.gif

worked for me. thanks a lot, btw, i've read the whole a1 part, but i'll read the other ones soon enough.

: Rage Man Leca Sep 19 2003, 07:38 PM

all this can be sumed up in one sentance.

ararchy is democracy without a goverment! easy as that!

: Radisshu Sep 20 2003, 12:44 AM

QUOTE (Rage Man Leca @ Sep 20 2003, 03:38 AM)
all this can be sumed up in one sentance.

ararchy is democracy without a goverment! easy as that!

yeah, that's indeed true! power to the people!

" bara en massa idioter som säger
demokrati är palamentarism,
när den enda sanna demokraten är anarkist! "
promoe / looptroop

basicly saying that the only true democrat is an anarchist

: razna Sep 26 2003, 02:01 PM

i had the chance to meet some so called anarchists. i was interested, and they spoke to me as i was one of them... that's true, that group is very helping and friendly created and that brings me in mind the image of a big familly, but i was wondering.... there's no future for them, how do they fight against something that big? an opponing something.... i understood them, and i became to believe they were right in some points.... but it's so hard to believe that, even a satisfatory percent of anarchists could get down a big shit.

: resist Sep 26 2003, 02:21 PM

honestly ask yourselfs this

will humans ever be able to ALL live in harmony and peace?





: Rage Man Leca Sep 26 2003, 07:22 PM

QUOTE
will humans ever be able to ALL live in harmony and peace?


who knows, nows not looking so good?

as long as the U.S are being dipshits, Never mad.gif

: Jingle Sep 26 2003, 07:30 PM

That's why we fuck shit up cool.gif

-J

: Rage Man Leca Sep 26 2003, 07:34 PM

and your happy about that dunno.gif

: Jingle Sep 26 2003, 07:37 PM

are you? You've become what the u.s. government may possible call a "vegeterrorist".(alas...my creativiety...kddin tongue.gif ) but seriously.

I don't want to hurt people, i just wanna destroy, "destruction is a form of creation" Shit sucks i am tired of living in a society mad.gif

-J

: resist Sep 26 2003, 08:39 PM

right its set, comon jingle lets gather what weapons we have and take to the streets, destroy everything..........................and then get arrested laughing.gif ]







w00t.gif

: Jingle Sep 27 2003, 08:08 AM

Fuck yeah! wink.gif

Cept I don't think i would get arrested. If i did...whatever you know?

The shit is gonna go down pretty soon anyway. smile2.gif

-J

: Rage Man Leca Sep 27 2003, 06:43 PM

QUOTE (Jingle @ Sep 27 2003, 03:37 AM)
are you? You've become what the u.s. government may possible call a "vegeterrorist".(alas...my creativiety...kddin tongue.gif ) but seriously.

I don't want to hurt people, i just wanna destroy, "destruction is a form of creation" Shit sucks i am tired of living in a society mad.gif

-J

you want anarchy, but you don't want to hurt any people!

well good luck! dunno.gif

: Jingle Sep 28 2003, 11:06 AM

I said i don't want to . Timothy McVeigh didn't want to kill anybody either. He felt he had to. Not that i am comparing myself to Tim, but wants are not what are important. Needs are. wavenew.gif

-J

: rage baby Oct 2 2003, 10:09 AM

Anarachy looks good on paper but it would never work in our society. i think that there will always be 1 person or a group of ppl that will have the power or want to have the power to control things. in short ppl r just too fucked up for anarchy to work.

: tomorrowsashes Oct 2 2003, 06:20 PM

I don't follow the logic of anarchism being far right, or opposite of socialism. Facism, not anarchism, is as far right as you can go. Many anarchists believe anarchism to be the purest form of socialism. Anarcho-syndicalists/libertarian communists/social anarchists/communist anarchists are the majority of anarchists, and they are all basically the same thing. The anarcho-syndicalist flag is black and red. Black for anarchism, and red for socialism. It is entirely un-socialistic to give one person more authority/power than another person, or have them rule another. I agree that anarchy wouldn't work on a large degree, but it's not supposed to. That doesn't mean that you are completely shut out from the world outside of your community, but that you only make decisions along with people you closely associate yourself with, whether they are your neighbors or across the world.

Check out the following sites for info on anarchism:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
www.anarchyarchives.org
www.akpress.org
www.infoshop.org

The link to the Berkman essay "What is Communist Anarchism" found on the RATM reading list is actually what turned me on to anarchism.

: Liberty0x Oct 2 2003, 06:43 PM

See I like the concept of Anarchy alot, Ive always been a saporter of it. BUT as rage baby said, it is a good idea on paper but it would never work. Ive got a few good places for Anarchy info. i just have too find my old bookmarks and ill post them (some of them are really really big sites)

: smooth FeEdBak Oct 3 2003, 04:33 PM

Well i dont think any riots or war against the government will be affective unless you can get more diverse, the usual anarchist is a young white teen. I would suggest getting more black into it b/c the mentality most blacks are nothing but bling bling, girls and cars, and that pisses me off. I would work on building a following then prepare a strike. But ill post more about this later.

: rage baby Oct 3 2003, 05:53 PM

QUOTE (soulbrother @ Oct 3 2003, 07:33 PM)
the mentality most blacks are nothing but bling bling, girls and cars, and that pisses me off.

huh.gif

nonono.gif


thats the PERCEIVED mentality that most blacks have. its thoughts like that, that continue to prevent us from continuing to move forward. uncle sam just wants u to think that.

: smooth FeEdBak Oct 3 2003, 06:42 PM

No I talk to my friends all the time and they have the anger for a riot but they have the slave mentality of it would do no good. Mainstream rappers who stuff down are throats the crap these so called riches doesnt help either. And we havent moved forward that much, what are you refering too when you say that?

: codyscarff Oct 3 2003, 08:11 PM

Anarchy would be a great way to live but....... before you change the economic (from cap to anarchy) structure you would have to change the hearts of the people. People would have to take their eyes of material possesions and not focus on living for themselfs but livng as a communtiy that works together to provide food and basic living needs. As soon as the people stop living from themselfs and become orientated towards everyone helping everyone, it is then we can start forming plans to win the revolution. ANARCHY WOULD BE GREAT IF PEOPLE WERENT SO GREEDY

: tomorrowsashes Oct 4 2003, 10:01 AM

Everybody says that anarchy wouldn't work because people are just mean at heart. I believe that many people are that way now because of the oppression of government. The truth is, nobody on these forums has ever experienced life outside of the constraints of government. "Primitive" tribes of Native Americans and Africans often had systems that closely resembled anarchism, and they were generally happy. I think it at least deserves a chance.

: Radisshu Oct 6 2003, 12:49 PM

QUOTE (resist @ Sep 26 2003, 10:21 PM)
honestly ask yourselfs this

will humans ever be able to ALL live in harmony and peace?

maybe, maybe not, but i'll continue fighting for what I believe in.. because i think it's right.. er.. how do i know it's right?.. erm.. oh well..

: Radisshu Oct 6 2003, 12:50 PM

besides, revolution is pointless if the majority of the people don't believe in it.

: slamdizunk Oct 6 2003, 05:25 PM

I just wanna know wheres the communism at? In communism isnt the government eventually suppose to fade away? The communisms that everyone always thinks of are not true communisms, because in true communisms the gov't. is eventually suppose to just fade away, and that has never happened before.

THINK ABOUT IT

: Jingle Oct 7 2003, 04:34 PM

QUOTE (slamdizunk @ Oct 7 2003, 01:25 AM)
THINK ABOUT IT

rolleyes.gif

-J

: slamdizunk Oct 7 2003, 05:15 PM

thanks J

: Guerrilla Oct 7 2003, 07:23 PM

QUOTE
all this can be sumed up in one sentance.

ararchy is democracy without a goverment! easy as that!


How can a democracy be sustained, if there is no government?

Comrades, you are living in a dream world, if you believe anarchy can ever work. Anarchy is freedom, for the strong, to rule the weak. We most have some kind of centralized government, for any society to truly function. This is the 21st century, and we are talking about billions of people coexisting, with no preset rules.

Anarchy, has and will always be, a direct doorway to a Dictatorship, or Oligarchy. The only way for us all to truly be equal, and free. Is to work together, to establish a Socialist Democracy. In which we break down the class system, tighten the wage gap between CEO, and entry-level positions. Where free enterprise is allowed, but strickly regulated, so that no exploitation of another human bieng, can ever take place again. A society where each individuals voice is heard, and we no longer elect a legion of corupted officials to choose our nations policies for us, but one where the people decide the laws, policies, and overall nation spending.

I could go on, but I'll keep it relatively short. Point is utopia can be achieved, but not by living under the delusion, that society must devolve into some primitive state to truly be free. I have much more faith in human nature then most americans, and feel that most people perceived as evil, truly are just products of there surroundings, and of this nation education system, but to think that humanity is so pure that we could all co-exist without any overall structure, is insanity.

: Radisshu Oct 8 2003, 06:41 AM

QUOTE (Guerrilla @ Oct 8 2003, 03:23 AM)
QUOTE
all this can be sumed up in one sentance.

ararchy is democracy without a goverment! easy as that!



Anarchy is freedom, for the strong, to rule the weak.

again, i quote:

"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.”

COMMUNISM is supposed to be the government handling everything, giving it out equally...
BUT POWER CORRUPTS, the ones with power will want more for themselves and care less and less about equality.
TOTAL freedom, one without any society at all (the common misconception of Anarchy) is as the text says "privilege and injustice", those with more money and those with more power can without anything to stop them take advantage of those weaker or poorer.

ANARCHISM IS A BALANCE, everyone are free to do as they wish, there is no power to corrupt, and is still a non-capitalist system without any classes of society. anarchism is true democracy. there CAN be laws, oh yes there can, but those laws will NOT be controlled by any state, but EVERYONE. the PEOPLE has the power.

Anarchy is anti-hierarchy, anarchism is Freedom AND Justice

: Radisshu Oct 8 2003, 06:44 AM

QUOTE (slamdizunk @ Oct 7 2003, 01:25 AM)
I just wanna know wheres the communism at? In communism isnt the government eventually suppose to fade away? The communisms that everyone always thinks of are not true communisms, because in true communisms the gov't. is eventually suppose to just fade away, and that has never happened before.

THINK ABOUT IT

it hasn't happened and will never happen. power corrupts the mind of any person, therefore communism is "direct doorway to dictatorship" to quote Guerrila, even though he was speaking of anarchism/liberal-socialism.

: slamdizunk Oct 8 2003, 05:29 PM

when the idea of communism was originally started the idea was not for a dictatorship to always have control, it was just suppose to be a dictatorship for long enough for the opressed to gain control, therefore its eventually suppose to turn into a democracy and hopefully the government will just eventually fade away.

: Guerrilla Oct 8 2003, 06:33 PM

QUOTE
ANARCHISM IS A BALANCE, everyone are free to do as they wish, there is no power to corrupt


power is not the only element that inspires coruption. In your anarcist society, who is to say that an armed milita cant take control? How would the society be sutained? What would happen if someone decided to go on a murdering spree? Who would run the electric companies, and television studios? Who would build the servers, program the servers, maintain the servers, so that we have acess to the net? What about running water? Should all begin hunting for our food again, like cave men? Oh no I see, you think everyone will just volunteer there services for no wages, and noway for them to truely progess.

The fact that you feel anarchy is freedom, is insulting. You can be a vegan, and go live in the woods like a fuckin monkey if you want to, but to assume thats what everyone wants, or should want is, assinine.

And no comrade, I am not a communist, I said socialist democracy, not a communist republic. In a socialist democracy, the people shall control the government.

: Guerrilla Oct 8 2003, 06:35 PM


You know what happened in Africa when Anarchism was instated? It lead directly to a dictatorship. Eventualy someones gonna get greedy, and find the means to control people. Its happened time, and time again. Choosing Anarchy is the reason for alot of suffering in Africa. Why these militant dictators were able to take office in the first place.

: Radisshu Oct 8 2003, 09:56 PM

QUOTE (slamdizunk @ Oct 9 2003, 01:29 AM)
when the idea of communism was originally started the idea was not for a dictatorship to always have control, it was just suppose to be a dictatorship for long enough for the opressed to gain control, therefore its eventually suppose to turn into a democracy and hopefully the government will just eventually fade away.

yeah, i know, but as i said: the government always becomes corrupted in its own power and won't let go of it

: Radisshu Oct 8 2003, 10:07 PM

QUOTE (Guerrilla @ Oct 9 2003, 02:33 AM)
QUOTE
ANARCHISM IS A BALANCE, everyone are free to do as they wish, there is no power to corrupt


power is not the only element that inspires coruption. In your anarcist society, who is to say that an armed milita cant take control? How would the society be sutained? What would happen if someone decided to go on a murdering spree? Who would run the electric companies, and television studios? Who would build the servers, program the servers, maintain the servers, so that we have acess to the net? What about running water? Should all begin hunting for our food again, like cave men? Oh no I see, you think everyone will just volunteer there services for no wages, and noway for them to truely progess.

The fact that you feel anarchy is freedom, is insulting. You can be a vegan, and go live in the woods like a fuckin monkey if you want to, but to assume thats what everyone wants, or should want is, assinine.

And no comrade, I am not a communist, I said socialist democracy, not a communist republic. In a socialist democracy, the people shall control the government.

really, power doesn't corrupt? look at cuba, soviet, china.

"what would happen if somebody goes on a murdering spree"
i don't think this'd happen more often in an anarchy than in a nowadays so-called democracy. if somebody is mad enough to randomly kill, he will do it, against the laws or not.

i think what holds most people back are not that they're afraid of what'll happen to them in jail, i think it's their morals. many bankrobbers rob banks to support a poor family (even though some are just crazy morons)

i think this society will work. i think people hold their morals higher than laws.
we could have a system similar to the one we have today... just with equal payments for everyone (or no money at all, if there'd be trading. then we could all work for food instead.)


***The fact that you feel anarchy is freedom, is insulting. You can be a vegan, and go live in the woods like a fuckin monkey if you want to, but to assume thats what everyone wants, or should want is, assinine.***

then what the fuck IS freedom?! working for the perfect state, that is corrupt with its own power and in love with itself, without another choice?! with censorship that isolates you from the rest of the world and puts you in a false sense of safety while you're really being raped spiritually and economically by the system!? living in a world where you are just a fucking cogwheel in a big machinery that ONLY WORKS TO EMPOWER AND FATTEN THE BELLIES OF THE LEADERS?!

or what, is freedom to live in a system where you are nothing without money, where you only can become something through backstabbing or working for those who already own shit? where you always have to watch your back, or be betrayed for the cold grip on people's hearts which is money?!

THESE TWO ARE NOT FREEDOM, they are mental bondage and brutal slavery, they are injustice and hypocricy in its highest form!


*In a socialist democracy, the people shall control the government.*

... here i go insulting communism and you're not even one.

well, listen to me: the swedish government ARE social democrats/socialist democrats. i don't live in a perfect society. the leaders fool themselves into the government with false promises and then forgets that its the PEOPLE who CHOSE THEM to begin with, like every other "democracy"

: Guerrilla Oct 9 2003, 12:32 AM

QUOTE
really, power doesn't corrupt? look at cuba, soviet, china.


No-o, I said, power is not the ONLY, element that inspires corruption. Meaning that people can be corrupted through a number of ways. Greed, vanity, etc.

QUOTE
i don't think this'd happen more often in an anarchy than in a nowadays so-called democracy. if somebody is mad enough to randomly kill, he will do it, against the laws or not.


That was not my point at all. I was asking what actions would be taken against them, to catch them, to prosecute them. How would we go about dealing with people who were bent on destroying society in an anarchist state? Someone breaks a law and we stone them? Cause obviously with anarchy theres no judicial system. So how would we decide the guilty? No trials, no prisions. I dunno man, you explain that to me. Or is everyone gonna be perfect.

QUOTE
i think this society will work. i think people hold their morals higher than laws.
we could have a system similar to the one we have today... just with equal payments for everyone (or no money at all, if there'd be trading. then we could all work for food instead.)


First off, "just with equal payments for everyone", is a communism. And paying everyone the same wages does not work, ask a russian born under the CCCP. As for the rest of what you said, "...morals higher than laws...", is a very nieve statment. Why work for food, and material wealth, when you can just steal it. You may not think that way, but there are ALWAYS going to be people, in any society, who do.

QUOTE
...working for the perfect state, that is corrupt with its own power and in love with itself, without another choice?! with censorship that isolates you from the rest of the world and puts you in a false sense of safety while you're really being raped spiritually and economically by the system!? living in a world where you are just a fucking cogwheel in a big machinery that ONLY WORKS TO EMPOWER AND FATTEN THE BELLIES OF THE LEADERS?!

or what, is freedom to live in a system where you are nothing without money, where you only can become something through backstabbing or working for those who already own shit? where you always have to watch your back, or be betrayed for the cold grip on people's hearts which is money?!


I dunno whos post you got that shit from, but I niether is a social democracy, or anything I described.

QUOTE
well, listen to me: the swedish government ARE social democrats/socialist democrats. i don't live in a perfect society. the leaders fool themselves into the government with false promises and then forgets that its the PEOPLE who CHOSE THEM to begin with, like every other "democracy"


Yea, I bet your really opressed over there in sweden. And I never said anything about a "perfect" society, there is no such thing. I proposed a sociailst democracy that has yet to exist, so using an example like sweden, really proves nothing, if anything it helps my case, because sweden, from what I've heard of people who have visted, and former citizens, is that it's a pretty nice place to live. Research some socities taht ahve tried anarchy, and tell me how they're doin.

So lets end this debate. If you wish to be an anarchist, start now! Throw your computer out the window, call ur ISP, and cancel you service! Don't give those corperate fat cats anymore money!

Whats funny, is I didn't think you get so much more left-wign then me, didnt think it was posible.

Honestly though, don't truely care to argue this further. Your belief structure will not change from this debate. If you wish to be an anarchist, so be it. I will still regard you as a comrade, for the simple fact that we both want true freedom and justice for humanity, and we both see that, it will never come from the right, or capatalism.

: Guerrilla Oct 9 2003, 12:37 AM

QUOTE (slamdizunk @ Oct 9 2003, 01:29 AM)
when the idea of communism was originally started the idea was not for a dictatorship to always have control, it was just suppose to be a dictatorship for long enough for the opressed to gain control, therefore its eventually suppose to turn into a democracy and hopefully the government will just eventually fade away.

Say what? Governement was never suposed to fade, and you must be more specific. Some communist states, were supsoed to be proletarian democracies, while others were ment to be communist republics. The two are pretty different, but only one has truely been seen, and thats a communist republic, as seen post Stalin, in Soviet Russia. Good government has always been the pinicle of a communist state in any of its forms. No true blooded bolsheivic, or communist in general, would ever want an anarchist state.

: Radisshu Oct 9 2003, 11:52 AM

"That was not my point at all. I was asking what actions would be taken against them, to catch them, to prosecute them. How would we go about dealing with people who were bent on destroying society in an anarchist state? Someone breaks a law and we stone them? Cause obviously with anarchy theres no judicial system. So how would we decide the guilty? No trials, no prisions. I dunno man, you explain that to me. Or is everyone gonna be perfect."

you're really makin' this hard for me eh? =p


anarchy doesn't necessarily mean "no system" just "no hierarchy". there can be a list of laws... actually, the vikings (even though things were more rough those days...) had laws they followed, without anyone forcing them to. even PIRATES had laws they ALWAYS followed, that nobody forced them upon. the only people who does everything to manipulate or just ignore the laws without getting theirs are politicians. not that this has anything to do with anything.

trials? there may be trials.
prison? there may be prison.
he kills, he goes in prison. who puts him there? we do.
some people are pro'lly gonna want him hanged (or killed in any other way), but then it's just up to some people to catch him before the.. er.. hangers do.

"I dunno whos post you got that shit from, but I niether is a social democracy, or anything I described."

errr, yeah i know.. i was describing "socialism without freedom" (Communism) and so called anarcho-capitalism (which isn't anarcho-, since anarchy has to be non-capitalist). i thought you were talking about communism when you spoke of a socialist society, heh.

"Yea, I bet your really opressed over there in sweden. And I never said anything about a "perfect" society, there is no such thing. I proposed a sociailst democracy that has yet to exist, so using an example like sweden, really proves nothing, if anything it helps my case, because sweden, from what I've heard of people who have visted, and former citizens, is that it's a pretty nice place to live."

true, we'ren ot very opressed up here. =P
not at all, actually.... but still, politicians won't give a shit about we think, and so on and so forth, just as in the US and any other democracy. of course this is better than a dictatorship. even though we get our asses beaten by the police on basicly every damn demonstration for some leftist cause...


there are actually smaller societies with anarchy that has worked it out.

maybe anarchy works in smaller areas only, but i am just saying that it's a system i would like to live in.

"So lets end this debate. If you wish to be an anarchist, start now! Throw your computer out the window, call ur ISP, and cancel you service! Don't give those corperate fat cats anymore money!"

"it's impossible to live as an anarchist in a capitalist society" said some smart guy making it easier for me once =P
well, basicly, i live at my parents house, 'cause i'm 16 (what, what does that little brat know about the world , bla bla etc..)
i think it's okay to support a company, if that company delivers a good product to a good price with an ethical method (e.g won't exploit poor workers or basicly slaves, etc...). i don't wear any famous brands anymore, and i cut the brands off all my clothes i bought when i basicly thought anarchy was good, but didn't preach as much as i practiced.

"but there are ALWAYS going to be people, in any society, who do. (steal)"
well, of course there'll always be some people.. but not everyone. actually, i believe most people don't... not because they risk to be punished ( i mean, shit, do you know how easy it is to take a small supply and leave a super market without anyone noticing? ... well, i did it once when i was younger ;-_-) but because they think it's wrong.. but maybe you're right, i may be naive.. but i believe in this, and i am prepared to fight for it.


"Honestly though, don't truely care to argue this further. Your belief structure will not change from this debate. If you wish to be an anarchist, so be it. I will still regard you as a comrade, for the simple fact that we both want true freedom and justice for humanity, and we both see that, it will never come from the right, or capatalism."

word man! or comrade. at least we have the same enemy

: slamdizunk Oct 9 2003, 12:01 PM

say what there guerilla buddy? if you would go back and read my first post like i said, there has never been a true communist state. in a true communist state the government was eventually suppose to fade away. and if you dont believe me do some research on karl marx, the writer of the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, and you will see that the government is suppose to fade away and the people can go on living there lives. and i will say it again for the people who ride the short buses,THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TRUE COMMUNIST STATE, so think about it again, stupids

: Radisshu Oct 9 2003, 12:04 PM

QUOTE (slamdizunk @ Oct 9 2003, 08:01 PM)
say what there guerilla buddy? if you would go back and read my first post like i said, there has never been a true communist state. in a true communist state the government was eventually suppose to fade away. and if you dont believe me do some research on karl marx, the writer of the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, and you will see that the government is suppose to fade away and the people can go on living there lives. and i will say it again for the people who ride the short buses,THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TRUE COMMUNIST STATE, so think about it again, stupids

sure you don't mean the dictatorship is supposed to fade away, but not the government?

: Guerrilla Oct 10 2003, 01:57 AM

First off, watch who the fuck you callin stupid...

Please define a "TRUE COMMUNIST STATE". There have been many interpitation of Marx's ,and Engel's vision. Mao for instance believed a "...A TRUE COMMUNIST STATE", was a communist republic. Which China has acheived. Regardless how you feel about it. I'm not exactly positive, but I'm pretty sure Lenin had the same belief structure.

However, if you feel that a "...TRUE COMMUNIST STATE" is a Prolietarian democracy, then yes you would be correct in saying, it has never existed. It's all a matter of interpatation.

One thing that is fact though, is no communist leader has ever intended for there to be NO GOVERNMENT. Thats just fucking ridiculous.

Also please show me in the communist manifesto where Marx spoke of this, I'm thumbing through it now seeing if I posibly missed it, can't seem to find it.

Check out this site http://www.communism.com/ . Might be able to help you out in your misconceptions on communism.

: Radisshu Oct 10 2003, 11:39 AM

QUOTE (Guerrilla @ Oct 10 2003, 09:57 AM)
First off, watch who the fuck you callin stupid...

Please define a "TRUE COMMUNIST STATE". There have been many interpitation of Marx's ,and Engel's vision. Mao for instance believed a "...A TRUE COMMUNIST STATE", was a communist republic. Which China has acheived. Regardless how you feel about it. I'm not exactly positive, but I'm pretty sure Lenin had the same belief structure.

However, if you feel that a "...TRUE COMMUNIST STATE" is a Prolietarian democracy, then yes you would be correct in saying, it has never existed. It's all a matter of interpatation.

One thing that is fact though, is no communist leader has ever intended for there to be NO GOVERNMENT. Thats just fucking ridiculous.

Also please show me in the communist manifesto where Marx spoke of this, I'm thumbing through it now seeing if I posibly missed it, can't seem to find it.

Check out this site http://www.communism.com/ . Might be able to help you out in your misconceptions on communism.

i agree... never heard of this, even though i never read The Manifest i'm pretty sure it would just be a dissolvement of the dictatorship.

: tomorrowsashes Oct 10 2003, 03:17 PM

QUOTE (Guerrilla @ Oct 9 2003, 02:35 AM)
You know what happened in Africa when Anarchism was instated? It lead directly to a dictatorship. Eventualy someones gonna get greedy, and find the means to control people. Its happened time, and time again. Choosing Anarchy is the reason for alot of suffering in Africa. Why these militant dictators were able to take office in the first place.

There is a difference between anarchy and chaos. Also, anarchism must be achieved worldwide in order for it to work. The militias and/or armies that have seized control when there was no other government were either directly, or indirectly sponsored by capitalism. It seems to be very hard for people to think out of the normal mindset, and accept that a system that people have developed for thousand of years is just wrong.

: regilas Oct 10 2003, 05:09 PM

Anarchy or true democracy as opposed to this so-called democracy is better than what we live in today. What i think we need to do is live kind of like the Indians did, peaceful living, and not invading anybody as far as real rights go. Anarchy all the way, I say, unless we get a real democracy going with none of this war crap. I say yes, but it's impossible unless someone starts it. I'm not saying i love civilization or I'm afraid, but it isn't me who'll start the revolution, even if i try. It requires everyone, but i know who has to start it.

: Jingle Oct 10 2003, 05:51 PM

QUOTE (regilas @ Oct 11 2003, 01:09 AM)
Anarchy or true democracy as opposed to this so-called democracy is better than what we live in today. What i think we need to do is live kind of like the Indians did, peaceful living, and not invading anybody as far as real rights go. Anarchy all the way, I say, unless we get a real democracy going with none of this war crap. I say yes, but it's impossible unless someone starts it. I'm not saying i love civilization or I'm afraid, but it isn't me who'll start the revolution, even if i try. It requires everyone, but i know who has to start it.

Indian tribes attacked other tribes and had rivalries huh.gif

-J

: Radisshu Oct 11 2003, 03:52 AM

QUOTE (Jingle @ Oct 11 2003, 01:51 AM)
QUOTE (regilas @ Oct 11 2003, 01:09 AM)
Anarchy or true democracy as opposed to this so-called democracy is better than what we live in today. What i think we need to do is live kind of like the Indians did, peaceful living, and not invading anybody as far as real rights go. Anarchy all the way, I say, unless we get a real democracy going with none of this war crap. I say yes, but it's impossible unless someone starts it. I'm not saying i love civilization or I'm afraid, but it isn't me who'll start the revolution, even if i try. It requires everyone, but i know who has to start it.

Indian tribes attacked other tribes and had rivalries huh.gif

-J

yeah, but their meanings of "war" were different from now. their weapons was used for hunting, and the meaning of fighting was more to make the enemy seem less honorable (say with hitting his head lightly with a pole)

: tomorrowsashes Oct 11 2003, 09:31 AM

I say fuck living like x people did. Why must we be bound by history. Every other form of government, or non-government has either collapsed, or is what we are opposing now. We need to learn to think outside of the conventional spectrum, and find our own way.

: Guerrilla Oct 11 2003, 10:27 AM

QUOTE (tomorrowsashes @ Oct 10 2003, 11:17 PM)
QUOTE (Guerrilla @ Oct 9 2003, 02:35 AM)
You know what happened in Africa when Anarchism was instated? It lead directly to a dictatorship. Eventualy someones gonna get greedy, and find the means to control people. Its happened time, and time again. Choosing Anarchy is the reason for alot of suffering in Africa. Why these militant dictators were able to take office in the first place.

There is a difference between anarchy and chaos. Also, anarchism must be achieved worldwide in order for it to work. The militias and/or armies that have seized control when there was no other government were either directly, or indirectly sponsored by capitalism. It seems to be very hard for people to think out of the normal mindset, and accept that a system that people have developed for thousand of years is just wrong.

Acuatlly your incorect. Every colonised african nation, that has decolonised, did so with out the backing of Capatalist, and most european countries. Their new governement structure, or lack there of, was based on socialist ideals...in most cases.

QUOTE
There is a difference between anarchy and chaos


The two are virtualy the same. No government, equals no order. Maybe that was not the case 100s of years ago, but this is the fucking 21st centruy, and like I said, we arent talking about small groups of people living in rural areas, we are talking about densely poplated cities,nations, and regions all over the globe. Billions of people co-existing with no economic, judicial, or even educational structure. While this question is not directed at anyone in this forum, I can't help but think, "ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?".

: Radisshu Oct 12 2003, 07:00 AM

QUOTE (Guerrilla @ Oct 11 2003, 06:27 PM)
"ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?"

yeah, that's the way to respect other people's opinions alright
this isn't directed towards anyone in the forum, but: "SHUT THE FUCK UP AND SHOW SOME DAMN RESPECT IF YOU WANT IT YOURSELF"

: Jingle Oct 12 2003, 08:08 AM

QUOTE (Radisshu @ Oct 11 2003, 11:52 AM)
QUOTE (Jingle @ Oct 11 2003, 01:51 AM)
QUOTE (regilas @ Oct 11 2003, 01:09 AM)
Anarchy or true democracy as opposed to this so-called democracy is better than what we live in today. What i think we need to do is live kind of like the Indians did, peaceful living, and not invading anybody as far as real rights go. Anarchy all the way, I say, unless we get a real democracy going with none of this war crap. I say yes, but it's impossible unless someone starts it. I'm not saying i love civilization or I'm afraid, but it isn't me who'll start the revolution, even if i try. It requires everyone, but i know who has to start it.

Indian tribes attacked other tribes and had rivalries huh.gif

-J

yeah, but their meanings of "war" were different from now. their weapons was used for hunting, and the meaning of fighting was more to make the enemy seem less honorable (say with hitting his head lightly with a pole)

I am afraid I still don't know what you mean. They just didn't boink there enemies with a club.... huh.gif

That would be cool if you could be a little more specific smile.gif

-J

: Radisshu Oct 12 2003, 12:38 PM

i first saw it in the movie little big man, and found it odd, that indians at war didn't kill or hurt, just humiliate eachother in combat... meaning:

i attack the enemy-guy with my pole-like weapon. we fight, i hit him, i win.

i don't think all tribes did this, but some did (i also read it in some old book after i saw the movie, curious as i was)






the butchering and killing wars came AFTER the american settlers came.
so did the scalping, they got that from the becoming-americans as well.

: zapatista Oct 12 2003, 01:28 PM

This is not directed towards anyone in the forum, but: "CHILL OUT!!!" mad.gif

: tomorrowsashes Oct 12 2003, 03:56 PM

QUOTE (Guerrilla @ Oct 11 2003, 06:27 PM)
QUOTE (tomorrowsashes @ Oct 10 2003, 11:17 PM)
QUOTE (Guerrilla @ Oct 9 2003, 02:35 AM)
You know what happened in Africa when Anarchism was instated? It lead directly to a dictatorship. Eventualy someones gonna get greedy, and find the means to control people. Its happened time, and time again. Choosing Anarchy is the reason for alot of suffering in Africa. Why these militant dictators were able to take office in the first place.

There is a difference between anarchy and chaos. Also, anarchism must be achieved worldwide in order for it to work. The militias and/or armies that have seized control when there was no other government were either directly, or indirectly sponsored by capitalism. It seems to be very hard for people to think out of the normal mindset, and accept that a system that people have developed for thousand of years is just wrong.

Acuatlly your incorect. Every colonised african nation, that has decolonised, did so with out the backing of Capatalist, and most european countries. Their new governement structure, or lack there of, was based on socialist ideals...in most cases.

QUOTE
There is a difference between anarchy and chaos


The two are virtualy the same. No government, equals no order. Maybe that was not the case 100s of years ago, but this is the fucking 21st centruy, and like I said, we arent talking about small groups of people living in rural areas, we are talking about densely poplated cities,nations, and regions all over the globe. Billions of people co-existing with no economic, judicial, or even educational structure. While this question is not directed at anyone in this forum, I can't help but think, "ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?".

You can't tell me that you don't think that capitalism had any effect on Africa. Capitalism is what created the scarcity, which created the shortage, which created the crime and chaos. If scarcity is eliminated, then its products are also eliminated.

As to your second point, could you back up your point. During the Spanish Revolution, did the people loot all the buildings before burning them down, or did everybody work together until the fascists, and fascist-like communists destroyed the workers' state because they were afraid of it? I'm pretty sure it was the second one. Why don't you read up on anarchist theory before you start suggesting people are retarded. By the way, I'm not. I have an IQ of 172, if you really care.

: Radisshu Oct 12 2003, 09:23 PM

QUOTE (zapatista @ Oct 12 2003, 09:28 PM)
This is not directed towards anyone in the forum, but: "CHILL OUT!!!" mad.gif

he started it =P

: zapatista Oct 12 2003, 09:28 PM

QUOTE (Radisshu @ Oct 13 2003, 12:23 AM)
QUOTE (zapatista @ Oct 12 2003, 09:28 PM)
This is not directed towards anyone in the forum, but: "CHILL OUT!!!" mad.gif

he started it =P

laughing.gif it's ok guys.. this is just such an interesting debate.. a shame to ruin it with all the trash talk... only interested in reading intelligent, articulate points of view.. not personal attacks. smile.gif

: Radisshu Oct 12 2003, 09:35 PM

well, saying "i don't direct this to anyone in specific but ARE YOU RETARDED" is pretty much a personal attack, and even though mine was as well it wasn't unprovoked

: zapatista Oct 12 2003, 09:36 PM

oh, believe me I know... I know who started this whole thing. wink.gif

: Radisshu Oct 13 2003, 02:04 AM

errrr... who? ah, whatever. let's get back into yelling at ea-... debating.

: Guerrilla Oct 13 2003, 08:44 AM

First off, like I said, I wasn't calling anyone in this forum retarded, but I am completely baffled as to how a group of people can be so unbelievably nieve.

But shit, if you believe Anarchy can actually work in the 21st century, then you are fuckin retarded, end of discusion. Between people telling me that we should live like native americans, and people saying that Marx was an Anarchist, I can't help but think that Anarchist are among the less educated of the left-wing.

QUOTE
You can't tell me that you don't think that capitalism had any effect on Africa. Capitalism is what created the scarcity, which created the shortage, which created the crime and chaos. If scarcity is eliminated, then its products are also eliminated.


Actually, I never said, nor implied that. I said you were incorrect on your statement that "The militias and/or armies that have seized control when there was no other government were either directly, or indirectly sponsored by capitalism". I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Yes capitalism has played a strong role in the suffering of many African nations, but no capitalism had nothing to do with the uprising of Guerrilla factions in Africa. There might be a case or two, but for the most part, I think your confusing Africa, with South and Central America.

QUOTE
During the Spanish Revolution, did the people loot all the buildings before burning them down, or did everybody work together until the fascists, and fascist-like communists destroyed the workers' state because they were afraid of it?


First of all, wtf are you talking about? The Spanish Civil war, was just that, a war. Not an example of a sucessful anarchrist state. The fact that you even bring this up as an example, is just more proof of your ignorance. Anarchist were not the only ones partaking in the revolution. There were also Communist, Marxist, socialst, and even some US, and european Liberals, helping to over throw the facist Spanish government. And While I am not sure of all the specifics of this battle, and the government there after, I'm pretty sure it was not an Anarchist state that existed, after the succeful revolt. So this point you make, is quite irrelevant, and in noway proves that anarchy could work on an international level, let alone a national one.

QUOTE
Why don't you read up on anarchist theory before you start suggesting people are retarded.


From what I have learned, and studied, it's a very unrealistic ideology, which is my whole problem with it in the first place. I will however will be doing more research on the topic, if for no other reason, then to help sway ignorant youths from such a futile belief structure.

QUOTE
...By the way, I'm not. I have an IQ of 172, if you really care.


Trust me, I really don't.


: worldchaos Oct 13 2003, 08:52 AM

I am not an anarchist, because I do not put myself under any political category.
That being said... I run a forum... to talk about government and anything really (music, sex, poems) and I have 4 admins there. We have rules, but the rules are just common sense. We have never had a problem withing the year that we have been together. And even though it's not super popular, I continue to give all my members complete freedom. They can say anything they want and I have never seen one flame. I dont understand how in an essance, I give then anarchy and they do not abuse it.??

I have also been told that some people are afraid of my forum... which doesn't make sense. I give you freedom with no rules, and you don't want it?

The basis of that above, was to show you guys that anarchy couldn't work in OUR society. People are too power hungry and lazy. Anarchy can only exist for the select few that know how to treat people right and enjoy life living without restrictions.

I do not know the solution to getting everyone to be kind and moralistic, but I can tell you, it starts with parents.

: Radisshu Oct 13 2003, 10:33 AM

well, i think how a person is raised doesn't vary that much.
say, if a kid is very submissive naturually, he'll do exactly like his parents say, but then also do as his friends say behind his parents back.. i usually go against both tho =P

: dsmtuner Oct 13 2003, 04:42 PM

^^ Same. ^^

: worldchaos Oct 13 2003, 09:15 PM

QUOTE (Radisshu @ Oct 13 2003, 06:33 PM)
well, i think how a person is raised doesn't vary that much.
say, if a kid is very submissive naturually, he'll do exactly like his parents say, but then also do as his friends say behind his parents back.. i usually go against both tho =P

to each his own... and for the people that have problems growing up and acting kind and how they should.. then they aren't suited for anarchy. but for people that respect other peoples shit and have unlimited kindness and politeness... those are the people that can mentally handle anarchy. the ones that wont abuse it.

: Radisshu Oct 13 2003, 10:21 PM

hm.. maybe you're right... i still believe in it tho. it's something i could live in!

: tomorrowsashes Oct 15 2003, 06:49 PM

Some people just feel threatened when they somebody disagrees with them. I think that every time somebody disagrees with you, it is just a chance for you to perfect your debating skills and that it is also an opportunity to learn. That being said, I still like it a hell of a lot more when somebody agrees with me.

: Radisshu Oct 16 2003, 12:43 PM

QUOTE (Guerrilla @ Oct 13 2003, 04:44 PM)
, and people saying that Marx was an Anarchist, I can't help but think that Anarchist are among the less educated of the left-wing.

hey, a black guy hit me. let's kill all black people!

see the resemblance?

: tomorrowsashes Oct 16 2003, 01:39 PM

People need to check out www.anarchyarchives.org if they think that anarchists are stupid. They have full texts of a lot of shit. I'd suggest first reading the Berkman (under bright but lesser lights) essay "What is Communist Anarchism" as it is very well written, and a good introduction.

: Jingle Oct 16 2003, 05:59 PM

QUOTE (Radisshu @ Oct 14 2003, 06:21 AM)
hm.. maybe you're right... i still believe in it tho. it's something i could live in!

You could live in an anarchist state? huh.gif

ok cool.gif We will never know untill it occurs. To give up the clothes, the vanity, the music, the cars, the restaurants, the internet, most people couldn't bear that...

-J

: John5r Oct 20 2003, 05:57 AM

QUOTE (Jingle @ Oct 17 2003, 01:59 AM)


ok cool.gif We will never know untill it occurs. To give up the clothes, the vanity, the music, the cars, the restaurants, the internet, most people couldn't bear that...

-J

Nothing to add
wavenew.gif

: tomorrowsashes Oct 21 2003, 07:56 PM

QUOTE (John5r @ Oct 20 2003, 01:57 PM)
QUOTE (Jingle @ Oct 17 2003, 01:59 AM)


ok  cool.gif We will never know untill it occurs.  To give up the clothes, the vanity, the music, the cars, the restaurants, the internet, most people couldn't bear that...

-J

Nothing to add
wavenew.gif


"Based on the 1997 US economic census, the necessary labor time for manufacturing is 4,480,725.72 (*1000 hours). Dividing this figure by the number of workers engaged in manufacture gives us the total hours of necessary labor per worker: 371 hours per year, or 7.15 hours per week. Compared to the actual average labor time of 38.55 hours per week, this represents a decrease in labor-time of over 81%."

from http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/09/18/3822996
If this holds true, then that 81% goes into luxuries or towards human progress. I think all but the upper class would be able to keep most of their material luxuries, and gain so much more by the elimination of our consumerist culture.

: Radisshu Nov 5 2003, 12:59 PM

a major part of the world's wealth is put on the upper class... and i'm talking waaay above 50%. if you split the shit up equally... well, i think the working class would have it pretty much the same, the poor people would have it better, and the rich have it "worse"

: regilas Nov 5 2003, 06:15 PM

The fact is, there should be no class distinction. I think all money has brought nothing that's good, except our possessions, which are made off the back of other people, and then sent to China when thrown away so that they suffer because of waste that Americans throw away.
Yes, the United States is redeemable, but only if it changes a hell of a lot. This idea that rich people, moderate people, and poor people are divided is BS! Really, if there was no money in the first place, then we wouldn't have to depend on it; and if there was no government in the first place, we wouldn't have to depend on it.
The best way is to probably get people to start realizing that this country is and isn't the best.
The reason I say it's the best: it's high up, and I believe the reason most come to America is to get rich, fat, or both, and usually one is achieved.
Don't get me wrong, the country isn't the best: Propaganda, genocide, and basically a hell of a lot that doesn't concern the USA.
I think that if this government weren't so big, it wouldn't be such a problem, but since it is, then problems happen left & right, and it isn't cared for.
$87 billion to rebuild Iraq? C'mon, why did Bush bomb them, killed and wounded the hell out of them, destroyed their work they spent a hell of a long time on, and then wants to rebuild it.
Something's lacking if that's common sense.



I post this only for hope that somebody agrees.

: RedJason Nov 7 2003, 06:39 AM

Anarchy is not posible in the state the humen race is in now. We would have to evolve socially. Trying to gain power over other people is humen nature, even being controled by something or someone is also more comfortable for the majority of the worlds people . The idea of anarchy is a good one, but as of now we are not ready for it.

: regilas Nov 9 2003, 10:18 AM

QUOTE
quoted by Red Jason: Anarchy is not posible in the state the humen race is in now. We would have to evolve socially. Trying to gain power over other people is humen nature, even being controled by something or someone is also more comfortable for the majority of the worlds people . The idea of anarchy is a good one, but as of now we are not ready for it.


QUOTE
quoted by Radisshu: revolution is impossible if the majority isn't for it. first we need to make them realize


good enough response. it's so easy to respond when someone says something that easy.

But as for gaining power over someone else, that ain't human nature. that's an addiction, like smoking or drinking. avoid addiction, and it'll evolve that you won't want to gain power over someone else.

it ain't comfortable, cause when you look over your shoulder, they're there waiting to order you.
do me a favor, go to President Bush and ask him if there's anything you can do to help him in Iraq or anywhere, for that matter.

: Radisshu Nov 10 2003, 08:12 AM

QUOTE (regilas @ Nov 9 2003, 06:18 PM)
QUOTE
quoted by Red Jason: Anarchy is not posible in the state the humen race is in now. We would have to evolve socially. Trying to gain power over other people is humen nature, even being controled by something or someone is also more comfortable for the majority of the worlds people . The idea of anarchy is a good one, but as of now we are not ready for it.


QUOTE
quoted by Radisshu: revolution is impossible if the majority isn't for it. first we need to make them realize


good enough response. it's so easy to respond when someone says something that easy.

But as for gaining power over someone else, that ain't human nature. that's an addiction, like smoking or drinking. avoid addiction, and it'll evolve that you won't want to gain power over someone else.

it ain't comfortable, cause when you look over your shoulder, they're there waiting to order you.
do me a favor, go to President Bush and ask him if there's anything you can do to help him in Iraq or anywhere, for that matter.

note: that isn't really my comment on the subject.. well, it is too, but it's also my signature.

: regilas Nov 10 2003, 04:53 PM

it's a good signature, though.
those signatures with quotes by other people, for instance: the quotes weren't meant for people on the internet to use as signatures.

: Radisshu Nov 10 2003, 11:24 PM

i think it's cool as long as you write their name below the quote. or above. i wrote mine myself, so..

: regilas Nov 11 2003, 08:37 AM

Q = what happened to this debate?
Everybody seems to have left it.

: Guerrilla Nov 11 2003, 11:28 AM

whats to debate, Socialism is freedom, anarchy is rubbish.

: Radisshu Nov 11 2003, 12:18 PM

guerilla argument:
" (insert something guerilla likes) is (insert word complementing this), (insert thing guerilla dislikes) is rubbish."

then start to call people retards.


(not entirely serious, but sort of)

: regilas Nov 11 2003, 03:26 PM

How is Anarchy rubbish and Socialism freedom?

Socialism is being told to have everyone get an equal share.
Anarchy is being able to do anything you want.

Understand, though, that I'm not saying we should be able to kill if we want.

You see, I have a book suggestion that should've been added to the book list at www.ratm.com and it's called K-PAX. The sequel is On A Beam Of Light, both written by Gene Brewer.

Now K-PAX, as many of you know, is a world of Anarchy, and when things need to be done, they do them because it'll never get done if nobody does it, and there's no such thing as money.

There is a perfect world of Anarchy. Read the book for more information.
Anarchy ain't a bad idea if it were tried in full effect.

: Jingle Nov 11 2003, 06:20 PM

So...How will we acheive this do ya think? smile2.gif

What do you mean "if it were tried in full effect"? cool.gif

-J

: regilas Nov 11 2003, 07:49 PM

QUOTE (Jingle @ Nov 12 2003, 02:20 AM)
So...How will we acheive this do ya think? smile2.gif

What do you mean "if it were tried in full effect"? cool.gif

-J

Achieve it by putting it to full effect.
What's full effect?

Look at my past comments:
Basically, let everyone try it and resist the temptation to try and take over, or else they'll be overrun. If the Anarchy community were used throughout the whole world, then there would be no world, but as that isn't possible at the moment, and Anarchist communities are already in action, the best way is to start expanding it.

To complete an Anarchist country:
Expand from the communities to cities; from cities to counties; from counties to states; from states to country; from countries to North America; and proceed the exact process with every other continent.

Small progress is the solution.

: regilas Nov 13 2003, 02:27 PM

responses, people?

: evilempire Nov 13 2003, 04:11 PM

QUOTE (Jingle @ Sep 17 2003, 12:35 AM)


PS-I want this to get hot man lets get aggressive zmat2.gif wink.gif

ur jus gonna get eveyone mad

: regilas Nov 13 2003, 06:28 PM

that's old, evilempire

: regilas Nov 14 2003, 10:28 AM

this debate sure died down

: tomorrowsashes Nov 15 2003, 02:30 PM

My theory is that in order to achieve a true anarchist state, there is a series that needs to be followed. First, the workers must organize into small syndicalist groups, and form self-sufficient communities. Once this is done, there must be massive strikes and direct action campaigns against corporations, encouraging more support for these sydicalist groups. Once a sufficient level of support and solidarity has been achieved, these groups can organize more action, such as refusing to pay taxes, or do anything to forward the cause of government and capitalism. The working class will then, in effect, be completely separated from the state, and system it upholds, and the former middle class, not willing to become the new lower class, will stand up, and the state will eventually collapse. There will obviously be great hurdles along the way, and willingness to use violence will probably be neccessary. I think that a great place to start would be a poor community, such as Washington D.C., and this would have the added benefit of being in a position to launch offensive campaigns against government HQ easily.

It also might be possible to use a large Black Bloc tactic in order to secure areas, and liberate more territory more quickly, but this has the possible effect of turning public opinion completely against the anarchists, even more than usual, and would need to be done very carefully.

: defiance Nov 18 2003, 09:33 PM

I don't know wether anarchy would work completely, but looking back through history I notice that the stronger governments are, the stronger they want to become. The example of Native Americans is excellent, because of their variety of cultures. For instance, the Lakotas (Souix) were very anarchistic. If a chief told you to do something, you didn't have to listen, you listened because you wanted to, not because you had to. Only in times of war or, during a tribal hunt did they have strict discepline (and that consisted mainly of holding back people who threatened the safety of the village.)If that person kept causing problems, they would use humiliation to punish them, they might break their bows or run off their horses, maby even hit or whip them back with a bow or club (these jobs were done by special warriors called Akicita.)Cheifs rose through popularity and in fact many of their most famous and important leaders were not even officialy chiefs. They excercised little authority and then only over thier village. The only people who had continued authority were the four shirt wearers of each of the seven Lakota tribes, who were chosen from the people for their wisdom, yet even these were more symbolic then real.

On the other hand the Iroquois were much more powerful politically, and were much more agressive toward other tribes (prisoners were sometimes tortured, if they were not adopted.) As a result almost every tribe around them fought against them. Although most of the tribes in their area were more politically advanced and were much more violent.

Anyway I can't spend forever typing, but if anyone wants to continue this discussion or wants to know more, please reply (especialy Geurilla.)

-Defiance

: selma Nov 20 2003, 08:26 PM

testing

: selma Nov 20 2003, 08:37 PM

Hi everyone, I did that test thing because I just wrote this long post and it wouldn't post and just was lost. I haven't made up my mind about all this yet but one thing I don't think you have addressed here is what is actually sustainable. It isn't just a matter of what people want; it's a question of what the planet can handle. We already know that there's no way everyone could live at the level of Americans or even western Europeans. The earth simply wouldn't be able to sustain it. So we may HAVE to go to something more primitive than this.

Guerilla, you say a lot of people wouldn't want that and society couldn't function without strong government but we are all swimming in our culture so that we can't see beyond it to know what other ways of living might be better. We only know what we have experienced so we think people need to be controlled. Yet there have been people who did fine for very long periods of time without that kind of control and were amazingly peaceful, like the Arawaks, who were on the island of Hispaniola when Columbus landed there. Our society dismisses them and stereotypes them as some kind of primitive animals but they were actually more advanced and noble than those "advanced" Europeans who exterminated them.

: selma Nov 20 2003, 08:41 PM

One other thing...Radishu, wow, you live in Sweden. I've always thought that would be a great place to live. What's it like there? Why do you say the politicians are like the U.S.? I think the level of corruption here is MUCH worse than there and Sweden seems like such an enlightened country. Can you give some specific examples about the politicians?

: tomorrowsashes Nov 20 2003, 08:51 PM

I believe that the way to protect the planet and the environment is to move forward in technology, not backwards. I believe that it would be futile to try to make everybody give up their cool gadgets, as well as hypocritical in an anarchist society. As stated in an earlier post, with today's technology, very little work needs to be done in order to produce all the goods necessary for the population to survive. This means that there will most likely be a large increase in the amount of scientific progress, including cleaner burning fuels, and alternative energy sources. I also believe that once capitalism is eliminated, consumerism will be too, thus the pollution caused by it is gone. I'm probably oversimplifying things, but anarchists tend to be one of the most environmentally concious groups.

: defiance Nov 22 2003, 04:59 PM

Sorry if I went on to long, but my point was that you can have laws, but you don't need a complex political system to keep things in order. In fact the more power someone has the more problems you will have with them. This has been historically proven by the fact that the happiest societies have always been the least controlled ones.

Now Tomorrowsashes, you say we should go forward, that it would make more sense. I dissagree, it's a good idea but it would never work with anarchy because the more technolagy you have, the more things you have to protect and the more control you need in order to protect them. I believe in a gradual change from our current advanced system, to a simple easy way of life. This means that we wouldn'd instantly throw away all our computers and cars etc. but we would start using public transportation like buses and trains and start walking or riding bikes or even horses. We would also learn to take less and to stretch what we have. We could grow food locally instead of depending on other countries, this way all countries would have enough resources to comfortably live. Eventualy there would be no countries, no money, no corparations and no government. This can not last however, if there is going to be a high technolagy. Mass production no matter how minamal, requires strong management, and that would mean powerful buisiness leaders with more power than than they should have. And who would do the work? Somethings are easier, like growing food and trading between people or communities. But what about large scale industrial work, such as mining and factory refining. Those need management which needs regulation, that means centralized Government which we don't want. Please respond soon.

: tomorrowsashes Nov 22 2003, 05:38 PM

I think that most of the wasteful inventions only exist, and prosper, because of capitalism. Society tells you that you have to have a car, because if you don't, you won't get to work as early, and make less money, therefore you won't achieve the American dream. I can see where you're coming from, and I, for the most part agree, but I think that there is no way that you can stop science from moving forward. Moving forward with technology doesn't necessarily mean figuring out more ways to fuck up the planet. The first technology was developed to do things more efficiently. That's what I would hope for.

: defiance Nov 22 2003, 06:51 PM

Thank you for responding so soon. Of course some advances would be made. But most of those would happen after anarchy is established, unless they are made during the transition. I can see your point but then, which inventions aren't wasteful. Though it may be hypocritical for me to say this, even computers are pretty wastful(that doesn't mean we should throw them all away right now, that would be even more of a waste.) Like I said who's going to make everything. Unless there is some form of government, most mass production is almost impossible. What do you think.

: tomorrowsashes Nov 23 2003, 02:42 PM

I would disagree with saying that computers are wasteful. Now, people don't have to get in their cars and drive to the library to do research; they can do it on the internet. We don't have to use paper sending letters, and it saves time that can be spent on more useful things. Technology today is, for the most part, much cleaner than that of, say the sixties. It is more prevelant, but if nobody's car had a catalytic converter on it nowadays, the planet would probably not be suitable for any form of advanced life. There are rumors, which actually have evidence backing them, that a man figured out how to make a fuel additive allowing his car to get 100mpg. According to what I've heard, the oil companies quickly bought his patent, and destroyed the idea. I also heard a first hand account of a person who's car was strangely getting insane gas mileage, and when he took it in for the oil change, and told them about it, they said they would fix it, and after he got the car back, it no longer got the great gas mileage. Even if these stories aren't true, it is conceivable, and perhaps even likely that things like this are happening all the time. The developement of cleaner burning fuels would be bad for capitalism. A country's GDP counts pollution three times: once to make it, once to clean it up, and once to cure the diseases it causes.

: defiance Nov 24 2003, 05:42 PM

That may be true, but then again do we really need any of that. Technology is getting cleaner but it's not clean enough. Computers speed some things up, but do you want to work in a computer plant? Do you realize how many people are dying of cancer from working there, or from living near wast sites where computer garbage is dumped? What about the electricity that powers it? Most of our power sources are very harmful to the environment and to people. Do you want to work in a copper mine to supply electric wiring, do you want to get cancer from air and water pollution? What about transportation? Well do you want to work in a steel mill or a car plant? Do you want to work in an oil or petrolium field? How much money would you do it for if you could take an easier job?

No one looks at the labour behind these things, and thats exactly what these governments and corporations want. People take a look and think that it's always been here and it always will be. They forget that once a long time ago there was something else, there was a world where people lived from the earth, where in order to survive you had to get along with one another and with the earth. But when things got easier they forgot, they thought they had to conquer it, conquer each other. It's no wonder they forget because it's been so long that it seems like it's always been that, but it hasn't. The only way to change it is to start over, to begin again.

: tomorrowsashes Nov 24 2003, 06:14 PM

Well, the technology is out there to almost completely convert to solar and wind power. Things like making computers can be made in a clean way, but it just costs more, and takes longer, but, with the elimination of the waste caused by the accumulation of capital, labor will be very prevalant. People, of course, wouldn't be forced to do it, but some people have to enjoy it. I agree that there are some technologies that should just be eliminated, though.

: defiance Nov 24 2003, 08:07 PM

The technology is out there for a lot of things, wind power, solar power, even electric (hybrid) cars, but do they solve the problem? Like I said, do you want to do the work required to make these things? For that kind of power to supply a whole city would take enormous amounts of steel or copper. That means a lot of people would have to work in mines and factories. Maybe a few wouldn't mind but most would. Once again you would need a government to keep things going, so you wouldn't have anarchy. During the change those might be good, but they also might slow it down

What I'm saying is you don't need these things to live comfortably, we're just so addicted to them that we make ourselves think that and it becomes true. I understand it and I understand what you're saying. I sometimes think that myself, but it's not true, you can't have those with anarchy and without a more anarchistic society freedom will never be assured.

: tomorrowsashes Nov 25 2003, 02:35 PM

If somebody is willing, or knows somebody willing to help work in a steel mill, or something like that, they should be able to use the technologies. I agree that a lot of technology use isn't necessary, but there is really no moving backward, or stopping people from moving forward. I believe that through science most of the pollution caused by technology can be eliminated, as well as the negative impacts on people. People get cancer and other disease when working in factories and mines because of the low standards set upon their employers. I too see your point, but don't think that the Earth's population could be kept from suffering without technology, and that it would be hard to completely give it up.

: defiance Nov 27 2003, 08:35 AM

Very few are willing to work in factories for our technology. But you're probably right that it would be very hard to go back. Not only because of peoples resistance to it, but also because it would be almost impossible to remove all of the factories, mines, cities and other products of western technology without causing more damage. Also air and water pollution are so bad in some areas that it would take decades or centuries before they are clean again. I wonder if we can really solve these problems at all right now. Maybe we should focus instead on individual issues. Of course there's nothing wrong with talking about it. Anyway all I'm saying is that I don't think that the world can take much more technology growth without a serious change in its people.

By the way do you think this debate has died down. No one else is responding.

: tomorrowsashes Nov 27 2003, 09:12 AM

Yeah, the debate dies down periodically. I pretty much agree with you that technology growth as a trend has tended to harm the environment, but I have at least some hope that we can curve it in somewhat of a better direction. Regardless of the political system, though, something needs to change really quickly, or else the planet will be made uninhabitable for many, many years.

: defiance Nov 30 2003, 02:01 PM

I guess we both agree that technology is at least misused, though not on what to do about it. We need to come up with a much simpler way of living or this planet is doomed. Well it looks like our discussion is about to die, can you think of anything else relating to anarchy.

: Jingle Nov 30 2003, 03:21 PM

QUOTE
...can you think of anything else relating to anarchy.


Let's fuck shit up! cool.gif

Thanks for the wonderful thread!!!!! wink.gif wink.gif grin.gif grin.gif wink.gif wink.gif

-J

: regilas Dec 2 2003, 10:43 AM

Anarchy:

No Law = No Order
No Order = No Electricity
No Electricity = Energy Savings
Energy Savings = Happy World


I could go on forever.

: tomorrowsashes Dec 6 2003, 08:14 PM

"Anarchy is order"

-Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

It's kinda hard to argue about, but is more of a realization of the way interactions work in the order.

What do people think of the debate between Kropotkin and Darwin, that being Kropotkin (anarchist) arguing that evolution was the result of cooperation within and between species, and Darwin arguing that evolution came from competition? I would tend to agree with Kropotkin, which would lead to the conclusion that humans have evolved have the largest capacity for cooperation of any species, and that an anarchist society would work.

: defiance Dec 7 2003, 09:02 AM

Well I've never understood how Darwin could've come up with the idea that nature is a battle for survival. He must not have studied it very closely, or he would've found that nature is in fact a very complex system of co-existence. Darwins way of thinking is what results in chaos, which is what we have right now, a world where people are trying to conquer nature and eachother instead of live with them. And now that they have almost succeded the planet is becoming a great wast. It is that way of thinking that makes people so afraid of anarchy, because they beleive that without rule people become savages who only care about themselves. And it is that way of thinking that almost makes them right.

Actually I don't really believe in evolution, it just doesn't make sense. How could a whole complex system of life just evolve out of nothing. It seams impossible, there has to be some begining or there wouldn't be anything at all. Maybe we sould make this a topic, what do you think?

: tomorrowsashes Dec 9 2003, 08:34 PM

Well, whether or not you understand it, evolution did happen, and we have plenty of proof for it. I get kinda lost when I think about how life began, and what having a soul really is. It makes me see why so many people turn to religion. It's the easiest thing to accept, as it requires no more thinking. This does not mean, however, that it follows Occam's Razor, because when you apply it to other things, it completely doesn't make sense, unless you take into account millions of impossible events. When you get this deep into science it does become kinda spiritual. I believe that one day scientists will prove that the universe doesn't really exist, and at that point in time, it will cease to, but that is just some crazy theory of mine. I'll quit rambling now.

: defiance Dec 10 2003, 07:14 AM

It's funny how you say that there's so much proof of it, when as a matter of fact there is very little solid evidence. Keep talking though, it's intersting. In fact let's start another debate on evolution.

: defiance Dec 12 2003, 04:42 PM

Back to anarchy, now that we've settled our our opinions on technology, how do you think we could get anarchy. You already said what you thought and I thought it sounded very good except for one thing. I disagree with what you said about using violence. I believe that violence would be a setback, because it would inspire stronger resistence to the movement and would convince people that anarchy is exactly what they think it is, chaos. And thats probably what it would be, if it even succeded in defeating the government, which seems impossible to me. I think it's important to note that some of our greatest acheivments came from non-violence, especialy cival rights, which would've never happened with violence.

: tomorrowsashes Dec 12 2003, 06:40 PM

I don't think that the civil rights movement would have gotten anywhere without the threat of violence. The government likes to encourage the idea that Martin Luther King was the only effective leader, but in truth, he wouldn't have gotten far if Malcom X and black organizations hadn't scared the government. I don't think that any violence should be targeted at ordinary citizens, but only at the politicians who actively oppose, and deter freedom. I think that violence should only be used in self-defense, but that includes attacks on your spirit, and rights. Violence should only be used if the alternative has a worse outcome. I can honestly see a 1984esque world in the future.

To simplify my opinion, when you isolate the killing of somebody from other issues, it is obvious than it is morally wrong. What if that killing stops another from dying, though? What if killing that one person stops them from killing two more, five more, 100 more, or thousands more? The morality becomes a little bit fuzzy, but I think at some point, it is morally justifiable to use violence.

: defiance Dec 15 2003, 07:26 AM

The threat of violence is not what scares the U.S. government, they have no reason to be scared of that. In 1919 their was a general strike in Seattle. It was totally peaceful and it was very succesful for the short time while it lasted. Unfortunatly some powerful unions, that claimed to support workers rights, turned against them and in barely five days they called it off. The result was that basically all of the labor leaders in that area were arrested. But during the strike there had been no major problems, if things got out of hand, then the "police" force of the strikers would peacefuly urge them to calm down. In fact one police or army officer said that the city was quieter then, than he had ever seen it. The mayor had fled from the city and was assembling an army to suppress the strike, but he never needed to use it. After it was over someone wrote a poem. I don't remember all of the words, but it talked about how peaceful it had been. It said that what the authorities were worried about was not the threat of violence, but rather when nothing happened, because if they weren't doing anything wrong, then they had no excuse to attack. If they couldn't use force then what could they do. All they knew how to do was fight. They're used to fighting enemies, but when the strikers aren't doing anything, then there is nothing the police can do either, if they want to be justified. During the civil rights movement, it was not the threat of violence that they were scared of, it was the threat of non-violence. That's why they brutally attacked innoccent people, because they wanted them to fight back, they wanted a reason to arrest or kill them. But when the protesters stayed peaceful, white people began to realize that they were in the right. Mass dissention appeared within the racists ranks. Soon the government itself began to split between those who were for civil rights and those who were against it. Finally the government had no choice but to give them what they wanted. The same thing is true with the anti-war protests and the independence movement in India. In all of these cases the threat of violence only brought retaliation and slowed down the success of of the main movement.

: noone_wellknown Dec 15 2003, 12:50 PM

The positives that could be gained from anarchism would, no doubt be great, the freedom from consumerism, democracy- truly ruling ourselves, as well as the many other positives...however, correct me if im wrong, but the theory of anarchism is the ability to live without rules. Now as we can see in the world today to live in total anarchism seems absurd. The world is full of evil, although anarchism may be feasible in small communities, to live it worldwide seems simply impossible...controls and parameters must be used...Many humans ARE immoral, ARE Selfish and quite simply will look out for themselves. the chance on anarchism working on a global scale with both the power of the current system and the inherant floors present in humans seems to be zero!

: defiance Dec 15 2003, 01:45 PM

Actually anarchy doesn't mean no rules, it means no ruler. The idea is that no one can tell you what to do, only you have that right. But it's more complex than that. Alot of this debate has been about how that can be achieved without causing more damage. What you've said has been told to anarchists many times, but it's not true. Yes the world is full of evil, yes people are selfish, yes they can be immoral. But is that really all you see in people? I can understand why, if you do believe that. It seems like the world is full of problems and they keep on coming but very little is ever solved. However, people continue to try to find a better way to live and that is what anarchy is, life without fear, life without someone who you have probably never met in you're life telling you what to do. Their are many reasons why I believe in anarchy and i can't say them all right now, but tell me some reasons why you don't think it can work and i'll try to respond.

: tomorrowsashes Dec 15 2003, 02:21 PM

I don't exactly believe in the concepts of good and evil, there is simply the truth, and the lie. You either stay true to your morals, or you don't. There is no universal good, or evil, but it is true to say that someones killing most often causes suffering. In that sense, the idea that violence is bad or evil is innacurate. If it is true that an act of violence causes more suffering than otherwise would have happened, most people would determine that to be against their morals. If an act of violence prevents more suffering than it causes, it would be considered, at least by me, to be moral. The point is that everybody has different morals, and problems are caused when an authorities morals differ from your own. Of course, some might argue that there are some people who simply have no morals, or morals which are incompatible with the wishes of the vast majority of the people, and in that case, it may be necessary for the people to come together, and impose the authority of the majority in a moral way upon this person. This may be as simple as asking the person to move to a different place. I honestly don't believe that there are plain bad people, but that they are simply misinformed, and can be rehabilitated. Mental disabilities are a different issue, but I believe that the people can come up with ways to do it in ways that are generally considered moral.

: noone_wellknown Dec 15 2003, 02:34 PM

Capitalism has been grown and developed over thousands of years, from trade and heckling in its primitive times to the creation of huge complex markets of today. As much as i would love to believe there is potential to change to an effective society of equality as well as high living standards etc it seems, looking at the world today that the hole that has been dug is far to deep to climb out of. The capitalist, corporate leaders, head companies which are larger in size then many first world economies. The masses of people have been grinded into an apathetic stupour, ignorant and careless of the world and the huge amount of suffering obvious to anyone with a basic idea of the world. This has resulted in the majority of the western population believing this system works and is a fair one, they will sit on there arses and are unwilling to provoke any change.....people are in a comfort zone...this surely means that a cause against this tyrannical and brutal system is worthless...as long as the masses are quiet no major change can be assumed. I cant see there being a likely change anytime soon....it seems impossibl!! negative i no! tell me im rong im v pessimistic!

: tomorrowsashes Dec 15 2003, 06:36 PM

Personally, I'm privileged enough to have the choice between benefiting from an unjust system and fighting it. I have chosen the latter because with what I have learned, I could not live with myself if I chose the former. I really hope that change is possible, but regardless, it is necessary for the good of a society for there to always be resistance towards authority and questioning of popular beliefs. I would rather give my life fighting against the system, even if the chances were remote, than to submit to it. Of course, the more people adopt this attitude, the higher the probability of change. Even if we cannot change the system, we must keep people from becoming comfortable with it.

: defiance Dec 15 2003, 09:01 PM

Noone_wellknown, please say something original. You already said the same thing on you're capitalism thread. I have already told you,
if you have any specific problems with anarchism, tell me and i'll give you my opinion.

Tomorrowsashes, I don't know how you can think that there's no such thing as evil. Isn't it evil for me to walk into somebodys house and rape and kill them for no reason other than "I was misinformed". Are you going to tell me that Hitler was just misinformed. He may not have started the ideas that he had, but he is still responsible for what he did. Of course people have their own morals, what do think morals are though, because they're obviously more than just peoples opinions. Anyway there are some things that are simply beyond debate, like what I said.

: noone_wellknown Dec 16 2003, 03:08 AM

Defiance-
anarchism is surely the idea that there is no ruler and therefore no authority?? correct me if im wrong. although u can understand anarchism would work in small communities and perhaps less developed systems such as that present in Timor before the massacres. However, what i am trying to argue is that people have become so enfactuated with personal wealth and self gain that they are no longer 'able' to work in harmony for communal gain. To just start an anarchic system would suggest to me that you are living in a dream world! Many people a re living comfortably, the rich and powerful minority...what makes you believe that anyone can bring about the no doubt massive jump between capitalism and anarchy...i have no doubt that it has potential to be a fair and good system but what is the point in raising the question when there seems next to no chance of its occurence???

: regilas Dec 16 2003, 07:35 AM

QUOTE
correct me if im wrong


Put that on your signature

: noone_wellknown Dec 16 2003, 12:31 PM

its a good one isnt it.......sounds posh! lol

: defiance Dec 16 2003, 02:12 PM

If you would read the thread you would see that I don't believe we can instantly change to anarchy. It would take years of change for it to work well. Socialism is also very good and is already working very well in some countries. But
since you think that's also corrupt, why don't you do some studying and then decide what you believe.

Please stop sounding so depressed. If you don't believe anything can work, than don't come on here.

: noone_wellknown Dec 16 2003, 02:41 PM

you are right i should b more positive, its just hard thats all! anyways i think that socialism has great potential, i think it will take a revolution for tru socialism to occur in countries such as the US and UK, but as we have seen it is more then possible through out history.

: defiance Dec 16 2003, 02:52 PM

That's much better. Yes socialism does have great potential, but I still think anarchy would be the best way to live, once it got fully enstated. History also shows that it has great potential.

: tomorrowsashes Dec 16 2003, 06:09 PM

If you want to look farther than the US for examples of violence applied effectively, you can look at the ANC, and other groups in the South African liberation movement. The ANC was classified by the US as a terrorist organization, but they, without any help from Uncle Sam, played a crucial role in ending apartheid. Some of their violence wasn't targeted in the best way possible, but without it, there might be a different situation there today. Nelson Mandela even admits in his autobiography that violence is sometimes necessary. I can provide the exact quote if necessary, but don't have time to look it up now.

: defiance Dec 17 2003, 07:49 AM

Violence does succeed sometimes, but it rarely creates a permanently good system. It has worked sometimes, it worked in Ireland, but it didn't completly succeed. Northern Ireland still belongs to britain, and the british government itself would have never been overthrown, if the rebels had tried. So it might work in a colony, but not in the sovereign state. It would take incredible effort to work in the United States, much more than a non-violent movement. And in the end, is this new government any better than the one it overthrew. Do you want to live in South Africa. Now India was freed through non-violence and it's not a very good place to live in either. But that's not because of the non-violence, it's cause some people were determined to cause violence. Also many innoccent people will be killed in a violent revolution, no matter how careful you are. Do you want to be responsible for murdering innoccent people. I think you should note that the soviet union won its revolution through violence and it turned out to be a terrible place to live. I'm not saying that you can't have a successful revolution with violence. And I'm not saying non-violence will always work. But it fact is violence will always cause violence and non-violence will almost always inspire a peaceful solution, it just takes a long time.

: regilas Dec 17 2003, 09:27 AM

Whatever happened to Raddishu?

: tomorrowsashes Dec 17 2003, 04:11 PM

I'm not saying that we should go into an all out war, but merely suggesting that violence is merely a tactic which shouldn't be completely ruled out. Nonviolence should always be used whenever it will suffice, but if combine this with carefully targeted violence (assasinations, self defense, etc.) you can create a movement more powerful than either tactic alone. Demonstations are great, but add a little property destruction (of course, only towards the mega-corporations that exploit their workers), and you've got people's attention, and at this point, any publicity is good publicity. What do you do when the cops come with their riot sticks? Defend yourself, it's a basic human right. Now, to counter those who say that you are just a group of hooligans trying to cause trouble, you must distribute propaganda (call it what you will, but this is essentially what it is) detailing your opinions, and work to achieve positive things. Their is no recipe for revolution, but it does require small amounts of many tactics, violence included.

: noone_wellknown Dec 18 2003, 05:05 AM

the problem caused by the employment of violence as a means is that one it could be dragged into a war like situation, it is probably easy to say that a war isnt what is wanted, but as previously stated to use violence as a means to overthrow a government would take the majority of a population, i guess the question is can you gain that much support? further to this there will always be war mongers within movements as well as out right hooligans aiming specifically to fight.

: defiance Dec 18 2003, 10:44 AM

That is exactly what I'm saying. And violence with nonviolence, ruins the point behind nonviolence. If you start killing enemy leaders, than the enemy is naturally going to do the same thing. If the government is threatened by violence, they will have no problem with using violence to suppress their violent adversaries. Then the nonviolent part of the movement will be spoiled and you will have no choice but to fight. It's quite obvious to me that the U.S. milatary can never be beaten in war, especialy in its own country. But if the enemy is disarmed by the use of nonviolence, then you will have a better chance of victory.

: noone_wellknown Dec 18 2003, 11:24 AM

arab-israeli conflict is living proof for you!

: tomorrowsashes Dec 18 2003, 02:16 PM

The problem with Israel and Palestine that the terrorist organizations go after civillians, and don't even try to touch the leaders. The government is gonna use violence no matter what. If you don't use violence, they'll frame you and say that you did. Since an anarchists ultimate goal is the abolition of the nation-state, it seems necessary that at some point, violence, or the threat of violence, will be necessary, because the government will never willingly abolish itself.

: defiance Dec 18 2003, 08:27 PM

The problem with Isreal and Palestine, is the same problem that always comes up during times of war. It is exactly what you said and that's what always happens in war, the innocent suffer and the guilty get away. That is why violent revolution will never be what we need. And as I said before, to combine violence with nonviolence, is to destroy the entire point behind nonviolence.

You seem to forget that nonviolence has already worked several times in recent history. Gandhi and Martin Luther King are eccelent examples of successful nonviolent revolution. Unfortunatly India is still very poor and racism is still prevalent throughout the United States. This is because once success seems to be achieved, people make the mistake of thinking it's over and they can relax now. Somebody once said "the price of freedom, is costant vigilance." That person was right.

: noone_wellknown Dec 19 2003, 05:16 AM

the question is how, without violence is one going to uplift the majority of the population to campaign for something they don't fully understand or believe in. The fact is that many millions of people are ignorant of the tyranny brought about by the capitalist state, many live quite happily in the middle classes, they will fear change which will almost certainly bring about the loss of stability they have begun to love. the main problem is bringing about oppinion change so that the masses will believe enough in anarchism to get up and do something about it.

: tomorrowsashes Dec 19 2003, 06:10 AM

I personally haven't read this book, so I can't exactly reccomend it, but you might wanna read "Pacifism as Pathology" by Ward Churchill for a critique on pacifism. I think that non-violence is slightly selfish because it expects that people being attacked wont defend themselves, which they have every right to do. There needs to be at least a threat of violence, as there was during the civil rights movement, for a major change. I don't understand how we are supposed to act "civil" when our oppressors are anything but. I don't think it's the best negotiation strategy to say "give us what we want, or we'll sit outside your building holding signs!"

A good example of the combination of violence and non-violence is the Zapatistas. They have succesfully avoided violence in almost every instance, but the fact that they call themselves an army, and are prepared to defend themselves gives them a power that a purely peaceful group would not have. If you look at major revolutions throughout history, fromt the peasants revolt of 1381 to the Russian revolution, they all had at least some violence, and did cause a lot of change.

: noone_wellknown Dec 19 2003, 07:48 AM

to be sucked into a very violent movement would seem to me to be a poor strategy, self-defence to an extent is fair, however, to begin to be sucked into a violent movement seems absurd, in nothern ireland and rep of ireland it has failed, in israel it has failed etc. it results in a final stale mate. The capitalists will not give up there stance...its simple they believe in there system as much as u believe in what u believe in. Having said that non-violence we can see is very effective in history such as MLK however, this is far greater then the issue of racism, billions of dollars are involved, no capitalist will give that up, to expect no violence to occur between a transission to another system is just idealistic. to overthrow capitalism will take a lot of bloodshed its simple......the russian revolution is proof....the nazi takeover of germany etc

: tomorrowsashes Dec 19 2003, 02:58 PM

Examples seem to not be of much use, as we each seem to be coming up with ones supporting our own points, but I will respond to the one you keep using most, the civil rights movement, in detail. Martin Luther King was a radical revolutionary, but not to near the same extent as Malcom X. The government recognized this. They saw that MLK had a great deal of support, but that Malcom was rising too. They knew that if they did not make some concessions, people would grow dissolutioned with non-violence, and turn to more revolutionary tactics. If the people abandoned MLK, siding more with Malcom, there would be serious problems. A good deal of the lower class could suddenly start refusing to let others profit off their labor, and start fighting back. Whether the government could have defeated this is debatable, but the point is that both MLK and Malcom X were critical in the movement, and neither of them would have been near as powerful had it not been for the other. The civil rights movement was not purely non-violent. Look at the Black Panther Party.

: defiance Dec 19 2003, 09:20 PM

Maybe that's true, but I think you're forgetting that violence isn't the only threat that the government worries about. The idea behind peaceful resistance is that you don't need violence to scare the enemy, you just have to refuse to co-operate with them. That's what strikes do, that's what Gandhi did. India is probably the best example there is, of successful nonviolent rebellion. All you have to do is stop the industries that keep the country from running and soon you'll have the government on it's nees. Of course if it wasn't working, then you could swich to violence, but only if you had no choice. Throughout history there have been hundreds of violent revolutions and they almost never work, unless they have foreign help, which wouldn't happen with anarchists. The few revolutions that have succeded, have almost always turned out corrupt. The russian revolution is an eccellent example of that. It resulted in chaos and terror, and no good could have ever come out of it.

One more thing, how is it selfish to advocate nonviolence if you are out there suffering to. Gandhi was constantly being beaten and imprisoned for his activities and he could have easily been killed for the same reason. MLK was killed. And usualy more people die from violence than from nonviolence. Also pacifism is a bad term for nonviolent protest, since it are not at all passive, it is just very wise.

: tomorrowsashes Dec 19 2003, 10:41 PM

I mostly agree with you that violence should be a last resort, but it shouldn't be ruled out. I just don't think that it is any person's place to tell another person that they cannot defend themselves. I guess each person should find their own personal form of revolution, but it does need to be organized.

: noone_wellknown Dec 20 2003, 09:51 AM

i find it incredible that you can say violence has failed in history, the nazis were incredible successful by using violent means to gain support, just because they failed to win the war does not mean that violence failed, i dont think it was the right way to go about it but it was very succesful, similarly the russian revolution ended up in a change of regime didnt it? when looking at extreme parties such as an anarchist movement, you either need an extreme situation eg. the depression to spur on support, or extreme methods to gain support, i simply can't see the government destroying itself, it will start a war before anarchism becomes employed the elites would lose to much.

: defiance Dec 20 2003, 06:41 PM

The nazis aren't what I'd call a good model, but you must think they are, cause you've used them twice as examples. The Russian revolution, however good the cause may have been, was terrible and brought no worthwhile changes, to Russia or the world. Neither did the revolutions in China, or palistine. Isreal has hope, but their policies toward palistinians are ruthless and need drastic improvements, likewise with the palistinian "government".

What do you mean by extreme methods, cause if Gandhi wasn't extreme than I don't know what extreme is, unless you mean terrorism, which is harmful and wrong. If you refuse to fight than it wont be a war, but you will have one if you start one. And whether or not the capitalists like it, if they have nothing to support their power, than it will simply cease to be there, than they won't have it. If their wealth is made worthless, than they won't be able to use it anymore. You guys don't seem to realize the power of non co-operation.

: noone_wellknown Dec 21 2003, 02:39 AM

no you miss my point completely, i do not believe that the nazis were good or just in anyway whatsoever, however, you say that violence fails as a means of bringing about change. What i am saying is that it has been proven (whether the cause is good or bad) that violence is an effective means. Similarly with the russian revolution, although it perhaps didnt improve the world, that is not the point, it still brought about change. You could say in the future that non-violence was used to bring about anarchism, for all we know it could fail, but using your example, non-violence is ineffective, because the cause was a failure which is just ridiculous. You continue to go on about non-cooperation, I believe that noone living a noce life now will give it up to create an anarchist society, money is a great tool and unless you believe your going to cause the entire world to rise up it is simply not going to work!!

: tomorrowsashes Dec 21 2003, 11:49 AM

Gandhi wasn't that extreme. He was fighting for a simple cause, and didn't really have too many goals beyond that. A quote of his comes to mind:

"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed" May 1940

Now, I don't think that Gandhi was completely aware of Hitler's attrocities, but it was well known that Hitler was a fascist, and anybody who considers a fascist to be anything but the scum of the Earth is not a true revolutionary. Now, do you think that if the Jews had staged a peaceful protest against the German government Hitler would have simply stepped down, and everything would be happy and peaceful forever after? No, violent action had to be taken. I disagree with how WWII was fought, but something needed to be done, and non-violence just wouldn't cut it.

: defiance Dec 21 2003, 02:45 PM

If you mean radical when you say extreme, yes Gandhi was very radical. When someone has written 80 volumes worth of books, aricles and letters in there life, I don't think one, possibly out of context, comment is enough to make an entire opinion on him. It's interesting, but nevertheless, Gandhi was a firm believer in simple living and nonviolence. Based on his beliefs, I seriously doubt that he felt at all soft toward fascism or our corrupt forms of capitalism or communism. Now I don't personally believe that Hitler could have been overthrown by nonviolence, as I said before, sometimes you have no choice. However, we in the united states are not in that situation yet, though some in other countries are. But our government is not fascist yet and lives are not as endangered as german jews were, otherwise civil rights would have never been enacted, with violence or nonviolence. And before you start telling people that Ghandhi, of all people, was not a true revolutionary, I think you should realize that Gandhi is one of, if not the most, loved and respected person in the history of the world. I'm surprised that you tomorrowsashes, with you're "no such thing as evil" beliefs, would think that violence is a good way to bring change.

Noone_wellknown, what's the point in causing change, if it results in nothing good. The fact that the russian revolution didn't result in any good, is exactly my point. How do you plan to make people believe in your cause, when you're out killing and dying, and making no fruitful success. You go on about people refusing to give up their nice luxuries, but what makes you think they'll ever give them up for what is, in their opinion, a brutal mob. And like you said, money is a great tool and unless you believe the whole world is going to rise in violent revolution, than your idea will simply not work. Also, which example of mine proves me wrong? what cause failed?

: tomorrowsashes Dec 21 2003, 03:03 PM

It is simply a fact that when two groups share two contradictory opinions, there is no way to compromise. One side will eventually either be converted, or eliminated. You have to understand that the government is, and always has been, at war with those wanting to bring about change, and we must either fight back, or they will destroy us. I hate to simplify a complicated situation, but there are two conflicting views; one is a wish for a healthy, peaceful, and equal society, and the other is a wish for personal power. Most people are somewhere in the middle, and I believe that it is possible for everybody to converted, but there are people who are so misled that the cost of deprogramming them, and freeing them from their misconceptions, is greater than what will be saved from simply eliminating them. It is harsh, and I hate violence, but if the cost of allowing one person to live is the deaths of another ten, then it becomes reasonable not to do so. Violence, intentionally hurting another, is the worst act we can commit, but there are points in time when it does become necessary. I believe that we both want the best outcome for the world, but we disagree about whether we have hit the point at which violence, the last resort, becomes necessary. If you use the analogy of having a gun and seeing somebody with a bomb, the choice to shoot or not is based upon whether you have time to try to talk them out of detonating it, or otherwise disarm them, or whether they are ready to press the button, and the gun is your only option. I think that we are getting very, very near to the second scenario of the analogy, but you seem to disagree. I cannot tell you what to think, but I will say that what caused me to be willing to use any means necessary is when I read 1984. I see us approaching the scenario in that book.

: defiance Dec 21 2003, 04:44 PM

I haven't read 1984, so I can't comment on that. But I guess you're right though, if something doesn't happen soon, we will be living under fascists. But it hasn't happened yet and we don't seem to be getting anywhere debating about it , so let's just call a truce and see what happens. Anything else to do with anarchy.

: tomorrowsashes Dec 21 2003, 06:16 PM

Fair enough. Somebody new is bound to bring up a new issue soon. BTW, you should read 1984, as it's a pretty powerful book. You can find an online version of it http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/. Although the society it is dealing with is supposedly communist, it makes no difference as the world has fallen into outright fascism.

You know, I honestly wish you would have won the debate on violence. It's really depressing to think about.

: noone_wellknown Dec 22 2003, 06:21 AM

Defiance- i have not claimed that there is positive alternative which is going to create better outcomes, i have simply stated that for massive change to occur, in my oppinion violence will be required in order to remove the current system. I have never claimed that Gandhi wasnt a great revolutionary, however, it would take an even greater one to remove the power from the rich elites in which the power is so concentrated. Further to your point on fascism, i believe that in some ways yes they are fascists, they have carried out massacres, indirectly in timor, cambodia, indonesia and several other areas on different scales, just because the current rulers dont advertise the fact they are carrying out atrocities does not mean they are not occurring. The media today has restricted the flow of useful and important information into the USA as the Nazis did. The USA is a fascist state ad just because it does not kill millions of its own people doesnt mean it kills none from other countries. I know this may seem difficult to believe but in Timor over a third of the population was killed by US supplied and funded attacks by the indonesian dictator...i think Suharto.....further i think around 2000000 were killed in indochina since the 60s. Just because you dont hear it does not mean it isnt happening in front of your face.

: defiance Dec 22 2003, 06:55 AM

I know it's happening, that's the main reason I hate our government. But in the proper U.S. though, we still have some basic freedoms, though very limited. Like I said, if this government was truly fascist, civil rights would have never been enacted, can you deny that. I'm not saying that our country is all free, and I'm not saying it would be easy to change that, with violence or without. But it's a slight over exageration to say that the U.S. government is fascist, at least in this country. It definatly funds, supports and installs fascism in other countries though. Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Phillipines and Iraq, are only a few examples. And they are all proven.

By the way, Gandhi did remove british power in India. Why do you think I used his example. Maybe you should study your history better.

: noone_wellknown Dec 22 2003, 07:30 AM

yes but he didnt remove capitalist power world wide!! that is another level, i do not doubt he was a great man and achieved a huge amount, but to remove world-wide capitalism is another step from that.

I would say the exploitation and destruction of other countries is worse than internal fascism, that seems to be a fairly selfish view, if we're ok its ok to keep this government. It is a tyrannical state using extreme power to the worst extreme. I would say that this is reason enough to remove a government and classify it as fascist. No doubt the USA is one of the freeist nations in the world but to attack defenceless weak third world nations is altogether sickening. I cant believe that it is acceptable for this country to continue to carry out its acts of terror. It is not even the peoples choice it is in the hands of the so called 'democratic' government who carry out these attrocities leaving the people as the skape goats. The government must be removed.

: tomorrowsashes Dec 22 2003, 12:37 PM

To a white middle/upper class person, as I'm guessing a majority of people on this board are, this country is very free, but to a minority, that becomes less true. The poor have no power, and no say. A prisoner in/of this country might as well be in any other country, as they basically have no rights. They cannot vote, cannot make their own decisions, don't have access to the knowledge necessary for them to reenter society, and are systematically kept in a downward cycle.

: defiance Dec 22 2003, 06:19 PM

I know the government should be removed, I have been saying that all along. I just believe that it should done peacefully, if possible. And I'm not saying that everyone has the same freedom in this country as someone like me does. But I still believe we could succede peacefully. If the prisoners revolted, they could never succede anyway, it's impossible. And besides, black people in the 60s had little more freedom than prisoners do today and they still got civil rights. It's much more complex than just crushing the government forces and suddenly becoming free, you just can't do that. Either way, you will have to struggle for many years before you achieve any major success and I seriously doubt you can ever defeat the worlds powers in combat.

: tomorrowsashes Dec 22 2003, 09:45 PM

I was mostly just responding to the comment the America was one of the most free countries in the world. I think that it is easy for people to simply look at their own situation and say that since things are going ok for them, that must be true for the rest of the world. This is dangerous. I agree that a prisoners' revolt wouldn't work, because it wouldn't get much public support, and could easily be suppressed. I was just using them as an example of an oppressed population.

: blAHchYd Dec 23 2003, 06:27 AM

Some peeps would call this an excerpt from Modern-Day Anarchy...

Peep this out..

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nyc-blog1223,0,3411589,print.story?coll=ny-nynews-headlines



B'klyn Cop Investigated




By Sean Gardiner
Staff Writer

December 22, 2003, 5:09 PM EST

A Brooklyn cop is being investigated for Internet postings in which he brags about beating suspects, writing phony tickets and ignoring calls to his precinct.

The officer, identified by Internal Affairs investigators as a patrol cop who works in the 75th Precinct, uses the pseudonym "Brooklynbacon" and posts his messages on a site accessible through Xanga.com.

Alongside pictures of motorcycle trick riders, naked women, photographs with comical captions and pictures of human oddities, he posts messages supposedly about his job and, in some instances, his own misconduct. Any one of the offenses he describes could cost him his job.

In railing against an unspoken traffic ticket quota he says that officers must meet -- 10 tickets per week, he contends -- he writes: "The new commanding officer of the precinct is pressuring us to write more and more tickets. We were officially told NOT to write anymore tickets for headlights and taillights. Most people fix the problem within 24 hours and the ticket would be admonished therefore the City of New York makes no money in the end.

"So I have come up with a better way of writing tickets. I just write down the plates of the cars that cut me off the the (sic) parkways and I send them a bogus parking ticket in the mail. The person will then have to deal with the Parking Violations Bureau and not me. Problem quickly resolved. So, in other words, be careful who you cut off on the road. They might be an off duty cop and they could write your plates down and write you a $150 parking ticket. Have a nice day."

A police source said Internal Affairs investigators are reviewing all tickets written by the officer. Brooklynbacon did not respond to emails. According to a message he posted yesterday, he's still on patrol.

On the Web site, he describes his area of expertise as "human sanitation worker." While Brooklynbacon doesn't reveal his name or the precinct where he's assigned, he provides plenty of hints -- a partial photograph of his face, the fact that he's an avid motorcycle rider and the police calls he answered – which led investigators to identify him, sources said.

Many postings on the site offer what appears to be the view of a dissatisfied cop. He slams the NYPD's anti-terrorism training as a waste of time and rips on the poor quality of bullet-proof vests officers are issued. He also ridicules the people he's called on to help, calling himself a "baby sitter" and repeatedly saying that everyone he deals with is on welfare.

In other postings, he flaunts his own misconduct. After a particularly long shift, he was called to the Crown Heights' 77th Precinct late in November to search for two men who stabbed an off-duty officer during a robbery attempt. When he arrived at the scene scores of cops were already searching for the suspects so "my partner and I decided to sit inside the car and stay warm,'' he wrote.

"Perhaps play some games on our mobile laptops inside the patrol cars? The other units conducted a (sic) door to door searches of every apartment in the building while I conducted eye lid maintenance. ZZzzzz."

He also wrote that after getting into a motorcycle crash he was assigned a desk job upon returning to work. He wrote that he quickly realized "they assigned me to the wrong position."

"I have neither sympathy nor remorse when people call me up complaining about their problems. I have no feelings when people complain about loud music and I could really care less if they are seeking information regarding a family member that has been incarcerated. Cry me a river."

In that same posting, submitted this past fall, he said he expected to return to patrol within two weeks.

"Sitting behind a desk and looking pretty is not my style,'' he stated. "I am the type of person who loves getting my hands dirty whether it is chasing someone down a street or just giving them the 'good old fashion nypd beat down.' I hope you didn't think those beatings don't really exist do you?"

On a separate posting detailing his desk duty, he wrote that when people called the precinct trying to report a complaint, his pat response was " 'I will send a patrol car there immediately' but in reality I will wait for them to call back at least 5 times before I really send someone over there."
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.






It's like that classic sticker with Officer Sooo-Friendly saying, "Hi. I'm going to kick your ass and Get Away With It"


Oh yeah, and another piece of rotten to munch on...

Justice probing claim of being chained in/Farm Slavery

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/sunday/news_f35e42e03786009e004f.html


: noone_wellknown Dec 23 2003, 06:43 AM

Compared to many countries america is one of the freeist nations, if you look at some of the arab states not only the prisoners have no rights...nor to women or children. china noone seems to be free, Russia the police will stop a man and check their documents etc etc. Although i agree the prisoners may hav less rights compared to prisoners in many countries they have far greater rights then most nations. As far as non-violence is concerned, id like to ask whether ypu truly believe it will work against such a powerful group of elites, i am unsure, maybe we'll see one day.

: defiance Dec 23 2003, 09:47 AM

I'd like to ask you, do you really believe that you could succede in violently overthrowing such a powreful group of elites like the world has today. Maybe we'll see one day, but for now, I think we all agree that this debate isn't changing anything.

I know you know you were just responding that, sorry if I sound over combative. Anyway, since we're not getting anywhere, let's just call it a truce and find something interesting to talk about.

: noone_wellknown Dec 23 2003, 10:43 AM

any ideas??

: defiance Jan 12 2004, 02:32 PM

Sometimes a political ideology can be over simplified and the people who believe in it won't bother to think for themselves exactly what it is they believe in. So I would like to get every anarchists opinion on this question. If anarchy could be acheived, to what extent would leadership be eliminated? I personally have no problem with leaders, as long as they don't try to rule everyone. The plains indian tribes pointed out earlier all had some form of leadership, but they didn't all have rulers. There is a difference between leadership and rulership. So that is my question, how far would you go?

: stephie Jan 14 2004, 09:49 AM

I'm not an anarchist because I don't think that it works. If there are no laws, many people do what they want because they know they won't be punished.

: defiance Jan 14 2004, 10:55 AM

People do what they want anyway, and they don't always get punished. Besides, anarchy means no government, not no law. Now of course without a government you will have very little law, but to say you will just get away with everything you do is actually somewhat ignorant. Anarchy doesn't mean you have the right to do whatever sadistic act you feel like doing, it means you don't have the right to tell other people what to do. Most people feel the same way about anarchy that you do, they think that most people are evil at heart and will do whatever they want if they are allowed to. Obviously though, they are already doing what they want, or else we wouldn't have to worry about getting robbed or killed etc. Besides, if most people do think that, than most people must be good at heart, or else they also would want anarchy, so they could do whatever they want. I believe that most people are good, and with enough time, they can learn how to sustain their own community without much harm. It would take a long time to change from the society of today, to an anarchist society. But if the change is done right, than we can eventually have anarchy. For those few who are still determined to cause trouble, the people can deal with it. What do you believe in?

: regilas Jan 15 2004, 12:35 PM

QUOTE (stephie @ Jan 14 2004, 11:49 AM)
I'm not an anarchist because I don't think that it works. If there are no laws, many people do what they want because they know they won't be punished.

No laws = no corruption

But I understand. If we lived in a Socialist society, I wouldn't start saying, "Rebel against the Socialists!" I'd go along.

Yeah, anarchy does mean no laws. But that leads to other things.

An example given by a friend of mine against anarchy was:

"I'm gonna build a house in the middle of the road, and nobody can stop me."

To that, the response is:

"I'm gonna take down your house in the middle of the road, and nobody can stop me."

Common logic, ain't it?

: Dataika Jan 20 2004, 12:32 AM

I'm a Marxist-Leninist. I don't think Anarchy will work because it relies too much on the workers, suddenly realizing their horrible conditions and rising above them.

I have a couple of questions for the Anarchists... Militias would defend the Anarchist Revolution from outsiders correct? Well, what if one Militia disagrees with another Militia in how a battle should be fought/carried out? Would one Militia and another debate and have an election? If that's so, then wouldn't one Militia be in a higher authority than the other for that specific situation, and thus defeating anarchism in and of itself?

My personal view on Anarchism is that it is individualistic idealism. What I mean is, Anarchists believe that once the individual is realized then the masses will be. I believe that once the masses are liberated, THEN the individuals will be. Thus, anarchy (or stateless Communism) can ONLY EXIST after some sort of transition.

The workers need to be liberated by a centralised form of leadership who can de-centralise the capitalists and throw them out of power through all necessary means. The capitalists will NOT give it up without it.

: Vìcmælon Jan 20 2004, 03:44 PM

huh.gif There are alot of misconceptions in relation to Anarchism in this thread. I apologise if these points have been addressed already but the debate needs rapid reexamination. Warning: This will be a long post!

Firstly, to define:

an·ar·chism (nr-kzm)
n.

The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.


Seeing as socialism has been referred to widely in the thread it seems wise to define that too. Socialism is a system of government whereby the workers own all of the means of production by means of the State. i.e. complete state control of the economy.

Its important to note that although somewhat similar in theory, socialism is radically distinct from mutualism (what I mean by mutualism is the voluntary sharing of goods and services produced by a group of individuals - as in a commune). Socialism is radically different because socialism relies on the State(government) to coercively collect and redistribute all goods produced by society - if you do not pay your taxes, the government will force you to, or punish you. So in every society where socialism is imposed, there will be those who disagree with it who will be repressed. Conversely, in mutualism, if you do not wish to contribute, you can leave the commune; it is a free association where all the members agree on the policy. Mutualism can exist under anarchy, socialism is the very antithesis of it! Under socialism, the government has absolute control over economic activity, but under anarchy it has none! This is why anarchy and socialism are completely at odds with one another.

(Note: Many socialists here will probably disagree with my definition of socialism but to clarify, its Marxs first phase of socialism that I am talking about, where the state owns everything, in the name of the workers.)

Furthermore, the vast majority of people here seem to be lookingat anarchism only as Marxs final stage of communism - when socialist society has advanced to such a gloriuos stage that the State withers away. Bakunin would be rolling in his grave! There is another important strand of anarchism called anarcho-capitalism, or market capitalism - where the means of production are privately owned (either by individuals, companies, communes; whatever! The beauty of anarchism is that it allows for freedom of any ownership). For you guys in the US, the followers of this doctrine would be closely related to libertarians. Market anarchism is not a utopian society, unlike Marxist anarcho-communism.

Argument: Anarchy is nice in theory, but it would never work in practice

Consider this: Man, like all living beings, adapts himself to his environment - the conditions in which he lives, and hands the habits he has adapted to the next generation. So, being born into slavery, the descendent of a long line of slaves, man began to think that slavery was an essential condition of life, and that liberty was impossible. Similarly, the worker who was forced for centuries to depend upon the goodwill of his employer for work, for bread, and used to the idea that his own life was at the disposal of those who owned the land and capital, has ended in believing that it is his master who gives him food, and asks how it would be possible to live, if there were no master over him?

In the same way, a man whose limbs had been bound from birth, but who had still found out how to hobble around, might attribute to the very bands that bound him his ability to move, while, on the contrary, they would diminish and paralyze the muscular energy of his limbs!

If then we add to the natural effect of habit the education given to him by his master, the parson, the teacher, etc., who are all interested in teaching that the employer and the government are necessary, if we add the judge and the policeman to force those who think differently -- and might try to propagate their opinion -- to keep silence, we shall understand how the prejudice as to the utility and necessity of masters and governments has become established. Suppose a doctor brought forward a complete theory, with a thousand ably invented illustrations, to persuade the man with bound limbs that, if his limbs were freed, he could not walk, or even live. The man would defend his bands furiously and consider anyone his enemy who tried to tear them off. See any parallels?

Argument: Government is desireable because it protects rights and acts in the general good

This is the basic principle of every nation on this earth. But ask yourself: why give up my own liberty, my own initiative, in favour of other individuals? Why give them the power to be masters, for or against the wishes of each of them, to use all the forces in their own way? Are the rulers so exceptionally gifted that they can represent the masses and act in the interests of all men better than all men would be able to act for themselves? Are they so infallible and incorruptible that you can confide to them the fate of everyone, trusting to their knowledge and goodness?

And even if men of infinite goodness and knowledge existed, even if we assume what has never happened in history and what we believe could never happen - that the government would be made up of the ablest and best, would the possession of government power add anything to their great influence? Wouldn't it rather paralyze or destroy it? Because people who govern find it necessary to spend their time with things which they do not understand, and, above all, to waste most of their energy keeping themselves in power, trying to satisfy their friends, holding the discontented in check, and mastering the rebellious.

Argument: Democracy is a better system than anarchy

Lets say the government is elected by universal sufferage (everyone). Now numbers are the only requirement,and numbers are clearly no proof of reason, justice, or capacity. Under universal sufferage, those elected are those who best appeal to the majority. The minority, which may happen to be the half minus one, is sacrificed. Also, experience shows us it's impossible to hit upon an electoral system that really ensures election by the actual majority (electoral colleges anyone?!). Therefore democracy sacrifices the wishes of the minority for mob rule, but anarchy allows everyone self-determination.

Alright, I've gone on long enough; I havent even touched on the vast majority of whats been said but if challenged I'll be more than happy to. smile.gif



Vic

: Dataika Jan 20 2004, 04:53 PM

QUOTE (Vìcmælon @ Jan 20 2004, 11:44 PM)
huh.gif There are alot of misconceptions in relation to Anarchism in this thread. I apologise if these points have been addressed already but the debate needs rapid reexamination. Warning: This will be a long post!

Firstly, to define:

an·ar·chism (nr-kzm)
n.

The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.


Seeing as socialism has been referred to widely in the thread it seems wise to define that too. Socialism is a system of government whereby the workers own all of the means of production by means of the State. i.e. complete state control of the economy.

Its important to note that although somewhat similar in theory, socialism is radically distinct from mutualism (what I mean by mutualism is the voluntary sharing of goods and services produced by a group of individuals - as in a commune). Socialism is radically different because socialism relies on the State(government) to coercively collect and redistribute all goods produced by society - if you do not pay your taxes, the government will force you to, or punish you. So in every society where socialism is imposed, there will be those who disagree with it who will be repressed. Conversely, in mutualism, if you do not wish to contribute, you can leave the commune; it is a free association where all the members agree on the policy. Mutualism can exist under anarchy, socialism is the very antithesis of it! Under socialism, the government has absolute control over economic activity, but under anarchy it has none! This is why anarchy and socialism are completely at odds with one another.

(Note: Many socialists here will probably disagree with my definition of socialism but to clarify, its Marxs first phase of socialism that I am talking about, where the state owns everything, in the name of the workers.)

Furthermore, the vast majority of people here seem to be lookingat anarchism only as Marxs final stage of communism - when socialist society has advanced to such a gloriuos stage that the State withers away. Bakunin would be rolling in his grave! There is another important strand of anarchism called anarcho-capitalism, or market capitalism - where the means of production are privately owned (either by individuals, companies, communes; whatever! The beauty of anarchism is that it allows for freedom of any ownership). For you guys in the US, the followers of this doctrine would be closely related to libertarians. Market anarchism is not a utopian society, unlike Marxist anarcho-communism.

Argument: Anarchy is nice in theory, but it would never work in practice

Consider this: Man, like all living beings, adapts himself to his environment - the conditions in which he lives, and hands the habits he has adapted to the next generation. So, being born into slavery, the descendent of a long line of slaves, man began to think that slavery was an essential condition of life, and that liberty was impossible. Similarly, the worker who was forced for centuries to depend upon the goodwill of his employer for work, for bread, and used to the idea that his own life was at the disposal of those who owned the land and capital, has ended in believing that it is his master who gives him food, and asks how it would be possible to live, if there were no master over him?

In the same way, a man whose limbs had been bound from birth, but who had still found out how to hobble around, might attribute to the very bands that bound him his ability to move, while, on the contrary, they would diminish and paralyze the muscular energy of his limbs!

If then we add to the natural effect of habit the education given to him by his master, the parson, the teacher, etc., who are all interested in teaching that the employer and the government are necessary, if we add the judge and the policeman to force those who think differently -- and might try to propagate their opinion -- to keep silence, we shall understand how the prejudice as to the utility and necessity of masters and governments has become established. Suppose a doctor brought forward a complete theory, with a thousand ably invented illustrations, to persuade the man with bound limbs that, if his limbs were freed, he could not walk, or even live. The man would defend his bands furiously and consider anyone his enemy who tried to tear them off. See any parallels?

Argument: Government is desireable because it protects rights and acts in the general good

This is the basic principle of every nation on this earth. But ask yourself: why give up my own liberty, my own initiative, in favour of other individuals? Why give them the power to be masters, for or against the wishes of each of them, to use all the forces in their own way? Are the rulers so exceptionally gifted that they can represent the masses and act in the interests of all men better than all men would be able to act for themselves? Are they so infallible and incorruptible that you can confide to them the fate of everyone, trusting to their knowledge and goodness?

And even if men of infinite goodness and knowledge existed, even if we assume what has never happened in history and what we believe could never happen - that the government would be made up of the ablest and best, would the possession of government power add anything to their great influence? Wouldn't it rather paralyze or destroy it? Because people who govern find it necessary to spend their time with things which they do not understand, and, above all, to waste most of their energy keeping themselves in power, trying to satisfy their friends, holding the discontented in check, and mastering the rebellious.

Argument: Democracy is a better system than anarchy

Lets say the government is elected by universal sufferage (everyone). Now numbers are the only requirement,and numbers are clearly no proof of reason, justice, or capacity. Under universal sufferage, those elected are those who best appeal to the majority. The minority, which may happen to be the half minus one, is sacrificed. Also, experience shows us it's impossible to hit upon an electoral system that really ensures election by the actual majority (electoral colleges anyone?!). Therefore democracy sacrifices the wishes of the minority for mob rule, but anarchy allows everyone self-determination.

Alright, I've gone on long enough; I havent even touched on the vast majority of whats been said but if challenged I'll be more than happy to. smile.gif



Vic

Furthermore, the vast majority of people here seem to be lookingat anarchism only as Marxs final stage of communism - when socialist society has advanced to such a gloriuos stage that the State withers away. Bakunin would be rolling in his grave!

Well of course he would. Bakunin was not a Marxist. Anarchism, as a theory, is what he advocated. Anarchy, is what Communism (in its "purest" form) is.

Similarly, the worker who was forced for centuries to depend upon the goodwill of his employer for work, for bread, and used to the idea that his own life was at the disposal of those who owned the land and capital, has ended in believing that it is his master who gives him food, and asks how it would be possible to live, if there were no master over him?

And that's why Anarchism will never work. You're waiting for them to "magically" awake to their situation. It won't happen. Someone needs to teach them.

You seem to be saying that Anarchy can work, but you have not stated how the workers become aware of their situation. Nor have you listed how a revolution could even START through anarchism.

But ask yourself: why give up my own liberty, my own initiative, in favour of other individuals? Why give them the power to be masters, for or against the wishes of each of them, to use all the forces in their own way? Are the rulers so exceptionally gifted that they can represent the masses and act in the interests of all men better than all men would be able to act for themselves? Are they so infallible and incorruptible that you can confide to them the fate of everyone, trusting to their knowledge and goodness?

Like I said, petty individualistic idealism. Your individual self should not be the focus of revolution, otherwise you're no better than the capitalist. The masses, your fellow man, the proletariats, the workers ARE the revolution.

And please, tell me how an Anarchistic "commune" could defend itself against capitalistic imperialism? Or are you merely relying on workers to magically awake to their conditions and unite together again?

What you are talking about, Anarchism, is not what I don't think will happen. I think everyone pretty much agrees with the above statements. The only problem that *I* have with Anarchism is it doesn't look like it can even take a FIRST step to advance its revolution. Why should I believe that it can happen without some kind of help from a centralised form of power that will crush opposition? Why should I believe one day we will all hold hands and sing coombyah magically without any kind of transition? This, my friend is LUDICROUS, wishful thinking.

By the way, how can you be against democracy when you are an ANARCHIST? Anarchism IS democracy. Unless of course, you're speaking of bourgeoisie democracy, which I can understand. Try to be a little more clear.

: defiance Jan 21 2004, 09:56 AM

Everyone must read Vicmaelons post, it is a classic display of wisdom and reason, thanks for posting Vicmaelon!! Dataika, apparently you haven't read much of this debate, or you would have seen that I believe that their does have to be some form of leadership that can help to eliminate the oppressive system that we are currently under. But I don't believe in it being centralised, and I don't believe it should have strong authority. The fact is that in times of crises, some kind of leaders will always appear, because without it the people are bound to fall. However as I said earlier, there is a difference between a leader and a ruler. A ruler can tell people what to do, and they can not disobey. A leader does not have that right, rather he must lead by his own wisdom and ability. If he is not able to lead, than the people do not have to follow him, even if they're still on the same side. True leadership requires many things, but these three are especialy relevent to this subject. 1) a leaders conviction to a good cause, and their willingness to suffer and die for it, 2) that leaders ability to serve that cause, and to bring his people to success, 3) a peoples devotion to that leader, and their willingness to suffer and die for him and for his cause. Without these things a leader is worthless, and therefore the people will not follow him unless they have to. Now obviously major a leader is not needed when things are good, which is an anarchists main goal. So if they are not needed, than why should we keep them? Once things have calmed down there is no need for immediate leadership, so if they have a choice they will naturally stop obeying a leaders orders, as it will only serve to delay and reduce their own freedom. This is my personal belief, and so far no one has come up with any argument strong enough to discourage it.

: Vìcmælon Jan 21 2004, 11:55 AM

Thanks for responding Dataika, I'll try and reply as best I can. smile.gif

"Similarly, the worker who was forced for centuries to depend upon the goodwill of his employer for work, for bread, and used to the idea that his own life was at the disposal of those who owned the land and capital, has ended in believing that it is his master who gives him food, and asks how it would be possible to live, if there were no master over him?"

And that's why Anarchism will never work. You're waiting for them to "magically" awake to their situation. It won't happen. Someone needs to teach them.

You seem to be saying that Anarchy can work, but you have not stated how the workers become aware of their situation. Nor have you listed how a revolution could even START through anarchism.


My point was that the worker in this example, because of his social conditioning etc, would have thought that life without a master as employer would be impossible; and that you (for example) think that life without a government would also be impossible. History has proven the former untrue, and I contend that future will prove the latter untrue!

People will be 'awoken' to anarchy in the same way as they were awoken to liberty - through the spread of ideas. At one time all the most powerful societies used the system of slavery; yet it was destroyed when it was exposed by the spread of liberal ideas. It is now far easier to spread ideas because of the advances in communications (widespread tv ownership, internet etc). I dont think it will happen in my lifetime, but by spreading the idea of anarchism as I am doing now, I hope it will in a few centuries time.

On the idea of revolution I'm not sure. counterrevolutionaries would be very strong - think of the resources of the governments of the world! I think a better method would be to use existing democratic structures to erode the power of the State - privatisation of 'non-essential' state assests and semi-state companies, the promotion of private services (education, healthcare, welfare etc) rather than state, and so on.

Note: By private, I dont neccessarily mean corporate, check out the idea of mutualism in my earlier post.

Your individual self should not be the focus of revolution, otherwise you're no better than the capitalist. The masses, your fellow man, the proletariats, the workers ARE the revolution.

For the record, I am an anarcho-capitalist. How anarchic society would function under anarcho-capitalism is different to the anarcho-communist (i.e. Marxist) or classical anarchist (i.e. Proudhon, Bakunin et al) version. The individual self of each person is my focus - so that every individual has self-determination over their own affairs. (This does not exclude altruism - NGOs such as charities would play a huge role in an anarchic society; welfare for example).

And please, tell me how an Anarchistic "commune" could defend itself against capitalistic imperialism?

What do you mean exactly by capitalistic imperialism?! The commune could hire a defense/security firm to protect its property and inhabitants from aggression.

I am not merely relying on workers to magically awake to their conditions and unite together again.

It would be in the communes interest to be defended. A defense firm could provide this service, and it would be in their interest because the commune would pay them to protect it. Alternatively, if capitalism doesnt push your buttons, a defense mutualist organisation which does not request money for its services could take on the role; motivated by their altruism. Personally I feel the former is more likely, but thats the beauty of anarchism - you can have any agreement that is mutually agreeable!

The only problem that *I* have with Anarchism is it doesn't look like it can even take a FIRST step to advance its revolution. Why should I believe that it can happen without some kind of help from a centralised form of power that will crush opposition? Why should I believe one day we will all hold hands and sing coombyah magically without any kind of transition? This, my friend is LUDICROUS, wishful thinking.

See above.

By the way, how can you be against democracy when you are an ANARCHIST? Anarchism IS democracy. Unless of course, you're speaking of bourgeoisie democracy, which I can understand. Try to be a little more clear.

Sorry, my bad. My concept of democracy is that the government is chosen by the majority of the people. Under democracy, the majority of people (or even worse, representives), make decisions that effect each individual person, even though that person may not agree with the decision. So you see, democracy takes the power to decide what to do with her own life away from the individual, and makes the majority the master of the minority, against the minority's wishes. Under anarchism, the individual would have no master other than herself; there is no majority (authority!) impressing its decisions on the individual.

I hope that clears it up a little, looking forward to your reply.

smile.gif

Vic

: Dataika Jan 21 2004, 01:20 PM

QUOTE (defiance @ Jan 21 2004, 05:56 PM)
Everyone must read Vicmaelons post, it is a classic display of wisdom and reason, thanks for posting Vicmaelon!! Dataika, apparently you haven't read much of this debate, or you would have seen that I believe that their does have to be some form of leadership that can help to eliminate the oppressive system that we are currently under. But I don't believe in it being centralised, and I don't believe it should have strong authority. The fact is that in times of crises, some kind of leaders will always appear, because without it the people are bound to fall. However as I said earlier, there is a difference between a leader and a ruler. A ruler can tell people what to do, and they can not disobey. A leader does not have that right, rather he must lead by his own wisdom and ability. If he is not able to lead, than the people do not have to follow him, even if they're still on the same side. True leadership requires many things, but these three are especialy relevent to this subject. 1) a leaders conviction to a good cause, and their willingness to suffer and die for it, 2) that leaders ability to serve that cause, and to bring his people to success, 3) a peoples devotion to that leader, and their willingness to suffer and die for him and for his cause. Without these things a leader is worthless, and therefore the people will not follow him unless they have to. Now obviously major a leader is not needed when things are good, which is an anarchists main goal. So if they are not needed, than why should we keep them? Once things have calmed down there is no need for immediate leadership, so if they have a choice they will naturally stop obeying a leaders orders, as it will only serve to delay and reduce their own freedom. This is my personal belief, and so far no one has come up with any argument strong enough to discourage it.

Dataika, apparently you haven't read much of this debate, or you would have seen that I believe that their does have to be some form of leadership that can help to eliminate the oppressive system that we are currently under.

Maybe that's why I didn't attack *your* view on a certain aspect...

All the rest of your post focused on "leader" being used instead of "ruler." But how are you going to crush the bourgoeis without implementing some sort of RULE to sweep them away? Or are you just going to hope a leader can reason with everyone and we'll all be able to hold hands and join together. Petty idealism.

If you want to live in a fantasy world and pretend that everyone will just adhere to something when it makes sense, no matter how much imperialistic and bourgeois ideology dominates their social conditioning, that's okay. I just don't know HOW you can without being a little TOO optimistic and unrealistic. This is why I'm not anarchist, I tend to want to live in the REAL world.

: Dataika Jan 21 2004, 01:35 PM

QUOTE (Vìcmælon @ Jan 21 2004, 07:55 PM)
Thanks for responding Dataika, I'll try and reply as best I can. smile.gif

"Similarly, the worker who was forced for centuries to depend upon the goodwill of his employer for work, for bread, and used to the idea that his own life was at the disposal of those who owned the land and capital, has ended in believing that it is his master who gives him food, and asks how it would be possible to live, if there were no master over him?"

And that's why Anarchism will never work. You're waiting for them to "magically" awake to their situation. It won't happen. Someone needs to teach them.

You seem to be saying that Anarchy can work, but you have not stated how the workers become aware of their situation. Nor have you listed how a revolution could even START through anarchism.


My point was that the worker in this example, because of his social conditioning etc, would have thought that life without a master as employer would be impossible; and that you (for example) think that life without a government would also be impossible. History has proven the former untrue, and I contend that future will prove the latter untrue!

People will be 'awoken' to anarchy in the same way as they were awoken to liberty - through the spread of ideas. At one time all the most powerful societies used the system of slavery; yet it was destroyed when it was exposed by the spread of liberal ideas. It is now far easier to spread ideas because of the advances in communications (widespread tv ownership, internet etc). I dont think it will happen in my lifetime, but by spreading the idea of anarchism as I am doing now, I hope it will in a few centuries time.

On the idea of revolution I'm not sure. counterrevolutionaries would be very strong - think of the resources of the governments of the world! I think a better method would be to use existing democratic structures to erode the power of the State - privatisation of 'non-essential' state assests and semi-state companies, the promotion of private services (education, healthcare, welfare etc) rather than state, and so on.

Note: By private, I dont neccessarily mean corporate, check out the idea of mutualism in my earlier post.

Your individual self should not be the focus of revolution, otherwise you're no better than the capitalist. The masses, your fellow man, the proletariats, the workers ARE the revolution.

For the record, I am an anarcho-capitalist. How anarchic society would function under anarcho-capitalism is different to the anarcho-communist (i.e. Marxist) or classical anarchist (i.e. Proudhon, Bakunin et al) version. The individual self of each person is my focus - so that every individual has self-determination over their own affairs. (This does not exclude altruism - NGOs such as charities would play a huge role in an anarchic society; welfare for example).

And please, tell me how an Anarchistic "commune" could defend itself against capitalistic imperialism?

What do you mean exactly by capitalistic imperialism?! The commune could hire a defense/security firm to protect its property and inhabitants from aggression.

I am not merely relying on workers to magically awake to their conditions and unite together again.

It would be in the communes interest to be defended. A defense firm could provide this service, and it would be in their interest because the commune would pay them to protect it. Alternatively, if capitalism doesnt push your buttons, a defense mutualist organisation which does not request money for its services could take on the role; motivated by their altruism. Personally I feel the former is more likely, but thats the beauty of anarchism - you can have any agreement that is mutually agreeable!

The only problem that *I* have with Anarchism is it doesn't look like it can even take a FIRST step to advance its revolution. Why should I believe that it can happen without some kind of help from a centralised form of power that will crush opposition? Why should I believe one day we will all hold hands and sing coombyah magically without any kind of transition? This, my friend is LUDICROUS, wishful thinking.

See above.

By the way, how can you be against democracy when you are an ANARCHIST? Anarchism IS democracy. Unless of course, you're speaking of bourgeoisie democracy, which I can understand. Try to be a little more clear.

Sorry, my bad. My concept of democracy is that the government is chosen by the majority of the people. Under democracy, the majority of people (or even worse, representives), make decisions that effect each individual person, even though that person may not agree with the decision. So you see, democracy takes the power to decide what to do with her own life away from the individual, and makes the majority the master of the minority, against the minority's wishes. Under anarchism, the individual would have no master other than herself; there is no majority (authority!) impressing its decisions on the individual.

I hope that clears it up a little, looking forward to your reply.

smile.gif

Vic

My point was that the worker in this example, because of his social conditioning etc, would have thought that life without a master as employer would be impossible; and that you (for example) think that life without a government would also be impossible. History has proven the former untrue, and I contend that future will prove the latter untrue!

I don't think that life without a government is impossible. I'm a communist which means that the government "withers away" after socialistic transition. But whatever, we're getting into petty details now.

People will be 'awoken' to anarchy in the same way as they were awoken to liberty - through the spread of ideas. At one time all the most powerful societies used the system of slavery; yet it was destroyed when it was exposed by the spread of liberal ideas. It is now far easier to spread ideas because of the advances in communications (widespread tv ownership, internet etc). I dont think it will happen in my lifetime, but by spreading the idea of anarchism as I am doing now, I hope it will in a few centuries time.

Workers "may" realize their situation but things impede this process. For instance, imperialism, bourgeois media, and quasi-social reforms (as was hinted to by Lenin). What I'm saying ist hat the much more realistic way to combat these hindrances and to allow proletariats to achieve pure freedom, they need to crush those that institute these practices. By violence, re-education or other things, but some sort of order must be instituted in order for people to even be "re-educated."

On the idea of revolution I'm not sure. counterrevolutionaries would be very strong - think of the resources of the governments of the world! I think a better method would be to use existing democratic structures to erode the power of the State - privatisation of 'non-essential' state assests and semi-state companies, the promotion of private services (education, healthcare, welfare etc) rather than state, and so on.

A centralised form of government would be MUCH more ABLE to DEFEND the revolution against counter-revolutionaries. The governments/capitalists will NOT give up their power willingly, they will need to be forced. And the BEST and most VIABLE option for this happening is a STATE lead by a group of intellectuals who work in the worker's interests, to CRUSH the opposition and destroy bourgeois scumbags.

For the record, I am an anarcho-capitalist. How anarchic society would function under anarcho-capitalism is different to the anarcho-communist (i.e. Marxist) or classical anarchist (i.e. Proudhon, Bakunin et al) version. The individual self of each person is my focus - so that every individual has self-determination over their own affairs. (This does not exclude altruism - NGOs such as charities would play a huge role in an anarchic society; welfare for example).

Anarcho-capitalist eh? That sounds pretty self-contradictory. In capitalism there are organizations run by CEOS who control the workers and the output. The ones who "run" the businesses reep the profits while the workers DO NOT. Therefore, one is always higher than another and archy flourishes. How can archy and anarchy coexist? Unless of course, you mean "anarchy" as in just "no-state." Which in that case, I would be even MORE against your theory than I am now.

What do you mean exactly by capitalistic imperialism?! The commune could hire a defense/security firm to protect its property and inhabitants from aggression.

The capitalist nations of the Earth would defiantely not sit idly by, while you spark a revolution to end their dominance. How is a defense team with no form of leadership, that leads to bickering among themselves, going to take out a bigger, more powerful, and more disciplined army?

It would be in the communes interest to be defended. A defense firm could provide this service, and it would be in their interest because the commune would pay them to protect it. Alternatively, if capitalism doesnt push your buttons, a defense mutualist organisation which does not request money for its services could take on the role; motivated by their altruism. Personally I feel the former is more likely, but thats the beauty of anarchism - you can have any agreement that is mutually agreeable!

It is also its downfall. Some issues may NOT be mutually agreed upon. There are many issues in which NEITHER SIDE agrees, mutually, with another side. One of which is HOW to perform a certain military operation. In order for there to be an actually sucessful army there must be discipline. There must be order, there must be a heirarchy structure. Otherwise, there will be disagreements and bickering among the soldiers themselves and little, if anything, will be accomplished.

: defiance Jan 21 2004, 01:56 PM

I thought that you meant a leader was needed for unity of action. My whole belief is based on the idea that once enough people are determined to beat back a threat to their freedom, a ruling force is no longer needed to protect them. If you meant that we would need a government to deal with our problems, I can tell you that that is not true. If the people are determined, than they can deal with it themselves. The reason why leaders are needed, is to strengthen the people and give them more unity, and possibly an example that they can follow. It doesn't contradict anarchism, it gives it strength and reality. Besides, if everyone really want's some form of leadership, wouldn't it go against their own freedom (and therefore go against anarchism, and all of my beliefs) to say that they can not have one. That would ultimately require repression of the peoples wishes, and in order to do that you need a government. So my idea fits right in place. A leader is not above anyone if they choose to follow him. If two people have different ideas, but they can only use one if they're going to achieve their goal, than one of them will have to give in to the others idea, that doesn't make the other one the boss of the first, it simply gets the job done. But they are still equall, and at some point the other ones idea might be followed instead. If someone tries to take over, than the people can easily stop him. The only rule there is under anarchy, is the rule of the people. It makes perfect sense to me, but you can't seem to get beyond that common belief that people are helpless, and it's up to the government to solve their problems. If people would stop believing that, than it would instantly stop being true. You are what you choose to be, all you have to do is believe it, and it will become true.

: Dataika Jan 21 2004, 09:21 PM

QUOTE (defiance @ Jan 21 2004, 09:56 PM)
I thought that you meant a leader was needed for unity of action. My whole belief is based on the idea that once enough people are determined to beat back a threat to their freedom, a ruling force is no longer needed to protect them. If you meant that we would need a government to deal with our problems, I can tell you that that is not true. If the people are determined, than they can deal with it themselves. The reason why leaders are needed, is to strengthen the people and give them more unity, and possibly an example that they can follow. It doesn't contradict anarchism, it gives it strength and reality. Besides, if everyone really want's some form of leadership, wouldn't it go against their own freedom (and therefore go against anarchism, and all of my beliefs) to say that they can not have one. That would ultimately require repression of the peoples wishes, and in order to do that you need a government. So my idea fits right in place. A leader is not above anyone if they choose to follow him. If two people have different ideas, but they can only use one if they're going to achieve their goal, than one of them will have to give in to the others idea, that doesn't make the other one the boss of the first, it simply gets the job done. But they are still equall, and at some point the other ones idea might be followed instead. If someone tries to take over, than the people can easily stop him. The only rule there is under anarchy, is the rule of the people. It makes perfect sense to me, but you can't seem to get beyond that common belief that people are helpless, and it's up to the government to solve their problems. If people would stop believing that, than it would instantly stop being true. You are what you choose to be, all you have to do is believe it, and it will become true.

My whole belief is based on the idea that once enough people are determined to beat back a threat to their freedom, a ruling force is no longer needed to protect them.

Which is the whole problem with anarchism. How are you going to get "enough" workers, living in undisciplined manners for their own individual selves, to cooperate with each other and take out a threat? How is an unorderly, undisciplined army going to do against them? Want to know? Check out the Spanish Civil War. The anarchists wouldn't have gotton ANYWHERE without the COMMUNISTS backing them.

If you meant that we would need a government to deal with our problems, I can tell you that that is not true. If the people are determined, than they can deal with it themselves. The reason why leaders are needed, is to strengthen the people and give them more unity, and possibly an example that they can follow.

Are you seriously, trying to tell me that people in an unorganized, unheirarchial structure would be able to take out a capitalistic nation's organized, professional and disciplined army? If that's not unrealistic, I don't know what is.

A leader is not above anyone if they choose to follow him.

Do you REALLY read your own arguments before you post them? It doesn't matter if they CHOSE to or not, one is higher than the other. One is leading and the other is adhering to his leadership. One is higher, hence ARCHY exists. How come you can't see that?

f two people have different ideas, but they can only use one if they're going to achieve their goal, than one of them will have to give in to the others idea, that doesn't make the other one the boss of the first, it simply gets the job done.

Yeah, and if we lived in a fantasy world they'd do it. But some issues are un-compromisable.

Besides if one person is adhering to another's ideas, one is FOLLOWING him, and hence the other is ABOVE him. Heirarchy would exist, whether voluntary or not.

But they are still equall, and at some point the other ones idea might be followed instead. If someone tries to take over, than the people can easily stop him.

No one says they aren't "equal" but one has more say on the matter than the other. One is following the others directions. Hence, one is adhering to him and submitting himself to the directions of his leader. Whether this is VOLUNTARY or NOT is NOT the issue. What IS the issue, is whether or not there is a HEIRARCHY, which there OBVIOUSLY is.

By the way, how do you propse the people "easily" stop them? It's pretty easy to make an assumption with nothing to back it up.

The only rule there is under anarchy, is the rule of the people. It makes perfect sense to me, but you can't seem to get beyond that common belief that people are helpless, and it's up to the government to solve their problems.

The rule, that you claim is the only one under anarchy, is an admirable rule and one I strive toward as Marxist-Leninist. What we don't agree with is HOW the people should rule. At first, a transition period is necessary to open the eyes of the proletariat WHILE supressing uprising by the bourgeois. It's a logical inference, unless of course you want to just wait around until workers "magically" awaken to their conditions. During this "transition" period, the people should rule through a centralised form of leadership, with leaders THEY elect to protect them and suppress the bourgeois. Once the bourgeois is supressed, THEN we can focus on the state withering away, but before that, some sort of force is necessary to rid the world of bourgeois vermin.

If people would stop believing that, than it would instantly stop being true. You are what you choose to be, all you have to do is believe it, and it will become true.

Which is a true statement, but that's not going to happen "overnight" and someone needs to teach the people this WHILE taking out the people who pollute their minds. This is where you and I differ. I think they can do this more proficiently, and quickly with a centralised leadership that will crush bourgeois vermin and help the proletariat realise themselves. Thus, the transition is necessary.

In short, provide me evidence that your anarchic "revolution" will happen (because right now, it seems like petty optimistic individualistic idealism), how you plan to get the workers to realize themselves and start it, AND how they are going to take the power back themselves to begin with. All you've done is given BOLD, VAGUE assumptions like "the people can take the power." What you haven't said is, HOW that is possible without some form of leadership or heirarchial structure being involved.

: defiance Jan 22 2004, 10:52 AM

(Which is the whole problem with anarchism. How are you going to get "enough" workers, living in undisciplined manners for their own individual selves, to cooperate with each other and take out a threat? How is an unorderly, undisciplined army going to do against them?)

Have you ever heard of something called a strike? Those are made by the workers, and they work very well. You are asking me how I am going to get the people to see their own plight and revolt against it, without using some kind of authority. But it has already been done many times. And the fact is that even if your group does have it's leaders, in reality they have no more power than the poeple who follow them, since those people could easily dissent, and no law that this country has ever made will give you the right to force them to obey you. By your attempts to force them, you will weaken both the strength and cause of your rebellion.

As I have said over and over again, If you follow a person voluntarily, and can leave them if and whenever you want, then they are not in charge of you. Why can't you grasp that? the word "archy" means rule. "Anarchy" means no rule, not no leader. I didn't say that we can't have some form of leadership, I just said that we don't need rulers. There is a difference between the two. If one brother listens to the other one once, does that make the second brother his boss? They are still equal, and they are still both subject to the rule of their parents. Your type of revolution has already been tried, and although it succeded in destroying the enemy, in the end it was even worse. In case you haven't bothered to study the history your Bolshevik heroes, heres a little piece of it. The communists dictatorship never cared or tried to "wither away", instead it just got more powerful, more corrupt. Under Stalin it killed more people than the Nazis, and the longer he was in power, the more paranoid he became. You see Dataika, unlike most people seem to realize, there is far more danger of a corrupt leader taking power when there is a government for him to use, than when there isn't any government that he can corrupt. You continue to ask me how we defeat the capitalistic imperialists without a strong hierarchy, but I say, how can we defeat them WITH a strong hierarchy. If we use the same system that they use to defeat our enemies, then we are no better then them. Rather we are copies of them, an image of our enemy, one that may turn out to be worse than the enemy, against who we would we would've struggled so hard to defeat. And if we can't succede in what we are try do, without using the same methods that our enemies use, than maybe it would be better not to fight them at all. What would be the point? If the next government is just as bad as the first one, than why even bother to get rid of the first? You are dreaming if you think that you can establish a government, using the same method of control as your enemy, and than expect it to just wither away. It is especialy dangerous to centralize that power, to place it in the hands of a few,while the rest are subject to their rule. It is much safer to allow people not to listen their leaders, cause than the leaders won't think they have the right to tell everyone what they can and can't do, and when the threat has passed continue to force their rule on the people who had at one time cared to listen.

(No one says they aren't "equal" but one has more say on the matter than the other. One is following the others directions)

If they are equall, than one is not higher than other, the first is simply accepting the others advise. "Do you read your arguments before posting them".

(In short, provide me evidence that your anarchic "revolution" will happen (because right now, it seems like petty optimistic individualistic idealism), how you plan to get the workers to realize themselves and start it, AND how they are going to take the power back themselves to begin with. All you've done is given BOLD, VAGUE assumptions like "the people can take the power." What you haven't said is, HOW that is possible without some form of leadership or heirarchial structure being involved.)

Political power alone will not bring victory. The anwser is in the actions, not in the structure of those doing them. The question is what structure will allow the best use of those actions. I believe that a political power will only reduce and possibly corrupt those actions, creating an even worse situation. If you do not willingly follow a revoltion, than that revolution is nothing more than another dictatorship. If a ruler is needed to make a person obey, than that persons obediance is no more justified than the obediance of a slave.

: Dataika Jan 22 2004, 06:37 PM

QUOTE (defiance @ Jan 22 2004, 06:52 PM)
(Which is the whole problem with anarchism. How are you going to get "enough" workers, living in undisciplined manners for their own individual selves, to cooperate with each other and take out a threat? How is an unorderly, undisciplined army going to do against them?)

Have you ever heard of something called a strike? Those are made by the workers, and they work very well. You are asking me how I am going to get the people to see their own plight and revolt against it, without using some kind of authority. But it has already been done many times. And the fact is that even if your group does have it's leaders, in reality they have no more power than the poeple who follow them, since those people could easily dissent, and no law that this country has ever made will give you the right to force them to obey you. By your attempts to force them, you will weaken both the strength and cause of your rebellion.

As I have said over and over again, If you follow a person voluntarily, and can leave them if and whenever you want, then they are not in charge of you. Why can't you grasp that? the word "archy" means rule. "Anarchy" means no rule, not no leader. I didn't say that we can't have some form of leadership, I just said that we don't need rulers. There is a difference between the two. If one brother listens to the other one once, does that make the second brother his boss? They are still  equal, and they are still both subject to the rule of their parents. Your type of revolution has already been tried, and although it succeded in destroying the enemy, in the end it was even worse. In case you haven't bothered to study the history your Bolshevik heroes, heres a little piece of it. The communists dictatorship never cared or tried to "wither away", instead it just got more powerful, more corrupt. Under Stalin it killed more people than the Nazis, and the longer he was in power, the more paranoid he became. You see Dataika, unlike most people seem to realize, there is far more danger of a corrupt leader taking power when there is a government for him to use, than when there isn't any government that he can corrupt. You continue to ask me how we defeat the capitalistic imperialists without a strong hierarchy, but I say, how can we defeat them WITH a strong hierarchy. If we use the same system that they use to defeat our enemies, then we are no better then them. Rather we are copies of them, an image of our enemy, one that may turn out to be worse than the enemy, against who we would we would've struggled so hard to defeat. And if we can't succede in  what we are try do, without using the same methods that our enemies use, than maybe it would be better not to fight them at all. What would be the point? If the next government is just as bad as the first one, than why even bother to get rid of the first? You are dreaming if you think that you can establish a government, using the same method of control as your enemy, and than expect it to just wither away. It is especialy dangerous to centralize that power, to place it in the hands of a few,while the rest are subject to their rule. It is much safer to allow people not to listen their leaders, cause than the leaders won't think they have the right to tell everyone what they can and can't do, and when the threat has passed continue to force their rule on the people who had at one time cared to listen.

(No one says they aren't "equal" but one has more say on the matter than the other. One is following the others directions)

If they are equall, than one is not higher than other, the first is simply accepting the others advise. "Do you read your arguments before posting them".

(In short, provide me evidence that your anarchic "revolution" will happen (because right now, it seems like petty optimistic individualistic idealism), how you plan to get the workers to realize themselves and start it, AND how they are going to take the power back themselves to begin with. All you've done is given BOLD, VAGUE assumptions like "the people can take the power." What you haven't said is, HOW that is possible without some form of leadership or heirarchial structure being involved.)

Political power alone will not bring victory. The anwser is in the actions, not in the structure of those doing them. The question is what structure will allow the best use of those actions. I believe that a political power will only reduce and possibly corrupt those actions, creating an even worse situation. If you do not willingly follow a revoltion, than that revolution is nothing more than another dictatorship. If a ruler is needed to make a person obey, than that persons obediance is no more justified than the obediance of a slave.

Have you ever heard of something called a strike? Those are made by the workers, and they work very well. You are asking me how I am going to get the people to see their own plight and revolt against it, without using some kind of authority. But it has already been done many times. And the fact is that even if your group does have it's leaders, in reality they have no more power than the poeple who follow them, since those people could easily dissent, and no law that this country has ever made will give you the right to force them to obey you. By your attempts to force them, you will weaken both the strength and cause of your rebellion.

The only problem with STRIKES is that they have not brought upon revolution by themselves. Sure they've awaken SOME workers to their situations but MOST make COMPROMISES with their employers because they NEED to work to EAT. And it, again, fails to show how you could organize ENOUGH workers to STRIKE so SEVERELY that it would cripple the capitalist economy and bring about revolution. If you CAN do that, you will have my support.

Again, you keep saying the people could easily "rebel" against them. Why don't you just answer how an unorganized group of individuals can take out capitalistic imperialistic leadership.

Also tell me HOW you'll get ENOUGH people to overthrow the current system, and HOW you will even SUCCEED in your revolution.

Comrade, it's fairly obvious to me now that you either lack knowledge of Communistic theory, or you've been lied to so much you don't know how to critique the theory correctly; let me answer your objections:

The communists dictatorship never cared or tried to "wither away", instead it just got more powerful, more corrupt. Under Stalin it killed more people than the Nazis, and the longer he was in power, the more paranoid he became. You see Dataika, unlike most people seem to realize, there is far more danger of a corrupt leader taking power when there is a government for him to use, than when there isn't any government that he can corrupt.

First off, the USSR never claimed it was a "communist" country because that is a contradiction in terms. Second of all, the state wasn't supposed to "wither" away in Marxist theory, until AFTER all opposition had been swept under the rug. This is GLOBALLY which has NEVER happened. Third, you don't understand Stalin's theory of "Socialism in one Country" either.

Comrade, let me help you understand it a little better:
1: Feudalism leads to capitalism
2: Capitalism is exploitation of the worker at the HIGHEST level
3: The worker will realize himself
4: After this happens a revolution will take place and SOCIALISTIC transition can begin in the form of DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT.
5: Stalin says this can happen in ONE country and does NOT have to depend on everyone else.
6: Stalin implements this theory and SOCIALISTIC TRANSITION (that began under Lenin) takes its greatest form of sweeping away opposition to the workers.
7: Stalin dies and revisionism leads to the destruction of the USSR
8: So Stalin never said it was communist, it was still in its SOCIALISTIC TRANSITIONAL PHASE.
9: Now you know a little something about what Communist/Marxist-Leninist theory is, and try to research the subject before you make stupid assumptions.

By the way, why don't you PROVE that Stalin was "paranoid" or that it became anything like the Nazi form of government. Try to stay away from RObert Conquest, Comrade.

You continue to ask me how we defeat the capitalistic imperialists without a strong hierarchy, but I say, how can we defeat them WITH a strong hierarchy. If we use the same system that they use to defeat our enemies, then we are no better then them. Rather we are copies of them, an image of our enemy, one that may turn out to be worse than the enemy, against who we would we would've struggled so hard to defeat. And if we can't succede in what we are try do, without using the same methods that our enemies use, than maybe it would be better not to fight them at all. What would be the point? If the next government is just as bad as the first one, than why even bother to get rid of the first? You are dreaming if you think that you can establish a government, using the same method of control as your enemy, and than expect it to just wither away.

Come on Comrade, prove that it was anything like the oppressive Capitalist Governments and ANYTHING like the Nazis.

I think the fact that Socialistic Transitions have existed in Mao's China and Stalin's USSR, it proves the point that it's taking revolutionary steps and more reasonable than Anarchism (which has taken nearly NO revolutionary steps).

If they are equall, than one is not higher than other, the first is simply accepting the others advise.

I understand your point now, and I agree with you.

Political power alone will not bring victory. The anwser is in the actions, not in the structure of those doing them. The question is what structure will allow the best use of those actions. I believe that a political power will only reduce and possibly corrupt those actions, creating an even worse situation. If you do not willingly follow a revoltion, than that revolution is nothing more than another dictatorship. If a ruler is needed to make a person obey, than that persons obediance is no more justified than the obediance of a slave.

That's the difference between you, me and Marx. You see, me and Marx want freedom for the workers AND the STATE in the most viable, reasonable form available. You depend on some miraclulous awakening of workers WORLD WIDE to spark a revolution SO BIG that it can TAKE OUT capitalist imperialistic nations. I say that a socialistic transition is necessary so that WE CAN awaken the workers and at the SAME TIME eliminate threats to their security and their freedom.

You still haven't said HOW you plan to awaken the WORKERS nor how you plan to take out capitalistic nations. My guess is you don't know how? Or maybe you just don't know and you love criticising anything that has taken revolutionary turns and hasn't turned out perfect. In any case, Comrade, I encourage you to re-read a little bit of Marx's theories.

By the way, I apologize if I came off as overbearing or abrasive. I do that in the heat of debate sometimes, and I need to work on it. But Comrade, we are both on the same side here, we just see different ways to rid the world of Capitalist scum, don't you agree?

: defiance Jan 22 2004, 08:55 PM

I'll agree on your last point, but not completly. We are both on the same side, however my goal is not only to get rid of the capitalist scum, it is to get rid of ANY scum, no matter what their so called beliefs are. It is well documented that Stalin killed more people during his rule than the Nazis. Now his rule did last a little bit longer than Hitlers, but nevertheless he still killed more. To deny that it happened is no different than denying that the holocaust happened (which some people do). So if that's your idea of successful revolution, than I hope it never comes. Millions of innocent people have been murdered by dictators like Mao and Stalin. How can you call that successful. Like I said, if a revolution uses the same methods of defeating it's opposition as its enemy uses, than in the end it is no better than the system it overthrew. One of the worst things about capitalism today, is the way it removes opposition. Thousands upon thousands of innocent people are killed in the process. If you model yourself after that in order to defeat it, than what's the point of trying to get rid of it, since you're doing the same thing anyway? As far as spreading communism all over the world, like you were talking about, I do not support violence, especialy not in the form that the Soviet Union chose. The invasions of countries like Afhganistan, resulted in thousands of innocent people dying. Is that a good way to spread communism, or any other form of government? The invasion of Afhganistan was no different than the invasion of Vietnam. If you think that communist countries so called "socialistic transition" have worked perfectly, than you either need to study your history better, or you need to find a different forum, where people are not worried about true justice or freedom, cause the transitions you're referring to, have all resulted in terror and chaos, not peace or justice. Stalin certainly did sweep away opposition, not to the workers, but to himself. The workers were among his saddest and most persecuted victims. The people of Russia were oppressed far worse under his rule, than the people of the United States are today. There is no denying it, they suffered terribly under his rule. If you don't thnk so, do the research.

I believe that by creating a strong union, the workers can organize themselves and if they want, they can lead a strike so powerful, and so large scale, that the economy will fall apart, thus opening the path to overthrowing the government and creating a model and base for other people to do the same thing in other countries. Violence would not be needed, at least not for the general strike. If every one refuses to buy from or work for any unjust corporations, than the economy will have to collapse. Once that happens the government will follow suit, although they will try to crush the strikers by using brutality and violence. But if the people refuse to submit to their authority, than even the most harsh forms of violence will be powerless to suppress them. In fact violence from the revolutionaries would weaken the movement, as more people would be attracted by nonviolence, and the governments would be more willing to surrender if they knew they wouldn't be hurt physically by the revolutionaries. It does not neccessarily have to be worldwide, as long as it succedes without causing any large amount of damage. Some countries would be better to leave alone, like Sweden or Norway, since they would probably not mess with the strikers, and might even copy their system when it is over, if it works good. The best way to get the union going is by combining action and information, providing examples with your own actions, as well as others, and bringing to light the problems with capitalism. There would have to be some form of leadership, as I have already said, but the leaders could not have the right to force anyone to do anything, or what would be the point? Instead they would simply give advise, provide examples, and use their influence, to get the people to take major action. It would be best not to centralize this leadership, or to leave it in the hands of a few. It would be much safer to have many leaders in many places, who could continue the struggle if any of them are killed. It would also create better planning, because it would allow for more people to give their advise, therefore increasing the chances of the people taking the best possible course, that way success will be more likely. Does all of this make sense to you? Do you think this idea could work?

: Dataika Jan 23 2004, 10:54 AM

QUOTE (defiance @ Jan 23 2004, 04:55 AM)
I'll agree on your last point, but not completly. We are both on the same side, however my goal is not only to get rid of the capitalist scum, it is to get rid of ANY scum, no matter what their so called beliefs are. It is well documented that Stalin killed more people during his rule than the Nazis. Now his rule did last a little bit longer than Hitlers, but nevertheless he still killed more. To deny that it happened is no different than denying that the holocaust happened (which some people do). So if that's your idea of successful revolution, than I hope it never comes. Millions of innocent people have been murdered by dictators like Mao and Stalin. How can you call that successful. Like I said, if a revolution uses the same methods of defeating it's opposition as its enemy uses, than in the end it is no better than the system it overthrew. One of the worst things about capitalism today, is the way it removes opposition. Thousands upon thousands of innocent people are killed in the process. If you model yourself after that in order to defeat it, than what's the point of trying to get rid of it, since you're doing the same thing anyway? As far as spreading communism all over the world, like you were talking about, I do not support violence, especialy not in the form that the Soviet Union chose. The invasions of countries like Afhganistan, resulted in thousands of innocent people dying. Is that a good way to spread communism, or any other form of government? The invasion of Afhganistan was no different than the invasion of Vietnam. If you think that communist countries so called "socialistic transition" have worked perfectly, than you either need to study your history better, or you need to find a different forum, where people are not worried about true justice or freedom, cause the transitions you're referring to, have all resulted in terror and chaos, not peace or justice. Stalin certainly did sweep away opposition, not to the workers, but to himself. The workers were among his saddest and most persecuted victims. The people of Russia were oppressed far worse under his rule, than the people of the United States are today. There is no denying it, they suffered terribly under his rule. If you don't thnk so, do the research.

I believe that by creating a strong union, the workers can organize themselves and if they want, they can lead a strike so powerful, and so large scale, that the economy will fall apart, thus opening the path to overthrowing the government and creating a model and base for other people to do the same thing in other countries. Violence would not be needed, at least not for the general strike. If every one refuses to buy from or work for any unjust corporations, than the economy will have to collapse. Once that happens the government will follow suit, although they will try to crush the strikers by using brutality and violence. But if the people refuse to submit to their authority, than even the most harsh forms of violence will be powerless to suppress them. In fact violence from the revolutionaries would weaken the movement, as more people would be attracted by nonviolence, and the governments would be more willing to surrender if they knew they wouldn't be hurt physically by the revolutionaries. It does not neccessarily have to be worldwide, as long as it succedes without causing any large amount of damage. Some countries would be better to leave alone, like Sweden or Norway, since they would probably not mess with the strikers, and might even copy their system when it is over, if it works good. The best way to get the union going is by combining action and information, providing examples with your own actions, as well as others, and bringing to light the problems with capitalism. There would have to be some form of leadership, as I have already said, but the leaders could not have the right to force anyone to do anything, or what would be the point? Instead they would simply give advise, provide examples, and use their influence, to get the people to take major action. It would be best not to centralize this leadership, or to leave it in the hands of a few. It would be much safer to have many leaders in many places, who could continue the struggle if any of them are killed. It would also create better planning, because it would allow for more people to give their advise, therefore increasing the chances of the people taking the best possible course, that way success will be more likely. Does all of this make sense to you? Do you think this idea could work?

It is well documented that Stalin killed more people during his rule than the Nazis. Now his rule did last a little bit longer than Hitlers, but nevertheless he still killed more. To deny that it happened is no different than denying that the holocaust happened (which some people do).

Comrade, there is a difference between me and the holocaust deniers. The Holocaust has FACTUAL information behind it. There are photographical pieces of evidence, documentary films, gas chambers discovered, mass graves, etc.. What there has NOT been discovered are all the "victims" and "innocent" people of the USSR. So please, provide FACTUAL information about the "millions" of "innocent" people that died at the hands of the USSR (not Stalin himself, because HE himself, was NOT a dictator. The PARTY ran the USSR).

So if that's your idea of successful revolution, than I hope it never comes. Millions of innocent people have been murdered by dictators like Mao and Stalin. How can you call that successful.

Comrade, prove how these millions of people were "innocent" and then prove how you come up with the number of "millions" to begin with.

Like I said, if a revolution uses the same methods of defeating it's opposition as its enemy uses, than in the end it is no better than the system it overthrew. One of the worst things about capitalism today, is the way it removes opposition. Thousands upon thousands of innocent people are killed in the process. If you model yourself after that in order to defeat it, than what's the point of trying to get rid of it, since you're doing the same thing anyway?

Comrade, sweeping away opposition is the name of the game in REVOLUTION. It is obviously necessary and even MOST ANARCHISTS would agree it should happen.

But again, prove that these people were innocent and that Stalin and Mao killed them without trial. If you betray the revolution and help bourgeois imperialists or nazis, you deserve to die. Plain and simple.

As far as spreading communism all over the world, like you were talking about, I do not support violence, especialy not in the form that the Soviet Union chose.

You are not understanding the theory. They weren't trying to extend COMMUNISM all over the world, they were trying to START socialistic TRANSITION in one country and then offer help to OTHER COUNTRIES that wanted to take the same direction. If you think helping the workers get rid of their bourgeois oppressors is a bad thing, Comrade, then you and I are on opposite sides of the spectrum. You are not a fighter for worker independence and freedom, you are one for their submission, and if that's the case, I don't care to discuss anything further with you.

The invasions of countries like Afhganistan, resulted in thousands of innocent people dying. Is that a good way to spread communism, or any other form of government? The invasion of Afhganistan was no different than the invasion of Vietnam.

Comrade, the invasion of Afghanistan was not until after Stalin died. Khruschev and Brezhnev (and everyone after them, for that matter) were revisionists, so NO, I don't agree with that invasion either.

If you think that communist countries so called "socialistic transition" have worked perfectly, than you either need to study your history better, or you need to find a different forum, where people are not worried about true justice or freedom, cause the transitions you're referring to, have all resulted in terror and chaos, not peace or justice.

I never said they worked perfectly, comrade, stop putting words in my post. But at least they have taken their first step in revolution unlike your petty anarchistic ideals.

Furthermore, prove how Stalin's USSR or Mao's China ended up in "terror and chaos, not peace or justice." You have failed to do so, up until this point.

Cuba is a country in "socialistic" transition, are you saying it's resulted in terror and chaos? Comrade, you are betraying the revolution if you advocate such a thing.

Stalin certainly did sweep away opposition, not to the workers, but to himself. The workers were among his saddest and most persecuted victims.

Another baseless statement, why am I NOT suprised? The party swept away opposition to itself because it was what the workers wanted. The party worked in direct relation to the workers, thus, any attempt to overthrow a workers revolutionary party (such as the Bolsheviks) deserved to be eliminated because they were overthrowing the revolution.

The people of Russia were oppressed far worse under his rule, than the people of the United States are today. There is no denying it, they suffered terribly under his rule. If you don't thnk so, do the research.

I have comrade and all they do is rely on ficticiuos "estimates" given by Robert Conquest (a man who was PAID to LIE about Stalin and Mao and other communist revolutions) or Hitler himself.

I believe that by creating a strong union, the workers can organize themselves and if they want, they can lead a strike so powerful, and so large scale, that the economy will fall apart, thus opening the path to overthrowing the government and creating a model and base for other people to do the same thing in other countries.

Comrade, you still haven't shown how you plan to get such a large scale strike. If something like this manages to happen, you will have my support.

Violence would not be needed, at least not for the general strike. If every one refuses to buy from or work for any unjust corporations, than the economy will have to collapse.

Certainly violence would be needed eventually, as the capitalists will not sit idly by and watch their fortunes be ruined.

Once that happens the government will follow suit, although they will try to crush the strikers by using brutality and violence. But if the people refuse to submit to their authority, than even the most harsh forms of violence will be powerless to suppress them.

So you propose standing there being beaten to death to try and send a "message" that you are peaceful and you want an end to classes? How will that work, Comrade? If anything, the capitalists will crush you and LIE on their media outlets about the evils they have rid the world of and it would all be for nothing.

In fact violence from the revolutionaries would weaken the movement, as more people would be attracted by nonviolence, and the governments would be more willing to surrender if they knew they wouldn't be hurt physically by the revolutionaries.

I'll tell Makhno that he hurt "your" movement, and Che Guevara that he hurt the revolution. What a bunch of petty bourgeois nonsense. "Let's stand here and get slaughtered and watch our revolution die so that we can help send the message that we were non-violent."

Now I'm not saying that non-violence is never an option, but suggesting it's the ONLY OPTION is absurd. Your "revolution" will die quickly. Otherwise, all the anarchistic revolutionaries who used strictly peaceful means would have brought on arevolution. Nothing of this sort has even began to take place, why should I believe that it will happen now? If you could do it, I will support it, but it doesn't seem feasible. Especially considering the firepower that the USA and other capitalist nations possess, they could easily eliminate you.

The best way to get the union going is by combining action and information, providing examples with your own actions, as well as others, and bringing to light the problems with capitalism. There would have to be some form of leadership, as I have already said, but the leaders could not have the right to force anyone to do anything, or what would be the point? Instead they would simply give advise, provide examples, and use their influence, to get the people to take major action.

So you think that by acting in an "anarchistic" manner, that people will EVENTUALLY follow? If that's not hopeless, utopian, idealism, Comrade, I don't know what is.

SO if the people decide not to listen to some leaders and listen to others they will be divided, undisciplined and unorderly. That's a RECIPE for defeat in battle, Comrade.

It would be best not to centralize this leadership, or to leave it in the hands of a few. It would be much safer to have many leaders in many places, who could continue the struggle if any of them are killed.

This is assuming, of course, that the world is perfect (utopian) and that leaders will have the same reasons for leading certain things. Your revolution will die quickly because they'll be so divided, they wont be able to agree on some issues.

Does all of this make sense to you? Do you think this idea could work?

The answer to the first question is the idea makes "sense" to me, but I think it's overall, utopian individualistic idealism. It sounds to me like you are putting too much faith in some "awakening" of the workers through unions and such, and hoping that leaders will "mutually agree" on certain things and will give up certain positions. I don't think this will happen, and it will only lead to division among the proletariat. The division will surely, weaken your revolution and you wont get very far. You also seem to be a pacifist, which I consider to be bourgeoisie in nature.

: defiance Jan 23 2004, 04:18 PM

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/Experimental/soviet.exhibit/entrance.html#tour

This is full of letters and documents, written by the people of the Soviet Union and by the leaders of the soviet government, proving many atrocities occured, not just from Stalin (although he's the worst one), but from Lenin as well. In particular read the sections on forced deportations to labor camps, before and after world war two.

I would also like to point out that even if those particular atrocities didn't happen (and they did, for a FACT), there were also many other problems, like not allowing freedom of speech, or freedom of religion. These are all things we should strive for, not eliminate.

: defiance Jan 23 2004, 06:44 PM

"If you betray the revolution and help bourgeois imperialists or nazis, you deserve to die.""You also seem to be a pacifist, which I consider to be bourgeoisie in nature." Another words I'm headed for the gas chamber (half kidding, half serious).Those are perfect examoles of the kind of paranoia that Stalin had. That's the way he though too, and it resulted in thousands of deaths. I guess you would say that the entire population was against the revolution, therefore they all deserved to die. Hopefuly that information I've just presented to you will humble your attitude a little bit.

"The invasion of Afghanistan was not until after Stalin died. Khruschev and Brezhnev (and everyone after them, for that matter) were revisionists, so NO, I don't agree with that invasion." But if Stalin had done it you would have supported him right? After all he certainly wasn't revisionist, he was far more aggressive toward capitalism than cowards and traitors like that wimp Gorbachev, right? If the Soviet Union was so good, than why did most it's population want it either to seriously change it's attitude, or disband?

"I never said they worked perfectly, comrade, stop putting words in my post." Sorry about that, I read that part a little too fast.

"Comrade, you still haven't shown how you plan to get such a large scale strike. If something like this manages to happen, you will have my support." I have given you a plan, you just haven't bothered to listen. And anyway what's your plan, buy a gun and personally take out the entire US government? Either way it will require the support off the population, cause the fact is, that's the only weopon we really have. Even if we could win without their support, what good would it be, as the people would not be supporting your government, and you would therefore be in the same situation as the people you overthrew?

"So you propose standing there being beaten to death to try and send a "message" that you are peaceful and you want an end to classes? How will that work, Comrade? If anything, the capitalists will crush you and LIE on their media outlets about the evils they have rid the world of and it would all be for nothing.""Now I'm not saying that non-violence is never an option, but suggesting it's the ONLY OPTION is absurd. Your "revolution" will die quickly. Otherwise, all the anarchistic revolutionaries who used strictly peaceful means would have brought on arevolution. Nothing of this sort has even began to take place, why should I believe that it will happen now? If you could do it, I will support it, but it doesn't seem feasible. Especially considering the firepower that the USA and other capitalist nations possess, they could easily eliminate you." Actually nonviolence has been tried before, haven't you ever heard of that little guy named Martin Luther King, or that other guy named Gandhi. In case you haven't, here's some more history for you. Both of those men were completly nonviolent, and both of them suffered police brutality, but in the end both men achieved their goals. Many people said they were dreaming, that nonviolence would never bring any real victory to their cause, only violence and retaliation could. But in the end violence failed for both causes and nonviolence worked. Unfortunately Gandhi's successors did not hold the same beliefs that he had, so today India is in just as much trouble as it was back then. As for the last part of that statement, that is exactly why violence won't work. There is no way you are ever going to beat the US government through force of arms. Their numbers and firepower are far too great for anyone to beat, especialy a little band of untrained and poorly armed rebels in the US homeland itself. On the other hand, nonviolence doesn't depend on success in battle. It doesn't stop working if it loses once in battle. Sure there's ways of getting around direct defeat, like guerrilla warfare, but do you honestly think that it could work against a country like the United States? Russia and China were both rotting from the inside and had lost most of their power outside. The United States is still as strong as ever though, and you will never be able to conquer its miliary, especialy not without the support of other nations, and I mean strong nations, which would completly betray everything you claim to believe. And you want to take out the entire world too, all in one go.

"It sounds to me like you are putting too much faith in some "awakening" of the workers through unions and such, and hoping that leaders will "mutually agree" on certain things and will give up certain positions. I don't think this will happen, and it will only lead to division among the proletariat." Well I suppose if everyone wants a pure dictator, who may very well betray their beliefs and force them into another revolution (like Staln did, and like what happened in the French Revolution), than we will try your idea. But since most people like to have at least a little bit of freedom, I think my idea is better. What about everyone else on this forum, what are your thoughts on this issue?

: Dataika Jan 24 2004, 10:33 AM

QUOTE (defiance @ Jan 24 2004, 12:18 AM)
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/Experimental/soviet.exhibit/entrance.html#tour

This is full of letters and documents, written by the people of the Soviet Union and by the leaders of the soviet government, proving many atrocities occured, not just from Stalin (although he's the worst one), but from Lenin as well. In particular read the sections on forced deportations to labor camps, before and after world war two.

I would also like to point out that even if those particular atrocities didn't happen (and they did, for a FACT), there were also many other problems, like not allowing freedom of speech, or freedom of religion. These are all things we should strive for, not eliminate.

This is full of letters and documents, written by the people of the Soviet Union and by the leaders of the soviet government, proving many atrocities occured, not just from Stalin (although he's the worst one), but from Lenin as well. In particular read the sections on forced deportations to labor camps, before and after world war two.

You are acting as if I should trust such a bias imperialist source. The two links you gave only gave VAGUE information about "the archives show this" without proving it. So please, just the FACTS.

By the way, do you think I'm saying that there were no labor camps? Do you think I'm saying that no one died? Comrade, no, all I'm saying is that these people weren't all INNOCENT and there weren't millions of them. So please, provide facts instead of opinions. You'll get your point across a lot better.

I would also like to point out that even if those particular atrocities didn't happen (and they did, for a FACT), there were also many other problems, like not allowing freedom of speech, or freedom of religion. These are all things we should strive for, not eliminate.

Comrade, what do you mean no freedom of religion? If by that you mean allowing the Russian Orthodox Church to live long, then that certainly did happen. Freedom of speech? Why should we allow those who would not give proletarian workers this freedom to have this freedom, Comrade?

Quit listening to fox news and George W. Bush when it comes to Stalin and the USSR.

: Dataika Jan 24 2004, 10:51 AM

Another words I'm headed for the gas chamber (half kidding, half serious).Those are perfect examoles of the kind of paranoia that Stalin had. That's the way he though too, and it resulted in thousands of deaths. I guess you would say that the entire population was against the revolution, therefore they all deserved to die. Hopefuly that information I've just presented to you will humble your attitude a little bit.

Comrade, I didn't say you are bourgeoisie, nor that you're helping imperialists destroy the revolution. If you were, then yes you would be imprisoned and held with trial, like all the people were.

But if Stalin had done it you would have supported him right? After all he certainly wasn't revisionist, he was far more aggressive toward capitalism than cowards and traitors like that wimp Gorbachev, right? If the Soviet Union was so good, than why did most it's population want it either to seriously change it's attitude, or disband?

Comrade, you are obviously mistaken. Most of the Soviet Citizens cried when Comrade Stalin died. Some even died, JUST to get a glimpse of his body. Stalin was loved by his people, if not all, by most. If Stalin had invaded Afghanistan, I would be against it. I don't think Stalin is a God, or perfect or anything of the sort. He made mistakes. What I DO say is that Stalin put a system into practice that RIVALED the Capitalist nations of the west. For this, he should be respected.

I have given you a plan, you just haven't bothered to listen. And anyway what's your plan, buy a gun and personally take out the entire US government? Either way it will require the support off the population, cause the fact is, that's the only weopon we really have.

Yes, but I see things differently comrade. I see the way to do this is to get the population to realize itself through party politics. Through a party, and organization, information can be distributed plainly and the workers can realise their torturous conditions. After this is done, we can put together an army with discipline and order, and overthrow the current system, Comrade. And after this country is overthrown, maintaining social order in the country to create a haven for socialism and freedom of the proletariat. Protecting the nation and the revolution at all costs. Then, spreading it throughout the world. This is far better than your anarchistic view of "letting all the workers of 90% of the world awake to their understandings and hoping they rebel without any form of heirarchy and order, and in the process take out capitalist nations with vastly surperior technology!"

Actually nonviolence has been tried before, haven't you ever heard of that little guy named Martin Luther King, or that other guy named Gandhi.

Comrade, there are still Racial inequalities in the United States and India (and Ghandi for that matter) has one of the worse class systems ever. Did MLK Jr. accomplish things? Yes, of course, that Comrade was a great man. If he would have joined forces with Malcolm X, however, they could have brought the entire white establishment to its knees.

As for your notions of defeating the US. That's why I wouldn't start my revolution here. I'd start it somewhere else where the masses would be behind me. I'm a fan of Che Guevara's guerilla tactics.

Well I suppose if everyone wants a pure dictator, who may very well betray their beliefs and force them into another revolution (like Staln did, and like what happened in the French Revolution), than we will try your idea.

Comrade, you have yet to prove that Stalin was a "pure dictator" or that he betrayed their beliefs.

But since most people like to have at least a little bit of freedom, I think my idea is better.

And I think the workers should have the freedom. But in order to achieve this freedom, socialistic states must be present and sweep away opposition for the proletariat to achieve what is rightfully theirs.

In short Comrade, I encourage you to do a little studying about the Stalinist era in Soviet History from rather different sources. Try Ludo Martens book: http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

I will do the same for your beliefs, Comrade.

: defiance Jan 25 2004, 03:57 PM

"Comrade, I didn't say you are bourgeoisie, nor that you're helping imperialists destroy the revolution. If you were, then yes you would be imprisoned and held with trial, like all the people were"

You didn't get my point. You accused my beliefs of being helpful to the burgeoisie, then said that anyone helping the burgeois deserve to die. I was pointing out that that kind of thinking can be very dangerous unless it is used very carefully. Just watch the way you phrase things, or you can easily decieve people into thinking you're some kind of paranoid freak.

"Comrade, you are obviously mistaken. Most of the Soviet Citizens cried when Comrade Stalin died. Some even died, JUST to get a glimpse of his body. Stalin was loved by his people, if not all, by most. If Stalin had invaded Afghanistan, I would be against it. I don't think Stalin is a God, or perfect or anything of the sort. He made mistakes. What I DO say is that Stalin put a system into practice that RIVALED the Capitalist nations of the west. For this, he should be respected."

Most of americans cried out when Franklin Roosevelt died, yet I seriously doubt that you would spare our culture for his sake, or his life. Roosevelt was very down on communism, but he had certain very good character traits that can not be denied. And who cares if he rivalled capitalism, what is so great about that. Hitler rivalled it too, do you respect him for that? Why would you want to rival its industrial power (which is exactly what they did)? Sure he rivalled them in power, but does that make him good? Soviet industry was enormous, which was one of the problems in my opinion. Mines and factories were extensivly used by Soviet Russia, and because of this you respect them. But we hate when capitalism uses these things. The problem is not just the method of controlling industry, it's the industry itself. Why do you think they kill so many people in Latin America, or Africa? They kill them because they won't work. They won't work because they hate the work they have to do. The Soviet Union didn't seem to get that, that's why they had so many problems. And to say that without that we would lose is beside the point. The point is that it's wrong and it should not be copied for any reason. If we can't beat the capitalists without using their methods, then what is point of beating them at all?

"Yes, but I see things differently comrade. I see the way to do this is to get the population to realize itself through party politics. Through a party, and organization, information can be distributed plainly and the workers can realise their torturous conditions. After this is done, we can put together an army with discipline and order, and overthrow the current system, Comrade. And after this country is overthrown, maintaining social order in the country to create a haven for socialism and freedom of the proletariat. Protecting the nation and the revolution at all costs. Then, spreading it throughout the world. This is far better than your anarchistic view of "letting all the workers of 90% of the world awake to their understandings and hoping they rebel without any form of heirarchy and order, and in the process take out capitalist nations with vastly surperior technology!""

Your depiction of my dream is grossly inaccurate. I have already told you that there does need to be some kind of leadership, or the revolution will never take place. However, there doesn't need to be any kind of authority, and you have already admitted that there is a difference. I also believe that violence is pointless and hopeless, since you can never hope to beat the United States military in combat. Their technology is, as you yourself admit, far too powerful.

"Comrade, there are still Racial inequalities in the United States and India (and Ghandi for that matter) has one of the worse class systems ever. Did MLK Jr. accomplish things? Yes, of course, that Comrade was a great man. If he would have joined forces with Malcolm X, however, they could have brought the entire white establishment to its knees.
As for your notions of defeating the US. That's why I wouldn't start my revolution here. I'd start it somewhere else where the masses would be behind me. I'm a fan of Che Guevara's guerilla tactics"

Please explain how Malcome X and Martin Luther King could've gotten anywhere if they had combined their methods. As far as I can tell, all that would've happened would be that the nonviolent protesters would have suffered even greater retaliation, and their peaceful attitude would not have been taken seriously. Their methods completly contradicted each others. Malcome X favored violent rebellion against the system, while King favored peaceful resistence, refusing to strike back and cause more hatred between whites and blacks, but also refusing to submit to the authorities, even if it meant brutal punishment. Violence will only cause even more hatred and violence, but nonviolence will inspire more people to join the cause and follow the movement, and it will inspire a more like minded attitude from the authorities. The reason there are still racial inequalities is because after King died, people started to back down and eventually the whole movement came to a stop, and because alot of people stopped at civil rights, but didn't bother to continue the struggle against racism once those laws had been enacted. As was already pointed out earlier on this debate and on the Kashmir discussion, India is failing because the government was unable to keep its own peace once Gandhi was killed. Pakistan had already split with them, and several wars were fought between the two nations. Unfortunatly the life and death of Gandhi taught them nothing, and today the governments of India and Pakistan continue to fight against each other and with themselves. If only more people in those countries thought and lived like Gandhi did, then the situation there would be alot better.

People have been trying your method for decades without any lasting success, except for Cuba. I have no problem with revolutions like that of Salvador Allende in Chile, but I would not depend on them. Allende was easily crushed, and hardly anyone in this country knows anything about it. By confining it to the third world you are allowing the capitalists to keep it queit to the public, therefore allowing them to mantain their power without any considerable cost. The violence that you depend on will just bring more repression, and since it's confined to those other countries, the US military will have an even easier job of crushing the resistance. The movement has to be brought home, or else the United States will have no problem crushing it.

"And I think the workers should have the freedom. But in order to achieve this freedom, socialistic states must be present and sweep away opposition for the proletariat to achieve what is rightfully theirs."

Like the Soviet Union right? And they succeded right? Read your history better, then maybe you'll be more "realistic" about this subject.

"Quit listening to fox news and George W. Bush when it comes to Stalin and the USSR"

I don't even have TV, how can I watch Fox news. And I new about Stalin long before Bush was elected president.

: defiance Jan 25 2004, 04:21 PM

This is a letter written during the industrial collectivization programs, it was found among the labor archives of the Soviet government. For practical purposes, the translators chose to edit any mistakes made in the spelling. You can also read more information on the link I gave a few posts back.

"To the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolshevik)
We appeal to you, asking you to pay a minimum of attention to our request.

We are prisoners who are returning from the Solovetsky concentration camp because of our poor health. We went there full of energy and good health, and now we are returning as invalids, broken and crippled emotionally and physically. We are asking you to draw your attention to the arbitrary use of power and the violence that reign at the Solovetsky concentration camp in Kemi and in all sections of the concentration camp. It is difficult for a human being even to imagine such terror, tyranny, violence, and lawlessness. When we went there, we could not conceive of such a horror, and now we, crippled ourselves, together with several thousands who are still there, appeal to the ruling center of the Soviet state to curb the terror that reigns there. As though it weren't enough that the Unified State Political Directorate [OGPU] without oversight and due process sends workers and peasants there who are by and large innocent (we are not talking about criminals who deserve to be punished), the former tsarist penal servitude system in comparison to Solovky had 99% more humanity, fairness, and legality. [...]

People die like flies, i.e., they die a slow and painful death; we repeat that all this torment and suffering is placed only on the shoulders of the proletariat without money, i.e., on workers who, we repeat, were unfortunate to find themselves in the period of hunger and destruction accompanying the events of the October Revolution, and who committed crimes only to save themselves and their families from death by starvation; they have already borne the punishment for these crimes, and the vast majority of them subsequently chose the path of honest labor. Now because of their past, for whose crime they have already paid, they are fired from their jobs. Yet, the main thing is that the entire weight of this scandalous abuse of power, brute violence, and lawlessness that reign at Solovky and other sections of the OGPU concentration camp is placed on the shoulders of workers and peasants; others, such as counterrevolutionaries, profiteers and so on, have full wallets and have set themselves up and live in clover in the Soviet State, while next to them, in the literal meaning of the word, the penniless proletariat dies from hunger, cold, and back- breaking 14-16 hour days under the tyranny and lawlessness of inmates who are the agents and collaborators of the State Political Directorate [GPU].

If you complain or write anything ("Heaven forbid"), they will frame you for an attempted escape or for something else, and they will shoot you like a dog. They line us up naked and barefoot at 22 degrees below zero and keep us outside for up to an hour. It is difficult to describe all the chaos and terror that is going on in Kemi, Solovky, and the other sections of the concentrations camp. All annual inspections uncover a lot of abuses. But what they discover in comparison to what actually exists is only a part of the horror and abuse of power, which the inspection accidently uncovers. (One example is the following fact, one of a thousand, which is registered in GPU and for which the guilty have been punished: THEY FORCED THE INMATES TO EAT THEIR OWN FECES. "Comrades," if we dare to use this phrase, verify that this is a fact from reality, about which, we repeat, OGPU has the official evidence, and judge for yourself the full extent of effrontery and humiliation in the supervision by those who want to make a career for themselves. [...]

We are sure and we hope that in the All-Union Communist Party there are people, as we have been told, who are humane and sympathetic; it is possible, that you might think that it is our imagination, but we swear to you all, by everything that is sacred to us, that this is only one small part of the nightmarish truth, because it makes no sense to make this up. We repeat, and will repeat 100 times, that yes, indeed there are some guilty people, but the majority suffer innocently, as is described above. The word law, according to the law of the GPU concentration camps, does not exist; what does exist is only the autocratic power of petty tyrants, i.e., collaborators, serving time, who have power over life and death. Everything described above is the truth and we, ourselves, who are close to the grave after 3 years in Solovky and Kemi and other sections, are asking you to improve the pathetic, tortured existence of those who are there who languish under the yoke of the OGPU's tyranny, violence, and complete lawlessness....

To this we subscribe: G. Zheleznov, Vinogradov, F. Belinskii.

Dec. 14, 1926

True copy"

This is another letter written by someone who worked in the Soviet medical inspection during the collectivization program, it was sent to a friend of Stalins.

"Dear Sergo [Ordzhonikidze],
I'm writing you from Novosibirsk. I have driven around several collective farms [kolkhozes] and consider it necessary to inform you about a few items. I was in various kolkhozes--not productive and relatively unproductive ones, but everywhere there was only one sight--that of a huge shortage of seed, famine, and extreme emaciation of livestock.

In the kolkhozes which I observed I attempted to learn how much the livestock had diminished in comparison with the years 1927-28. It turns out that kolkhoz Ziuzia has 507 milch cows at present while there were 2000 in '28; kolkhoz Ust'-Tandovskii collectively and individually has 203 head, earlier they had more than 600; kolkhoz Kruglo-Ozernyi at present has 418 head of beef cattle and 50 held by kolkhozniks, in 1928 there were 1800 head; kolkhoz Goldoba collectively and individually has 275 head, in 1929 there were 1000 plus head, this kolkhoz now has 350 sheep, in 1929 there were 1500. Approximately the same correlations were found also in the kolkhozes Ol'gino and Novo-Spasski.

The raion which I visited (Barabinskii) is known for its butter export, but even in the other raions of Western Siberia the decline of livestock farming during this period is not much smaller.

These are facts that I myself checked, and on this basis I think that the data in the general census recently carried out by Gosplan significantly embellish the real picture.

The situation of the kolkhoz livestock farms is a bad one, primarily because of lack of feed. Milk production has reached extremely low levels of 1, 2 or 3 liters per day instead of the 5-7 liters normal for this region in a high-yield year [crossed out: "as noted by kolkhozniks and individual farmers"]. The poor condition of the livestock cannot be blamed on poor care or poor labor organization since in most of the kolkhozes I visited, the situation in terms of care and labor organization, relatively speaking, is not bad (although it could be much better), but in any case it is im- measurably better than in the butter-producing state farms [sovkhozes] of the raion, which I also visited.

And so, undoubtedly, if the collectivized livestock is sufficiently fed every year, we can increase greatly the yield of commodity production, but this still does not remedy the situation, in that the sovkhozes and kolkhozes will not be able to meet the needs of the country for meat and butter in the next 2-3 years, and I think it is now necessary, when the socialistic sector of the villages has been strengthened, to speed up the growth of livestock farming in the private households of the kolkhozniks and individual farmers. The resolution of the Central Committee forbidding collectivization of the last cow is somewhat of a plus in this regard, but this is not the main issue. The main issue is the fact that almost all of the kolkhoznik's livestock is contracted and removed. This livestock consists of the last cows and last sheep. In addition, when this livestock is contracted, the kolkhoznik and individual farmer slaughter off the rest. As a result, in the villages where I have observed this situation, not more than 20-30% of the kolkhozniks have one cow each and a few sheep, but as a rule, the kolkhoznik and individual farmer not only do not raise livestock, but they try to get rid of or slaughter those they do own.

If this situation continues, then in my opinion, next year the shortage of meat, leather, and fats will be greater than this year.

The regional [Party] workers firmly believe that the sovkhozes and the com-modity farms of the kolkhozes will be able to supply the nation already this year with the necessary production and express the idea that private ownership of livestock by the kolkhozniks should cease.

I think we should undertake all measures to increase private ownership of livestock by the kolkhoznik or else there is no way out of the present periodic shortage of products.

The second item concerns the sowing campaign. The situation is such that there is not enough seed in the kolkhozes. There is no way that we will be able to fulfill the plan for grain production, and the shortfall in the krai will probably be 15-20 percent. Besides this, horses are quite emaciated, a significant number of them have already died, and in addition, the people do not have provisions. And so the spring planting will occur in exceptionally tight circumstances, but I figure that with the right or-ganization of seed distribution within the krai and among the kolkhozes we can achieve such a level that the gross yield in 1932 will rise above not only the gross yield of last year, but even that of the high-yield year of 1930.

How can we accomplish this? Here is the situation: all kolkhozes have been given a plan for sowing. [crossed out: Some areas were given state subsidies in order to carry out this plan. As a result] some kolkhozes have enough or nearly enough seed (including the state subsidy), but other kolkhozes have barely any seed. Since the planting will be carried out according to plan, one group of kolkhozes will sow all fields, but another group with less seed will be faced with a large underfulfillment of the sowing plan. How does this relate to crop capacity? The point is that in these circumstances fields which may yield an extremely insignificant harvest will be sown in the first group of kolkhozes; that is, not only the fallow and autumn fields will be sown, but if the plan is followed blindly even the salt-marshes, on which absolutely nothing grows, will be sown (as was done last year); whereas fallow and autumn fields in the second group of kolkhozes which that readied last year and have proven to be productive will remain unsown.

In order to prevent this situation it is necessary to change the existing plan, but no one wants to do this, even though they understand perfectly well that it is imperative to review the plan. The situation I discovered in the kolkhozes that I observed last year was that at least 30% of all the sown fields were sown by the kolkhozes at too late a date, merely to carry out the sowing plan (this is one of the reasons for the crop failure); on the other hand, fields known to produce a less than decent harvest were sown, also merely to carry out the plan. This year the same episode will be repeated if instructions on behalf of the Central Committee are not be issued accordingly--in a time of acute seed deficiency a significant amount of seed will be wasted on worthless land, the sowing will occur at a time when the land is already drying out, that is, when it is too late to sow, but the fallow and autumn fields of the second group of kolkhozes will remain underutilized. These conditions guarantee a meager harvest, and in some places complete crop failure, only because a plan was given based on a forecast of spring planting, consisting of as many favorable qualifying indicators as possible, not considering that the fall harvest will result in extremely unfavorable qualitative results.

And so I come to my second conclusion--that the Central Committee give the order to all regional organizations (as soon as possible, there is little time left before the spring planting) depending on the conditions of each raion and kolkhoz, that the plan be changed in such a way as to produce the best qualitative results. For this it is imperative to conduct a review from the standpoint of 1) sowing all prepared fields (fallow and autumn fields) without exception; 2) redistribution of seed among the kolkhozes in the time remaining before the planting date so that the planting be completed within 15 days, and under no circumstances more than 17 days; 3) and finally, that the improvement of fallow land be stipulated for 1933.

In fulfilling these conditions, given average or especially favorable climatic conditions, the gross yield, and consequently, even the commodity output of bread may yield not less but even more than in 1930, even if the sown area declines. But in addition, I believe that in reality the sown area will not decline because last year and the year before all agricultural agencies and Party organizations pushed madly for quantitative indicators, the planting season was extremely lengthy, they sowed worthless land and, as a rule, only lands that were suitable and were sown at the correct time were productive. If in following this course (to conceal the actual nature of things with quantitative indicators) we immediately start and propose to review the plan from the standpoint of achieving the best qualitative indicators [crossed out: results] (taking into account the seed shortage), then we can reach the necessary results.

Third issue--the peasant's attitude. Their attitude is utterly bad in light of the famine and the fact that they are losing their last cows through contracting--as a result the kolkhoznik has neither bread nor milk. I saw all this with my own eyes and am not exaggerating. People are starving, living on food substitutes, they grow weaker, and naturally, under such circumstances, their mood is hostile. I have not seen such an attitude as is now found in the villages, due to famine and the loss of the last cows and sheep through contrac-ting, in a long time. I will inform you of the facts that substantiate this when we meet. Upon arriving in Moscow, I will try to see Stalin and inform him, or if he cannot spare the time, I will write him a letter.

It seems that you told me in 1926-27 (in Morozovka), when the opposition was making quite furious attacks on the Central Committee that Stalin sees farther than the rest of you. This is undoubtedly so and was substantiated during the period from 1923 on and especially since the establishment of the five-year plan. But in order for him to see beyond everyone, one must, with absolute objectivity, relate to him those facts which are based on reality. I will attempt to do this upon my arrival in Moscow, and I will tell him what I have seen with my own eyes. Maybe I am drawing incorrect conclusions, but I acquainted myself thoroughly with the factual situation and it seems to me that it is utterly imperative that Stalin take up this matter. This sounds like those arguments the German Social Democrats made in Marx's lifetime, saying, "I know the factual situation, but let "papa" Marx draw the conclusion." I have nothing new to say besides what I have already related, and I will just repeat what the German Social Democrats used to say: "Let 'papa' Stalin draw the conclusions, and I will describe the factual situation as it is."

Take care. Feigin

19/9 April 32

At the same time I am sending you the doctor's statement on the famine in peasant families and in turn I corroborate that I observed a similar situation."

: Dataika Jan 25 2004, 05:06 PM

You didn't get my point. You accused my beliefs of being helpful to the burgeoisie, then said that anyone helping the burgeois deserve to die. I was pointing out that that kind of thinking can be very dangerous unless it is used very carefully. Just watch the way you phrase things, or you can easily decieve people into thinking you're some kind of paranoid freak.

Comrade, I didn't say anyone helping bourgeois deserves to die, what I said was anyone helping their imperialism take out the revolution does. If you help their imperialism and try to overturn the worker's revolution you deserve to. Plain and Simple. Again, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY POST, Comrade.

Most of americans cried out when Franklin Roosevelt died, yet I seriously doubt that you would spare our culture for his sake, or his life. Roosevelt was very down on communism, but he had certain very good character traits that can not be denied. And who cares if he rivalled capitalism, what is so great about that. Hitler rivalled it too, do you respect him for that? Why would you want to rival its industrial power (which is exactly what they did)? Sure he rivalled them in power, but does that make him good? Soviet industry was enormous, which was one of the problems in my opinion. Mines and factories were extensivly used by Soviet Russia, and because of this you respect them. But we hate when capitalism uses these things. The problem is not just the method of controlling industry, it's the industry itself. Why do you think they kill so many people in Latin America, or Africa? They kill them because they won't work. They won't work because they hate the work they have to do. The Soviet Union didn't seem to get that, that's why they had so many problems. And to say that without that we would lose is beside the point. The point is that it's wrong and it should not be copied for any reason. If we can't beat the capitalists without using their methods, then what is point of beating them at all?

Comrade your "points" are bouncing ALL OVER the place.

I'll go point by point..

1: You claimed that no one in Soviet Russia liked Stalin and wanted to change the system. I pointed out that people morned for Comrade Stalin and died to get a glimpse of his body. To say that everyone wanted a change is not substantiated by the evidence. Did the convicted criminals want a change? Of course, what country's convicted criminals wouldn't want to be set free?

2: Comrade you're against INDUSTRY? What in the blazes are you babbling about? You have got to be the only anarchist alive against industry considering that's where PROLETARIATS come from. Proletariats are the focus of anarchist revolution and thought, so either you're an anarcho-capitalist, or you just don't have any idea what the hell you're talking about.

3: Your reasons for being against industry are almost as stupid as your original statement Comrade. Industry is a very important part of progression in the process of Humanity. They kill many people in Africa and Latin America because they wont work for the CAPITALISTS. You obviously have no idea what the difference between capitalistic and revolutionary ideals entail so I'll educate you.

Workers (the people working in South America and Africa) deserve to run their own industrial complexes. They deserve to be their own managers and their own bosses. Their bosses should work for them, not the other way around. Thus, the disdain for capitalism is not the same as the disdain for socialism. In socialism the people (the proletariat workers) decide what's right for the company, industry.

Industry is not the problem itself, it's the struggle of classes and who owns which parts of the industry. Do a little reading up on proletariat struggles, for God Sakes Comrade.

Your depiction of my dream is grossly inaccurate. I have already told you that there does need to be some kind of leadership, or the revolution will never take place. However, there doesn't need to be any kind of authority, and you have already admitted that there is a difference. I also believe that violence is pointless and hopeless, since you can never hope to beat the United States military in combat. Their technology is, as you yourself admit, far too powerful.

Okay, Comrade. What I said was that the workers over 90% of the world will awaken (either by leadership or whatever means, since I was NOT specific about it) and will stand and get slaughtered and orchestrate a strike without any form of discipline or heirarchy. Hoping that all leaders mutually agree with each other and no one in the proletariat is divided. Hopeless idealism EITHER WAY.

Oh, and by the way Comrade, to stand there and get slaughtered by violence while you hold hands and sing songs, is not revolution. It's petty bourgeois idealism.


Please explain how Malcome X and Martin Luther King could've gotten anywhere if they had combined their methods. As far as I can tell, all that would've happened would be that the nonviolent protesters would have suffered even greater retaliation, and their peaceful attitude would not have been taken seriously. Their methods completly contradicted each others. Malcome X favored violent rebellion against the system, while King favored peaceful resistence, refusing to strike back and cause more hatred between whites and blacks, but also refusing to submit to the authorities, even if it meant brutal punishment. Violence will only cause even more hatred and violence, but nonviolence will inspire more people to join the cause and follow the movement, and it will inspire a more like minded attitude from the authorities. The reason there are still racial inequalities is because after King died, people started to back down and eventually the whole movement came to a stop, and because alot of people stopped at civil rights, but didn't bother to continue the struggle against racism once those laws had been enacted. As was already pointed out earlier on this debate and on the Kashmir discussion, India is failing because the government was unable to keep its own peace once Gandhi was killed. Pakistan had already split with them, and several wars were fought between the two nations. Unfortunatly the life and death of Gandhi taught them nothing, and today the governments of India and Pakistan continue to fight against each other and with themselves. If only more people in those countries thought and lived like Gandhi did, then the situation there would be alot better.


Comrade, you're writing up paragraphs to get basic points across. Addition words in your post make no difference to me, as they all spew the same garbage.

What I meant when I said if King joined forces with Malcolm X was that if he had insisted on equality through any means necessary, they could have turned the whole white establishment upside down. They could have done so through violent, revolutionary means, or peaceful means. Violent means aren't always necessary but when they are, they should not be afraid to give a fighting back. The fact that people lost the will to fight against civil right inequalities is a testiment to the fact that nonviolence is petty bourgeois idealism. People got tired of being slaughtered for "protesting." Who could blame them? Especially when they weren't getting very much done. Like Malcolm X said about putting a knife in the backs of black people, they aren't supposed to smile when they remove the knife a tiny bit from their backs. The knife is still there and they hsould fight to have it removed, by ALL NECESSARY MEANS. So please, stop with your idealism already.

As for Ghandi, the very fact that no one paid attention to him after his death speaks volumes about what he "accomplished" Comrade. You answered yourself, nothing. Besides, Ghandi was a Hindu and Hinduism is BASED on CLASSES and a horrible CLASS - SYSTEM.

People have been trying your method for decades without any lasting success, except for Cuba. I have no problem with revolutions like that of Salvador Allende in Chile, but I would not depend on them. Allende was easily crushed, and hardly anyone in this country knows anything about it. By confining it to the third world you are allowing the capitalists to keep it queit to the public, therefore allowing them to mantain their power without any considerable cost. The violence that you depend on will just bring more repression, and since it's confined to those other countries, the US military will have an even easier job of crushing the resistance. The movement has to be brought home, or else the United States will have no problem crushing it.

Comrade, my God man. You need to read up on Che Guevara. I said I was a fan of his GUERILLA (feel free to look that up if you need to) tactics. If I were to start a revolution I would focus on the third world because THE MOST IMPORTANT thing is to have the populace behind you. When you have the populace behind you (which is doubtful in the United States) you can accomplish anything, Comrade. But that would be the START of my revolution. After I had founded something and crushed the other opposition through guerilla tactics, and other things, I would concentrate on making the Socialist State whole.

Violent revolution has worked a number of places with the populace behind it. Cuba, Vietnam, Soviet Union, China, etc.. Need I go on? SO to assume that this stuff wont happen is simply ignoring history. However, hwere have there been any anarchist non-violent revolution that has brought any change? None? Oh okay, that's what I thought, Comrade.

Like the Soviet Union right? And they succeded right? Read your history better, then maybe you'll be more "realistic" about this subject.

Comrade this is the ONLY worthwhile "objection" you've made during your whole debate. At least the Soviet Union took that step (before revisionists turned it into a pussy nation) like China, Viet Nam, Cuba, etc..

Comrade, please tell me where non-violent anarchism has brought ANY kind of a revolution. I'll give you a little hint, NOWHERE. You are dismissed, son.

I don't even have TV, how can I watch Fox news. And I new about Stalin long before Bush was elected president.

Comrade, how could you NOT tell that I was being Sarcastic? A little ANAL rentitive there aren't we?

: defiance Jan 25 2004, 05:11 PM

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/disillusion/toc.htmlwas a Russian born anachist who spent a long time in the US, but was eventually deported back to Russia. There she witnessed first hand the effects of the Bolshevik Revolution. She eventually wrote a book about it called "My Dissolusionment in Russia", and this is the link to it.

"Why should we allow those who would not give proletarian workers this freedom to have this freedom, Comrade?"

I think it's rather ironic that you are sitting here telling me that you don't have free speech, but if we lived in the Soviet Union right now we would never get away with this kind of rebellious discussion. But just to humor you I'll respond to your question. Is your whole plan to immitate the enemy? Cause if it is, you're definately succeding. As I have already told you, if your authority is only based on suppression, than your authority is worthless. If the people do not follow you because of their own free will, than you have no right to be their leader. If the people really want your government, than you shouldn't have to suppress their free speech, cause they all want you in charge don't they? A government based on repression, is not a government at all, but a gang in control of an entire country.

I would also like to comment on your revenge attitude. If your only goal is revenge, than you do not have the responsibilty lead a nation. When the british army left Ireland (an example you haven't used, strangly enough, since it's far better than Soviet Russia), the Irish rebels had to forget what was done in the past and start anew. If their only goal had been revenge, than the war would've never ended. Luckily the leaders of that revolution were more worried about the welfare of their people than revenge on the british. As the great revolutionary Gandhi once said, "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind".

: Dataika Jan 25 2004, 05:17 PM

Comrade, do you really expect me to waste my time reading all that nonsense? TELL ME THE POINT, CITE SOME EVIDENCES FROM THE LETTER TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR POINT.

From here it looks as if they're complaining because they are in a labor camp to begin with and it's "hard" there. Well I'll be goddamned. I thought Stalin would give people a fucking vacation to the hilton for trying to destroy him and the revolution. I thought that crimes should be punished by a flat out vacation cruise where they can eat whatever they want and never work!! WELL I'LL BE DAMNED!!!

In short, you still haven't provided that millions of innocent people died, nor that there were innocent people in the camps to begin with. All you've given me is the words of a criminal who says they're "innocent" and words of people of how hard the labor camps were. I'm sorry they weren't 5-star vacation hotels comrade, I'll be sure to make that change in the revolution.

: Dataika Jan 25 2004, 05:58 PM

Emma Goldmanwas a Russian born anachist who spent a long time in the US, but was eventually deported back to Russia. There she witnessed first hand the effects of the Bolshevik Revolution. She eventually wrote a book about it called "My Dissolusionment in Russia", and this is the link to it.

Oh God. Emma Goldman, an anarchist, didn't like Soviet Russia. What a surprise. Quite frankly, Comrade, you're doing a piss poor job at proving anything except that conditions were hard in labor camps for convicted criminals (which, by golly, is just the biggest outrage on Earth, isn't it?)

I think it's rather ironic that you are sitting here telling me that you don't have free speech, but if we lived in the Soviet Union right now we would never get away with this kind of rebellious discussion. But just to humor you I'll respond to your question.

Of course you can back that assertion up with evidence. Oh god, I can see it now, more anarchists who (surprise) didn't like the Soviet Union, Robert Conquest and convicted criminals. My goodness.

Cause if it is, you're definately succeding. As I have already told you, if your authority is only based on suppression, than your authority is worthless. If the people do not follow you because of their own free will, than you have no right to be their leader. If the people really want your government, than you shouldn't have to suppress their free speech, cause they all want you in charge don't they? A government based on repression, is not a government at all, but a gang in control of an entire country

Intimidate the enemy? OF COURSE COMRADE! They should be VERY afraid of proletarian INDEPENDENCE and proletariat FREEDOM. Because it means the end of them and their tyranny and thievary OVER the proletariat.

I don't claim everyone wants me in charge. I've already told you, one person shouldn't be in charge. That's fascism. A party, based on proletariat freedom and revolution should be in charge. Of course if you are against proletariat independence then we shouldn't even be having this conversation as you are nothing but a bourgeois in ANARCHIST clothing. A government based on the preservation of proletariat independence and sweeping away opposition to freedom is the best state anyone could ever hope for. Unless you're a fascist, a capitalist, or a feudalist. Which one are you comrade?

I would also like to comment on your revenge attitude. If your only goal is revenge, than you do not have the responsibilty lead a nation. When the british army left Ireland (an example you haven't used, strangly enough, since it's far better than Soviet Russia), the Irish rebels had to forget what was done in the past and start anew.

Thanks for the history lesson Comrade, stop trying to use "examples" that you pull out of your ass trying to prove a point. I'm basing my ideology on proletariat freedom and preserving this freedom. You obviously aren't and are nothing but a hippy anarchist who wants to hold everyone's hand and sing. Petty Bourgeois Idealism. People like you, are the reasons anarchists don't get much respect.

As the great revolutionary Gandhi once said, "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind".

And as the great revolutionary Dataika said to Ghandi, "Shut the hell up you didn't change anything, and you still haven't. You're a supporter of a class system and an enemy of the proletariat so just shut the HELL up."

: defiance Jan 25 2004, 10:00 PM

Why am I not surprised that you didn't read the letter. You don't read anything unless it's pro communism. What's your problem huh? Why are you so scared to read it? Afraid you'll have to face up to the truth? The people in the letter were not just angry about being in the camp, or about having to work. Here's a few "points" for you.

"People die like flies, i.e., they die a slow and painful death; we repeat that all this torment and suffering is placed only on the shoulders of the proletariat without money, i.e., on workers who, we repeat, were unfortunate to find themselves in the period of hunger and destruction accompanying the events of the October Revolution, and who committed crimes only to save themselves and their families from death by starvation; they have already borne the punishment for these crimes, and the vast majority of them subsequently chose the path of honest labor. Now because of their past, for whose crime they have already paid, they are fired from their jobs. Yet, the main thing is that the entire weight of this scandalous abuse of power, brute violence, and lawlessness that reign at Solovky and other sections of the OGPU concentration camp is placed on the shoulders of workers and peasants; others, such as counterrevolutionaries, profiteers and so on, have full wallets and have set themselves up and live in clover in the Soviet State, while next to them, in the literal meaning of the word, the penniless proletariat dies from hunger, cold, and back- breaking 14-16 hour days under the tyranny and lawlessness of inmates who are the agents and collaborators of the State Political Directorate."

Oh my god, you don't believe it. There's no way that it could have been that bad. in fact I think they're lying, or else where are details?

"If you complain or write anything ("Heaven forbid"), they will frame you for an attempted escape or for something else, and they will shoot you like a dog. They line us up naked and barefoot at 22 degrees below zero and keep us outside for up to an hour. It is difficult to describe all the chaos and terror that is going on in Kemi, Solovky, and the other sections of the concentrations camp. All annual inspections uncover a lot of abuses. But what they discover in comparison to what actually exists is only a part of the horror and abuse of power, which the inspection accidently uncovers. (One example is the following fact, one of a thousand, which is registered in GPU and for which the guilty have been punished: THEY FORCED THE INMATES TO EAT THEIR OWN FECES. "Comrades," if we dare to use this phrase, verify that this is a fact from reality, about which, we repeat, OGPU has the official evidence, and judge for yourself the full extent of effrontery and humiliation in the supervision by those who want to make a career for themselves."

Let me guess, you still think it's not true. If I found a video of a massicre, you still wouldn't believe it! Nothing convinces you! You're absolutly hopeless!! This isn't even about being communist or anarchist. This is about being fair and honest, which you are not. Gandhi didn't do anything!! He did alot more than you or your hero Stalin ever did or will do!!! You are one of the most arrogant and ignorant people that ever lived!! Anyone who disagrees with you is written off as a "petty bourgeois idealists", yet the fact is that you are exactly what you accuse others of being. You accused me of bouncing my points all over. Well at least my points are honest. You, despite all the evidence you could read, are so arrogant that you will strait out deny what is obvious fact, and if you don't deny the atrocities, even worse, you'll support them!! You must think our prisons ARE first class hotels, otherwise you wouldn't be so supportive of the soviet labor camps where, just to emphasise the fact, prisoners were forced to eat their own feces. But let me guess, that's a lie right? Or let me guess again, they deserved it right? Just to clear the record, Emma Goldman was very supportive of the revolution at first, cause she, unlike you, was not confined in her beliefs to just her own group. She gradually became more and more disgusted by the atrocities she witnessed at the hands of the bolsheviks. I would not be surprised though if I found out that even if you were to see these atrocities first hand, you still woud support Stalin with all your heart. People like you are exactly the reason why communism failed, in Russia, in China, in Cambodia, in North Korea, and in eastern europe!! Communism failed to free the "proletariat" that you calaim to be so devoted to. It failed in every way to really solve their problem. The workers still found themselves working for tyrants and dictators, and they still found themselves unable to talk about anything that was wrong with their situation, unless they wanted to go to prison for "endangering" the revolution. Communism in the end, turned out to be just another corrupt "imperialist" form of government, that had no care for the common person, only for its oppressive elite. It makes me sick to see you post about how "good" Stalin was, or how "good" Mao was. What about the invasion of South Korea, was that a "good" thing that was done in the name of the people, a "good" thing that Stalin firmly supported and backed. Was it "good" that thousands of people were killed by Pol Pot in Cambodia, was it "good" that muslims were persecuted by Stalin, was it "good" that innocant people around the world have suffered and died at the hands of so called leftists? The idea is great, but the actions taken to establish it have resulted in far too many atrocities. The invalids who wrote that letter were not trying to bring down the revolution, they were simply presenting the truth as they personally experienced it and it was terrible. But not many people got away with giving out such information, many people were killed or imprisoned for saying these kind of facts, because they were "helping the bourgeois". Most leftists will agree with me. If you can't discuss this subject in a reasonable way, then here's a tip. As the great revolutionary Defiance said to Dataika, "Shut the hell up you didn't change anything, and you still haven't. You're a supporter of a repressive system and an enemy of the common people, so just shut the Hell up".

: Dataika Jan 26 2004, 08:03 AM

QUOTE (defiance @ Jan 26 2004, 06:00 AM)
Why am I not surprised that you didn't read the letter. You don't read anything unless it's pro communism. What's your problem huh? Why are you so scared to read it? Afraid you'll have to face up to the truth? The people in the letter were not just angry about being in the camp, or about having to work. Here's a few "points" for you.

"People die like flies, i.e., they die a slow and painful death; we repeat that all this torment and suffering is placed only on the shoulders of the proletariat without money, i.e., on workers who, we repeat, were unfortunate to find themselves in the period of hunger and destruction accompanying the events of the October Revolution, and who committed crimes only to save themselves and their families from death by starvation; they have already borne the punishment for these crimes, and the vast majority of them subsequently chose the path of honest labor. Now because of their past, for whose crime they have already paid, they are fired from their jobs. Yet, the main thing is that the entire weight of this scandalous abuse of power, brute violence, and lawlessness that reign at Solovky and other sections of the OGPU concentration camp is placed on the shoulders of workers and peasants; others, such as counterrevolutionaries, profiteers and so on, have full wallets and have set themselves up and live in clover in the Soviet State, while next to them, in the literal meaning of the word, the penniless proletariat dies from hunger, cold, and back- breaking 14-16 hour days under the tyranny and lawlessness of inmates who are the agents and collaborators of the State Political Directorate."

Oh my god, you don't believe it. There's no way that it could have been that bad. in fact I think they're lying, or else where are details?

"If you complain or write anything ("Heaven forbid"), they will frame you for an attempted escape or for something else, and they will shoot you like a dog. They line us up naked and barefoot at 22 degrees below zero and keep us outside for up to an hour. It is difficult to describe all the chaos and terror that is going on in Kemi, Solovky, and the other sections of the concentrations camp. All annual inspections uncover a lot of abuses. But what they discover in comparison to what actually exists is only a part of the horror and abuse of power, which the inspection accidently uncovers. (One example is the following fact, one of a thousand, which is registered in GPU and for which the guilty have been punished: THEY FORCED THE INMATES TO EAT THEIR OWN FECES. "Comrades," if we dare to use this phrase, verify that this is a fact from reality, about which, we repeat, OGPU has the official evidence, and judge for yourself the full extent of effrontery and humiliation in the supervision by those who want to make a career for themselves."

Let me guess, you still think it's not true. If I found a video of a massicre, you still wouldn't believe it! Nothing convinces you! You're absolutly hopeless!! This isn't even about being communist or anarchist. This is about being fair and honest, which you are not. Gandhi didn't do anything!! He did alot more than you or your hero Stalin ever did or will do!!! You are one of the most arrogant and ignorant people that ever lived!! Anyone who disagrees with you is written off as a "petty bourgeois idealists", yet the fact is that you are exactly what you accuse others of being. You accused me of bouncing my points all over. Well at least my points are honest. You, despite all the evidence you could read, are so arrogant that you will strait out deny what is obvious fact, and if you don't deny the atrocities, even worse, you'll support them!! You must think our prisons ARE first class hotels, otherwise you wouldn't be so supportive of the soviet labor camps where, just to emphasise the fact, prisoners were forced to eat their own feces. But let me guess, that's a lie right? Or let me guess again, they deserved it right? Just to clear the record, Emma Goldman was very supportive of the revolution at first, cause she, unlike you, was not confined in her beliefs to just her own group. She gradually became more and more disgusted by the atrocities she witnessed at the hands of the bolsheviks. I would not be surprised though if I found out that even if you were to see these atrocities first hand, you still woud support Stalin with all your heart. People like you are exactly the reason why communism failed, in Russia, in China, in Cambodia, in North Korea, and in eastern europe!! Communism failed to free the "proletariat" that you calaim to be so devoted to. It failed in every way to really solve their problem. The workers still found themselves working for tyrants and dictators, and they still found themselves unable to talk about anything that was wrong with their situation, unless they wanted to go to prison for "endangering" the revolution. Communism in the end, turned out to be just another corrupt "imperialist" form of government, that had no care for the common person, only for its oppressive elite. It makes me sick to see you post about how "good" Stalin was, or how "good" Mao was. What about the invasion of South Korea, was that a "good" thing that was done in the name of the people, a "good" thing that Stalin firmly supported and backed. Was it "good" that thousands of people were killed by Pol Pot in Cambodia, was it "good" that muslims were persecuted by Stalin, was it "good" that innocant people around the world have suffered and died at the hands of so called leftists? The idea is great, but the actions taken to establish it have resulted in far too many atrocities. The invalids who wrote that letter were not trying to bring down the revolution, they were simply presenting the truth as they personally experienced it and it was terrible. But not many people got away with giving out such information, many people were killed or imprisoned for saying these kind of facts, because they were "helping the bourgeois". Most leftists will agree with me. If you can't discuss this subject in a reasonable way, then here's a tip. As the great revolutionary Defiance said to Dataika, "Shut the hell up you didn't change anything, and you still haven't. You're a supporter of a repressive system and an enemy of the common people, so just shut the Hell up".

Why am I not surprised that you didn't read the letter. You don't read anything unless it's pro communism. What's your problem huh? Why are you so scared to read it? Afraid you'll have to face up to the truth? The people in the letter were not just angry about being in the camp, or about having to work. Here's a few "points" for you.

Comrade, I would have read it all, but from the get go it sounded like a criminal complaining at how bad the conditions were. Which I'm so sorry, because we all know they should have been treated like kings.

Besides, it's much easier for the point of debate for you make some points and back them up with the letter instead of just posting the letters themselves.

Oh my god, you don't believe it. There's no way that it could have been that bad. in fact I think they're lying, or else where are details?

I never said he was lying Comrade, but what he is saying is very suspicious. He's a criminal, and he's being treated poorly in a labor camp (which is just an outrage). Why should I take his word?

Let me guess, you still think it's not true. If I found a video of a massicre, you still wouldn't believe it! Nothing convinces you! You're absolutly hopeless!! This isn't even about being communist or anarchist.

Comrade, tell me why I should believe this criminal. Tell me what evidence there is to corroborate his story besides other criminal's "words" for it. Again, you're doing a pisspoor job at proving something.

First and foremost, Comrade, all you've done is prove that the conditions were bad at the labor camps. You have yet to show that MILLIONS of people died and that these MILLIONS of people were innocent. So please, when you can, show me, because so far you haven't been able to.

This is about being fair and honest, which you are not. Gandhi didn't do anything!! He did alot more than you or your hero Stalin ever did or will do!!!

Yeah, he sure did, for the bourgeoisie. Great revolutionary he was, implementing class systems is so revolutionary comrade! THanks for letting me know!

You are one of the most arrogant and ignorant people that ever lived!! Anyone who disagrees with you is written off as a "petty bourgeois idealists", yet the fact is that you are exactly what you accuse others of being. You accused me of bouncing my points all over. Well at least my points are honest.

Comrade show me how my ideals are "petty bourgeois idealism." You seem to love making baseless assertions, Comrade.

You must think our prisons ARE first class hotels, otherwise you wouldn't be so supportive of the soviet labor camps where, just to emphasise the fact, prisoners were forced to eat their own feces.

Prove it is true comrade. I don't think our prisons are first class hotels, but maybe because of the way they are, people have no real fear of going to prison much anymore.

Just to clear the record, Emma Goldman was very supportive of the revolution at first, cause she, unlike you, was not confined in her beliefs to just her own group. She gradually became more and more disgusted by the atrocities she witnessed at the hands of the bolsheviks.

Comrade, she's an anarchist. Stalin persecuted anarchists (something I do not necessarily agree wish), of course she'd be "disgusted."

I would not be surprised though if I found out that even if you were to see these atrocities first hand, you still woud support Stalin with all your heart.

Comrade, prove these atrocities happened in the first place, and prove the people who were "victims" were innocent people. If you cannot, then you have lost the argument.

People like you are exactly the reason why communism failed, in Russia, in China, in Cambodia, in North Korea, and in eastern europe!! Communism failed to free the "proletariat" that you calaim to be so devoted to.

Wrong, people like me are the reason it took its first steps in revolution. People LIKE YOU are the reason that it's turned into revisionist capitalism. People who are afraid to confront western imperialism, people who want to be "peaceful" with everyone, petty bourgeoisie idealism.

The workers still found themselves working for tyrants and dictators, and they still found themselves unable to talk about anything that was wrong

You haven't been able to prove that assertion at all, Comrade. Stop throwing around baseless statements. All you've done is shown that the labor camps weren't vacation spots and that anarchists didn't like the Soviet Union. So just the FACTS.

Communism in the end, turned out to be just another corrupt "imperialist" form of government, that had no care for the common person, only for its oppressive elite

Well Communism has never existed anywhere, so there goes your baseless ignorant opinion Comrade. But even if you are talking about the Soviet Union's Socialist state, then you still need to provide evidence for the claims you are making. You have failed to do so, so far.

It makes me sick to see you post about how "good" Stalin was, or how "good" Mao was. What about the invasion of South Korea, was that a "good" thing that was done in the name of the people, a "good" thing that Stalin firmly supported and backed.

Stalin only backed the "invasion" because the South was about to attack the North. Stalin wanted a KOREAN (neither north or south) socialist unification so that workers could appreciate and take the same step toward revolution that Stalin had. Again, you should only be against advocating workers ridding themselves of their bourgeoisie oppressors if you are a Feudalist/Capitalist/Fascist... which one are you Comrade?

http://www.alternativeinsight.com/Korean_War.html

Was it "good" that thousands of people were killed by Pol Pot in Cambodia,

Pol Pot is not my Comrade. He was a Fascist, not a communist.

was it "good" that muslims were persecuted by Stalin, was it "good" that innocant people around the world have suffered and died at the hands of so called leftists?

Well, since you haven't proven any of these claims, Comrade, I will not even give you the gift of an answer.

The invalids who wrote that letter were not trying to bring down the revolution, they were simply presenting the truth as they personally experienced it and it was terrible

Nevermined that the letter you presented in your "points" were written by a criminal. Oh well. Why should I take his word for it? Do you have any empirical evidence outside of his "own word" to back it up?

But not many people got away with giving out such information, many people were killed or imprisoned for saying these kind of facts, because they were "helping the bourgeois".

Wow, more baseless assertions. Why am I NOT surprised?

Most leftists will agree with me.

Most Anarchists would spit in your face for being so bourgeois minded and "peaceful" and not giving violence a second thought. Does that mean they are right? Just because "most" people agree with you (which you haven't provided any evidence for that assumption anyway) doesn't make you right, does it?

As the great revolutionary Defiance said to Dataika, "Shut the hell up you didn't change anything, and you still haven't. You're a supporter of a repressive system and an enemy of the common people, so just shut the Hell up".

I backed my statement up with evidence, while you have done no such thing. Oh well, Comrade. I'm used to this sort of debate "tactic" from bourgeois anarchists like yourself.

: defiance Jan 26 2004, 08:57 AM

Prove to me that those prisoners are lying. Why should I believe that? Why should I assume that they are lying? Anyway they were not all criminals. Most of them had already served their time for any crimes they commited, which mainly included stealing food to feed their families. If that's a crime than so is revolution. You still have not read the letter, so why don't you do that. Sorry if that's so much trouble for you, but I'm obviously more worried about the truth than you are. I have presented evidence of atrocities which, whether they killed millions or thousands or hundreds, should be considered wrong and unjust, but you have simply written it off as a lie and have failed to give me proof that it was. If you think american prisons are not bad, why do you care if Mumia Abu Jamal is freed, or Leonard Peltier? Or maybe you don't, who knows? How do we know they're telling the truth? How do we know anything is true? How do we know that thousands of people were killed by Pinochet, how do we know that the number of people killed by Hitler wasn't exaggerated ten times, how do we know that thousands of people were killed by bombs in Indochina? How do we know anything? Prove that Hitler killed that many people. Until you prove it I will not believe it. And especialy, prove that South Korea was about to invade the north. How can you prove that to me? Gandhi did not serve the burgeoise in any way. To take from your argument, More people mourned over the death of Gandhi than any one else in the 20th century, or any before than for that matter. Gandhi is still held as a hero by the people of India, not to mention people in other countries like South Africa (where he was almost killed standing up to the british for Indian rights in South Africa) the US, and as many other countries as you can name. Stalin is considered by most people to have been nothing more than a tyrannicle dictator who killed thoousands or millions of innocant people in the name of the "proletariat". Of course, you probably think that's a lie too, that Gandhi was not really loved by his people, that Gandhi did not free them from oppressive british rule. The only thing you have against Gandhi is that he was not communist, or "socialist transitionist". And please stop making that your argument, I already know that real communism has never been reached, I'm just trying to hit the point quickly. You're used to this kind of tactic huh? More like, you're used to being arrogant and refusing to admit that you're wrong when the evidence that atrocities did happen. I'm used to that too, especialy when dealing with "petty bourgeoise idealists" like you. That is exactly what you are, someone who has convinced themself that they are fighting strongly for the rights of the people, but in fact you've done nothing but completly discredit your "socialist transitionist" party (if you can call it that). True socialism has been working quite fine in countries like Norway, but that to you is considered "petty bourgeoise". But why are it's people so happy? Or is that a lie too? No the people of Norway are not happy, they're just scared to speak out too much, or they might have to worry about massive retaliation from the "bourgeoise" government. Bourgeoise to you is anyone that's happy (exept yourself). But since you don't believe anything I say, I want EVERYONE to post on this subject, than we'll see if anyone thinks you're right about Stalin. So please, if anyone reads this, please post your opinion.

: Dataika Jan 26 2004, 10:02 AM

QUOTE (defiance @ Jan 26 2004, 04:57 PM)
Prove to me that those prisoners are lying. Why should I believe that? Why should I assume that they are lying? Anyway they were not all criminals. Most of them had already served their time for any crimes they commited, which mainly included stealing food to feed their families. If that's a crime than so is revolution. You still have not read the letter, so why don't you do that. Sorry if that's so much trouble for you, but I'm obviously more worried about the truth than you are. I have presented evidence of atrocities which, whether they killed millions or thousands or hundreds, should be considered wrong and unjust, but you have simply written it off as a lie and have failed to give me proof that it was. If you think american prisons are not bad, why do you care if Mumia Abu Jamal is freed, or Leonard Peltier? Or maybe you don't, who knows? How do we know they're telling the truth? How do we know anything is true? How do we know that thousands of people were killed by Pinochet, how do we know that the number of people killed by Hitler wasn't exaggerated ten times, how do we know that thousands of people were killed by bombs in Indochina? How do we know anything? Prove that Hitler killed that many people. Until you prove it I will not believe it. And especialy, prove that South Korea was about to invade the north. How can you prove that to me? Gandhi did not serve the burgeoise in any way. To take from your argument, More people mourned over the death of Gandhi than any one else in the 20th century, or any before than for that matter. Gandhi is still held as a hero by the people of India, not to mention people in other countries like South Africa (where he was almost killed standing up to the british for Indian rights in South Africa) the US, and as many other countries as you can name. Stalin is considered by most people to have been nothing more than a tyrannicle dictator who killed thoousands or millions of innocant people in the name of the "proletariat". Of course, you probably think that's a lie too, that Gandhi was not really loved by his people, that Gandhi did not free them from oppressive british rule. The only thing you have against Gandhi is that he was not communist, or "socialist transitionist". And please stop making that your argument, I already know that real communism has never been reached, I'm just trying to hit the point quickly. You're used to this kind of tactic huh? More like, you're used to being arrogant and refusing to admit that you're wrong when the evidence that atrocities did happen. I'm used to that too, especialy when dealing with "petty bourgeoise idealists" like you. That is exactly what you are, someone who has convinced themself that they are fighting strongly for the rights of the people, but in fact you've done nothing but completly discredit your "socialist transitionist" party (if you can call it that). True socialism has been working quite fine in countries like Norway, but that to you is considered "petty bourgeoise". But why are it's people so happy? Or is that a lie too? No the people of Norway are not happy, they're just scared to speak out too much, or they might have to worry about massive retaliation from the "bourgeoise" government. Bourgeoise to you is anyone that's happy (exept yourself). But since you don't believe anything I say, I want EVERYONE to post on this subject, than we'll see if anyone thinks you're right about Stalin. So please, if anyone reads this, please post your opinion.

Prove to me that those prisoners are lying. Why should I believe that? Why should I assume that they are lying? Anyway they were not all criminals.

Comrade that's silly. I don't have to prove the prisoners are lying, you have to prove they're telling the truth. Some evidence outside their eyewitness testimonies is needed because they are criminals. They have every reason to lie about their conditions and their reason for being there.

Anyway they were not all criminals. Most of them had already served their time for any crimes they commited, which mainly included stealing food to feed their families. If that's a crime than so is revolution.

Of course you can prove this...right?

You still have not read the letter, so why don't you do that. Sorry if that's so much trouble for you, but I'm obviously more worried about the truth than you are.

Wrong, you are interested in showing a bias one way representation of a revolution that fought for proletariat independence and freedom. I only ask for facts, you haven't given any. And like I said, for debate purposes, you should be making points and using the letter to back up these points. Just throwing in letters makes it look as if you are just looking for anything to attack the Soviet Union without knowledge of it.

I have presented evidence of atrocities which, whether they killed millions or thousands or hundreds, should be considered wrong and unjust, but you have simply written it off as a lie and have failed to give me proof that it was.

You have to prove your accusations, I don't have to prove them wrong. All you have given me is testimony from criminals (which only talks about the conditions of the camps, and his opinion on whether or not the people paid for their crimes or not) and imperialist sources. So, like I said before, just the facts please.

If they killed thousands or millions of guilty people, worthy of the sentence carried out by the courts and were convicted of treason, they deserved it.

If you think american prisons are not bad, why do you care if Mumia Abu Jamal is freed, or Leonard Peltier? Or maybe you don't, who knows? How do we know they're telling the truth? How do we know anything is true?

Evidence, Comrade, empirical evidence and factual information. You have provided nothing of the sort. Besides I never said American prisons aren't bad, I said they aren't as strict, and as a result a lot of people don't mind going to prison. Mumia Abu Jamal should be freed because the facts show that he is innocent and there is nothing but capitalist propaganda keeping him there.

How do we know that thousands of people were killed by Pinochet, how do we know that the number of people killed by Hitler wasn't exaggerated ten times, how do we know that thousands of people were killed by bombs in Indochina? How do we know anything? Prove that Hitler killed that many people.

Comrade, if you don't believe that Hitler killed people (there isn't a way I can prove he killed the amount that most historians claim because they got their data from a census) I don't know what to tell you. There are all kinds of historical fact to back the assertion up, there's photographical evidence of concentration camps, there is eyewitness testimony CORROBORATED with the evidence, there are gas chambers that were discovered, there are all kinds of evidence to back this up. What you haven't done is proven that this many people were killed by the USSR. Just because you can't prove that millions of INNOCENT people died at the hands of the USSR doesn't mean you can use the logic to close your eyes to the evidence suggests that Pinochet or Hitler killed people. There is evidence outside of eyewitness testimony.

Anyway, besides this, if it was to come out that Hitler killed a couple of people only simply for being jewish/insert race here, it's still wrong because it is the killing of people over things they cannot control. Stalin never did this, and you can't prove he did, so I'll just dismiss the whole "point" (if you want to call it that).

But, I'll just take this paragraph to mean "omgosh, I can't prove it, but you should just accept it because western historians say it's true."

And especialy, prove that South Korea was about to invade the north. How can you prove that to me?

I gave you a link Comrade. What I meant to imply was that Stalin and the Kremlin were fearing an attack from South Korea that would either be directed at them or North Korea. Read the link.

To take from your argument, More people mourned over the death of Gandhi than any one else in the 20th century, or any before than for that matter. Gandhi is still held as a hero by the people of India, not to mention people in other countries like South Africa (where he was almost killed standing up to the british for Indian rights in South Africa) the US, and as many other countries as you can name.

Comrade, this was never an issue. It's totally different when I used it because you made the claim that no one liked Stalin and everyone wanted a change from his style of leadership. I provided evidence that this was false.

What you are doing with this point is trying to prove that Ghandi was some how right because more people mourned him. Again, just because "more" people (which you still haven't provided any basis for the claim) mourned Ghandi doesn't mean he was a greater revolutionary. He supported classes (which you haven't bothered refuting, all you've said was that he's popular) and as such was an enemy of proletariat freedom.

Stalin is considered by most people to have been nothing more than a tyrannicle dictator who killed thoousands or millions of innocant people in the name of the "proletariat".

Quit your babbling. Of course a lot of people consider him that, the western imperialists have won the propaganda war.

WEB Dubois supported Stalin and so did Paul Robeson. And who else? Gee, is it Che Guevara who used to sign his letters Stalin II? Maoists respect(ed) Stalin (and there are plenty of those in the third world) and 75% (about) of Russians in Russia think Stalin did more good than bad, and consider him to have been a good leader after years of revisionist propaganda. But this is all irrelevant, what IS relevant are the FACTS of the matter. Not who agrees with me and who doesn't.

The only thing you have against Gandhi is that he was not communist, or "socialist transitionist".

No, what I have against him is his willingness to defend classes and condone classes.

And please stop making that your argument, I already know that real communism has never been reached, I'm just trying to hit the point quickly.

Then stop saying that communism has "failed" because it has never been tried. Maybe if you wouldn't "rush" to get through your arguments they wouldn't come off as incoherent anarchist babble.

More like, you're used to being arrogant and refusing to admit that you're wrong when the evidence that atrocities did happen.

I'm used to anarchists just babbling and spitting random stuff during the debate because they can't prove that millions of innocent people died. Like I said, prove that these people were "innocent" and prove that millions of them died.

I'm used to that too, especialy when dealing with "petty bourgeoise idealists" like you.

You haven't said any reason for making htis claim. But, okay.

That is exactly what you are, someone who has convinced themself that they are fighting strongly for the rights of the people, but in fact you've done nothing but completly discredit your "socialist transitionist" party (if you can call it that).

Well thanks Comrade, I didn't know that asking pitiful bourgeois anarchists to prove their claims discredits my "party."

True socialism has been working quite fine in countries like Norway, but that to you is considered "petty bourgeoise". But why are it's people so happy?

Well just prove that ALL OF ITS people are happy. By using your logic, capitalism is awesome because in America most of its people are happy. By the way, I thought you were an anarchist, aren't you supposed to be opposed to this socialistic government? Why? If their people are happy then.. See how silly your reasoning is?

Or is that a lie too? No the people of Norway are not happy, they're just scared to speak out too much, or they might have to worry about massive retaliation from the "bourgeoise" government

Now your just babbling on, Comrade. Return the focus of the debate, and stop the silly anarchist (actually democratic-socialist) rhetoric.

Bourgeoise to you is anyone that's happy (exept yourself). But since you don't believe anything I say, I want EVERYONE to post on this subject, than we'll see if anyone thinks you're right about Stalin. So please, if anyone reads this, please post your opinion.

It doesn't matter to me if everyone thinks I'm right about Stalin or nobody does. That's the difference between you and me. I'm not afriad to go against the grain and look at issues objectively without pre-concieved notions. If everyone agreed with you, it would not change my position unless they proved that millions of innocent people died at the hands of Stalin. So please, put up or shut up and stop trying to initiate some sort of gang up.

: regilas Jan 26 2004, 11:04 AM

QUOTE
Comrade that's silly. I don't have to prove the prisoners are lying, you have to prove they're telling the truth. Some evidence outside their eyewitness testimonies is needed because they are criminals. They have every reason to lie about their conditions and their reason for being there.


If it is his job to prove that they are lying, than it is your job to also prove him wrong. He has posted the information, it is his job to clarify it. But what can he do to clarify it than submit the bloody truth in front of your blind eyes.

They have every reason? Right, list those reasons for me, please. You seem to incline that you are obsessed with the idea of conspiracy. What can you trust? I suppose the American Civil War may not have happened, being that a complete conspiracy could have been imagined and formed to get to the public's belief that people died for our country.

QUOTE
Of course you can prove this...right?


The proof is everywhere. If you cannot let it into yourself to accept other people's writings, then you must not have attained much information at all, having to look for plenty of evidence in order to convict of its existance.

QUOTE
Wrong, you are interested in showing a bias one way representation of a revolution that fought for proletariat independence and freedom. I only ask for facts, you haven't given any. And like I said, for debate purposes, you should be making points and using the letter to back up these points. Just throwing in letters makes it look as if you are just looking for anything to attack the Soviet Union without knowledge of it.


The facts are laid before you. What can you accept? Supposing those people had died with no criminal action. You are now saying that they are liars, and that concludes to your view that nobody can be trusted until they have gone to court.

Throwing letters is more than what you have done. What have you accomplished to show that it did not happen: nothing. What have you done to show that Stalin did not kill millions of people: nothing. What have you done to show that all of those prisoners were lying: nothing.

He has shown more proof than you, and that puts him points ahead.

QUOTE
what I have against him is his willingness to defend classes and condone classes.


Yes, Gandhi; what a traitor. rolleyes.gif

: defiance Jan 26 2004, 03:56 PM

http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/gregorovich/ beyond any doubt that the Soviet government forced a famine on the people of Ukraine that resulted in at least four million deaths. That the famine did happen is also proven by the letter from Fiegen to Ordzhonikidze, which I already posted but you didn't respond to. It is interesting that you consider the prisoners letter to be "a bias one way representation of a revolution that fought for proletariat independence and freedom" since it was purposely sent to the government of that revolution and it asked for nothing more than a reform in the camp labor system, and the other letter was written by a doctor who worked for the government. The fact that you consider these letters to be biased shows that you did not read them very well. They are completely credible, as is shown by the fact that any changes they asked for were completely within the boundaries of the soviet government and were intended to be made by it. One interesting point I found in the link I just gave you is that Stalin himself admitted to Winston Churchill that he was having a hard war with "10 millions" of peasants, of whom he said very few were on his side. In this link there are eyewitness acounts of brutality and genocide from the hands of the government. If you can read this (and look at some of it's pictures too) and still not be moved, than you are no true revolutionary but a stubborn, blind and purposely ignorant one, who doesn't really care about the proletariat, just his hero who he is unwilling to stop looking up to.

The reason I have not addressed your point about Gandhi is because it is not really worth my time. Gandhi repeatedly stressed his belief in equality and brotherhood. He did not have the same loyalty to every doctrine of his professed belief that you have. Gandhi was strongly effected by the teachings of Christ and the writings of such progressive thinkers as Henry David Thoreau and other transcentendalist, as well as many other liberal western philosephers. Just because he claimed to be Hindu does not mean he agreed with or advocated all of Hinduisms teachings. Try to be more accurate next time you make an accusation. And by the way, that was not why I brought up his funeral. I was making the point that the people were extremely devoted to him, just like your point with Stalins funeral. That point alone is not enough to convince me of that, but you seem to think differently so I thought it was worth saying. My point in bringing up Norway was that full fledged communism is not needed to bring happiness to the people. Capitalism is not always bad for the people under it, it's just too easily corrupted and used for an easy profit. Low wages, destruction of nature, poor working conditions, those are all common and harmful effects of pure capitalism. Norway has far less of that, but that doesn't mean it has none, or that everyone is happy under it (I never even said they were in fact, so "don't put words in my post, comrade"). But there have been way less problems with moderate socialism than with soviet style "socialist transition". Please check the link I just gave you, for your own sake. You don't have to read the whole thing if you don't want to, but you should at least read some of the eyewitness acounts of the repression they had to endure.

Although this has nothing to do with the debate, but I was wondering, just out of curiosity, how old are you and what country are you from? Or if you're from the US, what general area are you from? I'm just wondering.

: Dataika Jan 26 2004, 09:47 PM

QUOTE (regilas @ Jan 26 2004, 07:04 PM)
QUOTE
Comrade that's silly. I don't have to prove the prisoners are lying, you have to prove they're telling the truth. Some evidence outside their eyewitness testimonies is needed because they are criminals. They have every reason to lie about their conditions and their reason for being there.


If it is his job to prove that they are lying, than it is your job to also prove him wrong. He has posted the information, it is his job to clarify it. But what can he do to clarify it than submit the bloody truth in front of your blind eyes.

They have every reason? Right, list those reasons for me, please. You seem to incline that you are obsessed with the idea of conspiracy. What can you trust? I suppose the American Civil War may not have happened, being that a complete conspiracy could have been imagined and formed to get to the public's belief that people died for our country.

QUOTE
Of course you can prove this...right?


The proof is everywhere. If you cannot let it into yourself to accept other people's writings, then you must not have attained much information at all, having to look for plenty of evidence in order to convict of its existance.

QUOTE
Wrong, you are interested in showing a bias one way representation of a revolution that fought for proletariat independence and freedom. I only ask for facts, you haven't given any. And like I said, for debate purposes, you should be making points and using the letter to back up these points. Just throwing in letters makes it look as if you are just looking for anything to attack the Soviet Union without knowledge of it.


The facts are laid before you. What can you accept? Supposing those people had died with no criminal action. You are now saying that they are liars, and that concludes to your view that nobody can be trusted until they have gone to court.

Throwing letters is more than what you have done. What have you accomplished to show that it did not happen: nothing. What have you done to show that Stalin did not kill millions of people: nothing. What have you done to show that all of those prisoners were lying: nothing.

He has shown more proof than you, and that puts him points ahead.

QUOTE
what I have against him is his willingness to defend classes and condone classes.


Yes, Gandhi; what a traitor. rolleyes.gif

If it is his job to prove that they are lying, than it is your job to also prove him wrong. He has posted the information, it is his job to clarify it. But what can he do to clarify it than submit the bloody truth in front of your blind eyes.

Any evidence outside of the testimony of criminals. So far, he hasn't provided anything.

They have every reason? Right, list those reasons for me, please. You seem to incline that you are obsessed with the idea of conspiracy. What can you trust? I suppose the American Civil War may not have happened, being that a complete conspiracy could have been imagined and formed to get to the public's belief that people died for our country.

Comrade, you're falling into the same trap. A better question to ask is WHY WOULDN'T THEY LIE? Or do you not think criminals wouldn't exaggerate conditions to make them seem like victims of a cruel intolerable regime instead of them being punished for the crime they committed? It's common sense, if you're a criminal, you're going to lie to make yourself look better than the "intolerable" regime that put you there.

The American Civil War has countless memorials, mass grave sites, eyewitness testimony with corroborated evidence, specific battle areas and other things to corroborate the historians. What you don't have are these things for "innocent" victims of the Soviet Union. So like I told the other poster, JUST THE FACTS PLEASE.

The proof is everywhere. If you cannot let it into yourself to accept other people's writings, then you must not have attained much information at all, having to look for plenty of evidence in order to convict of its existance.

I want to look at evidence from people other than criminals and empirical evidence. Neither you, nor the other poster provided any.

The facts are laid before you. What can you accept? Supposing those people had died with no criminal action. You are now saying that they are liars, and that concludes to your view that nobody can be trusted until they have gone to court.

Comrade, the people who wrote the letters were already convicted by the courts. So please prove they were innocent, and that they were unjustly being punished. All I asked for was proof that the people who DID die in the labor camps (which most certianly did happen) were innocent. That's all, so far you haven't given any.

Throwing letters is more than what you have done. What have you accomplished to show that it did not happen: nothing. What have you done to show that Stalin did not kill millions of people: nothing. What have you done to show that all of those prisoners were lying: nothing.

I don't have to show that Stalin didn't kill millions of people, you're being rediculously absurd now. You and the other anarchist are making the accusations, YOU should back them up.

As for your rediculous comments of the prisoners, I'm sure they'd have no reason to lie. They're only convicted criminals. I mean they wouldn't try to make themselves look better, and like the innocent victims of the "cruel" Soviet system. It's fairly simple logic Comrade, lie so the other people look bad and you look good. It's like asking the Nazis if they killed millions of Jews.

Besides Comrade, I have offered an online book for you to view. Apparently, you nor the other anarchist have ventured to read it.

He has shown more proof than you, and that puts him points ahead.

Yeah because we all know, it's not the duty of the accuser to present the facts, it's the duty of the one being accused. Pretty silly there, Comrade.

Yes, Gandhi; what a traitor.

If you find someone who sympathizes with class systems and enforces it by religious doctrine then Ghandi was great. I, however, am opposed to them.

This has proof beyond any doubt that the Soviet government forced a famine on the people of Ukraine that resulted in at least four million deaths

Of course I could go through and refute all the claims of the website, but since you just provided a link, I'll provide you with a link to about 10-20 different sections on collectivization, kulaks, and ukranian peasantry. Here you go..
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node19.html#SECTION00700000000000000000

It is interesting that you consider the prisoners letter to be "a bias one way representation of a revolution that fought for proletariat independence and freedom" since it was purposely sent to the government of that revolution and it asked for nothing more than a reform in the camp labor system, and the other letter was written by a doctor who worked for the government.

You used it to describe certain conditions. The certain conditions it describes could have been exaggerated, and because it came from criminals, I will not trust their words ONLY. Of course, if there are any other forms of empirical evidence that corroborates with their story, then great.

As for the letter that worked for the government, you never made a point about that letter so I never bothered responding to it. When you can get points out of it, I will take the time.

They are completely credible, as is shown by the fact that any changes they asked for were completely within the boundaries of the soviet government and were intended to be made by it.

Comrade nothing is completely credible, but what makes things more "credible" than others are the evidence existing to corroborate the accounts and the people making them. So far, none of these factors have worked in your favor, Comrade.

One interesting point I found in the link I just gave you is that Stalin himself admitted to Winston Churchill that he was having a hard war with "10 millions" of peasants, of whom he said very few were on his side. In this link there are eyewitness acounts of brutality and genocide from the hands of the government.

"agreed to come in with us" and were given land to cultivate in Tomsk or lrkutsk (both in Siberia). "But," Stalin added, "the great bulk (of the 10 million) were very unpopular and were wiped out by their labourers (?)."

That's the quote from the site, and allow me to add some noticable objections. Number 1, there is no source for this supposed conversation to check the original manuscript with. Number 2, how do we know that Stalin wasn't saying the great bulk of the KULAKS were very unpopular and were wiped out by their laborers? The very fact that Kulaks had laborers and a majority of peasants didn't, points to my assertion being more logical AND reasonable.

In this link there are eyewitness acounts of brutality and genocide from the hands of the government. If you can read this (and look at some of it's pictures too) and still not be moved, than you are no true revolutionary but a stubborn, blind and purposely ignorant one, who doesn't really care about the proletariat, just his hero who he is unwilling to stop looking up to.

Comrade, these eyewitness accounts can be refuted by my eyewitness accounts in the source I have given you. Just as you could say the same for mine. So, we should just disavow the eyewitness testimonies altogether and look for factual information. You, by the way, have failed to provide it. Except of course, the word of the author on the link who didn't bother showing "how" the Soviet Union caused the famine.

The reason I have not addressed your point about Gandhi is because it is not really worth my time. Gandhi repeatedly stressed his belief in equality and brotherhood.

And Ghandi was also a Hindu. Hinduism is a religion that staunchly supports classes. But you admitted yourself that he brought no change to India because his "people" aren't and didn't listen to him anyway.

Gandhi was strongly effected by the teachings of Christ and the writings of such progressive thinkers as Henry David Thoreau and other transcentendalist, as well as many other liberal western philosephers. Just because he claimed to be Hindu does not mean he agreed with or advocated all of Hinduisms teachings.

Ghandi was a self-proclaimed Hindu. A large portion of Hindu belief is BASED on CLASS and the CASTE SYSTEM. So, it's in your court to prove that this part of the hindu belief system is something he disagreed with. It's like someone claiming to be a Christian. One who is claiming that the person making this claim doesn't adhere to a certain belief of Christians (maybe, there is one God) has to prove what the other person doesn't believe in. As long as someone proclaims himself to identify with a certain ideology, it is assumed that it is all of the ideology unless specified otherwise.

And by the way, that was not why I brought up his funeral. I was making the point that the people were extremely devoted to him, just like your point with Stalins funeral. That point alone is not enough to convince me of that, but you seem to think differently so I thought it was worth saying.

What was the point of saying that people are devoted to him? That had/has nothing to bear on the conversation. So either you were trying to say that he's right because people are devoted to him, or you were bringing up a point that wasn't reflective of the conversation at hand. I chose to believe that you were trying to make point, rather than babbling on. Maybe I should have known better.

My point in bringing up Norway was that full fledged communism is not needed to bring happiness to the people.

If that's your point, the same could be said of anarchism. So, why are you an anarchist?

And by your logic, a majority of the people in America are happy, so Capitalism = great.

But there have been way less problems with moderate socialism than with soviet style "socialist transition".

Again, nothing to do with the conversation Comrade. Of course it wouldn't have to go through the same transitions as the Soviet Union. The problems are totally different and each ideology had a different way of fixing certain problems.

Please check the link I just gave you, for your own sake. You don't have to read the whole thing if you don't want to, but you should at least read some of the eyewitness acounts of the repression they had to endure.

And I hope you do the same for my link Comrade.

Although this has nothing to do with the debate, but I was wondering, just out of curiosity, how old are you and what country are you from? Or if you're from the US, what general area are you from? I'm just wondering.

I'm from the United States and I live in Southern California.

: defiance Jan 27 2004, 08:28 AM

Here are some interesting points in that article...

Victor Kravchenko was a Soviet official who escaped from the USSR Embassy in the United States in 1944. He described his life in the book I Chose Freedom. In 1933 he was one of the Communist agents assigned to safeguard the new harvest, the "Harvest in Hell" as he calls it:

"When the first of the new grain was being delivered to the granary near the railroad station, I made a discovery which left me tremulous with horror. Stacked in the brick structure were thousands of poods of the previous year's (1932) grain collections These were the state reserves for the district ordered by the government, their very existence hidden from the starving population by officialdom Hundreds of men, women and children had died of undernourishment in these villages, though grain was hoarded almost outside their doors!"

Kravchenko was shocked to discover a butter plant was wrapping its products in paper titled in English USSR Butter Export.

"Anger lashed my mind as I drove back to the village. Butter being sent abroad in the midst of the famine! In London, Berlin, Paris I could see ... people eating butter stamped with a Soviet trade mark. Driving through the fields, I did not hear the lovely Ukrainian songs so dear to my heart. These people had forgotten how to sing. I could only hear the groans of the dying, and the lip-smacking of fat foreigners enjoying our butter"

"The most terrifying sights were the little children with skeleton limbs dangling from balloon-like abdomens. Starvation had wiped every trace of youth from their faces, turning them into tortured gargoyles; only in their eyes still lingered the reminder of childhood. Everywhere we found men and women lying prone (weak from hunger), their faces and bellies bloated, their eyes utterly expressionless."

At the same time Communist Party members and Soviet officials, the privileged classes, were specially supplied with food. Some of these, however, had a conscience and Comrade Somanov, Chief of the Political Department said:

"Victor ... I'm of peasant origin myself and the sufferings of my people hurt me deeply. Tears, blood, death, exile. And why? The land is fertile, the people are hard-working. Why must we let them starve and die and perish? The more I think of it the more confused I get."

This letter was written to K. Riabokin, a University Professor at Kharkiv, by his niece Zina:

"Please, Uncle Do Take Me to Kharkiv."

"We have neither bread nor anything else to eat. Dad is completely exhausted from hunger and is lying on the bench, unable to get on his feet. Mother is blind from the hunger and cannot see in the least. So I have to guide her when she has to go outside. Please Uncle, do take me to Kharkiv, because I, too, will die from hunger. Please do take me, please. I'm still young and I want so much to live a while. Here I will surely die, for every one else is dying ..."

The Uncle received the letter at the same time that he was told of her death. He says, "I did not know what to say or what to do. My head just pounded with my neice's pathetic plea: `I'm still young and want so much to live ... Please do take me, please ...'"

HUNDREDS OF UKRAINIAN eyewitnesses of the famine have told their tragic and unbelievable experiences in the book The Black Deeds of the Kremlin, edited by S. 0. Pidhainy. The second volume of this work is devoted exclusively to "The Great Famine in Ukraine." It should be added that some of the people were able to travel to Moscow and other areas because they were technicians, etc. They testify that while they left Famine at the border of Ukraine or the Kuban (North Caucasus) area, which is also Ukrainian populated, they found no evidence of hunger in Russia or other Soviet republics, except Byelorussia. It is not possible to give even a hint of the horror and pathos in Ukraine at the time.

Vasyl Hryshko, in his factual study says that in 1935 about 25,000 people died daily in the villages of Ukraine, or more than 1,000 per hour or 17 every minute. It was in early 1933 that the greatest loss of life took place. In the first half of the year foreign travel in Ukraine was banned. No newspaper correspondents were allowed to visit the besieged country until the late summer and fall when signs of the famine had been cleared up. The American journalist William Henry Chamberlin visited Ukraine immediately after the ban on travel was lifted. He says every village he visited had lost at least ten percent of its residents.

Hryshko sums up the statistics of 1932 and 1939 in this way. When we compare the 32,680,700 persons living in Ukraine in 1932 with the 1939 figure of 30,960,200 we see that, taking into account the normal 2.36 per cent annual increase, in seven years Ukraine had lost 7,465,000 persons. Of this number, Hryshko says, some 4,821,600 persons or roughly 18.8 percent of the Ukrainian population, died in the years 1932-1933.

A Secret Police Colonel, almost sobbing, told the writer Isaac Deutscher:

"I am an old Bolshevik. I worked in the underground against the Tsar and then I fought in the civil war. Did I do all that in order that I should now surround villages with machine-guns and order my men to fire indiscriminately into crowds of peasants? Oh no, no!"

One Moscow agent, mighty Hatayevich, in reprimanding Comrade Victor Kravchenko, one of 100,000 men "selected by the Central Committee of the Party" to help in Collectivization said:

"I'm not sure that you understand what has been happening. A ruthless struggle is going on between the peasantry and our regime. It's a struggle to the death. This year (1933) was a test of our strength and their endurance. It took a famine to show them who is master here. It has cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay, We've won the war."

Some of these witnesses support what happened, some of them were with the government, some of them were just common people, some of them were only children, but all of them gave first hand proof that the famine happened, and it was not on accident. It has been proven that it was not the result of any natural causes, such as a draught, but rather that it was forced on them by refusing to give (or leave) them enough food to survive. You said you can refute all of these statements, so refute them, if you have the evidence.

I will read your link as soon as I can, but if you have not already read everything I just posted, than please do that, it is all important.

"I'm from the United States and I live in Southern California"

I lived in southern california not long ago, but we moved two years ago. How old are you?

: regilas Jan 27 2004, 09:44 AM

QUOTE
Comrade, you're falling into the same trap. A better question to ask is WHY WOULDN'T THEY LIE? Or do you not think criminals wouldn't exaggerate conditions to make them seem like victims of a cruel intolerable regime instead of them being punished for the crime they committed? It's common sense, if you're a criminal, you're going to lie to make yourself look better than the "intolerable" regime that put you there.


I am no history wizard which makes it hard to reply to what you have posted. But to this, I say:

Wrong, it is not to ask why wouldn't they lie? For the evidence shows that they already did not lie, and thus it leaves it to your duty to confirm that they gave false accusations.

Why should a criminal exaggerate his conditions if they were hard enough. That is, as defiance stated, that Mumia Abu-Jamal could be lying. When he leaves, he may give false accusations how he may have escaped the very gate of death. Again, you are not to give those accusations, being that you have not evidence of their false accusations. I have left it to defiance to reply to your link, thus leaving you to argue that point with him.

Common sense? How is it common sense to lie about conditions if they really are very evil inside of prisons. Do you believe that prison is very jolly? Do you believe that those that went inside of prison are really not tormented from the prison but their crime?

And Gandhi agreed with the majority. He did not approve of the UK being in their land, and thus he and the people that agreed with him took upon themselves to peacefully move them out. He was very humble. He was not a man of class except for the fact that he did move against the UK, which proved to be a very big movement.

To believe that Gandhi agrees with the class, and that Stalin did not slay those people is folly. One must first show overwhelming evidence in order to convict their innocense or guilt? Overwhelming evidence may not be needed if any evidence attacks against it.

Again, I left it to defiance to answer your link. I do not know the details of history, and therefore cannot judge it. But I will say that if you should not read his links, why should we read yours?

: Dataika Jan 27 2004, 04:15 PM

QUOTE (defiance @ Jan 27 2004, 04:28 PM)
Here are some interesting points in that article...

Victor Kravchenko was a Soviet official who escaped from the USSR Embassy in the United States in 1944. He described his life in the book I Chose Freedom. In 1933 he was one of the Communist agents assigned to safeguard the new harvest, the "Harvest in Hell" as he calls it:

"When the first of the new grain was being delivered to the granary near the railroad station, I made a discovery which left me tremulous with horror. Stacked in the brick structure were thousands of poods of the previous year's (1932) grain collections These were the state reserves for the district ordered by the government, their very existence hidden from the starving population by officialdom Hundreds of men, women and children had died of undernourishment in these villages, though grain was hoarded almost outside their doors!"

Kravchenko was shocked to discover a butter plant was wrapping its products in paper titled in English USSR Butter Export.

"Anger lashed my mind as I drove back to the village. Butter being sent abroad in the midst of the famine! In London, Berlin, Paris I could see ... people eating butter stamped with a Soviet trade mark. Driving through the fields, I did not hear the lovely Ukrainian songs so dear to my heart. These people had forgotten how to sing. I could only hear the groans of the dying, and the lip-smacking of fat foreigners enjoying our butter"

"The most terrifying sights were the little children with skeleton limbs dangling from balloon-like abdomens. Starvation had wiped every trace of youth from their faces, turning them into tortured gargoyles; only in their eyes still lingered the reminder of childhood. Everywhere we found men and women lying prone (weak from hunger), their faces and bellies bloated, their eyes utterly expressionless."

At the same time Communist Party members and Soviet officials, the privileged classes, were specially supplied with food. Some of these, however, had a conscience and Comrade Somanov, Chief of the Political Department said:

"Victor ... I'm of peasant origin myself and the sufferings of my people hurt me deeply. Tears, blood, death, exile. And why? The land is fertile, the people are hard-working. Why must we let them starve and die and perish? The more I think of it the more confused I get."

This letter was written to K. Riabokin, a University Professor at Kharkiv, by his niece Zina:

"Please, Uncle Do Take Me to Kharkiv."

"We have neither bread nor anything else to eat. Dad is completely exhausted from hunger and is lying on the bench, unable to get on his feet. Mother is blind from the hunger and cannot see in the least. So I have to guide her when she has to go outside. Please Uncle, do take me to Kharkiv, because I, too, will die from hunger. Please do take me, please. I'm still young and I want so much to live a while. Here I will surely die, for every one else is dying ..."

The Uncle received the letter at the same time that he was told of her death. He says, "I did not know what to say or what to do. My head just pounded with my neice's pathetic plea: `I'm still young and want so much to live ... Please do take me, please ...'"

HUNDREDS OF UKRAINIAN eyewitnesses of the famine have told their tragic and unbelievable experiences in the book The Black Deeds of the Kremlin, edited by S. 0. Pidhainy. The second volume of this work is devoted exclusively to "The Great Famine in Ukraine." It should be added that some of the people were able to travel to Moscow and other areas because they were technicians, etc. They testify that while they left Famine at the border of Ukraine or the Kuban (North Caucasus) area, which is also Ukrainian populated, they found no evidence of hunger in Russia or other Soviet republics, except Byelorussia. It is not possible to give even a hint of the horror and pathos in Ukraine at the time.

Vasyl Hryshko, in his factual study says that in 1935 about 25,000 people died daily in the villages of Ukraine, or more than 1,000 per hour or 17 every minute. It was in early 1933 that the greatest loss of life took place. In the first half of the year foreign travel in Ukraine was banned. No newspaper correspondents were allowed to visit the besieged country until the late summer and fall when signs of the famine had been cleared up. The American journalist William Henry Chamberlin visited Ukraine immediately after the ban on travel was lifted. He says every village he visited had lost at least ten percent of its residents.

Hryshko sums up the statistics of 1932 and 1939 in this way. When we compare the 32,680,700 persons living in Ukraine in 1932 with the 1939 figure of 30,960,200 we see that, taking into account the normal 2.36 per cent annual increase, in seven years Ukraine had lost 7,465,000 persons. Of this number, Hryshko says, some 4,821,600 persons or roughly 18.8 percent of the Ukrainian population, died in the years 1932-1933.

A Secret Police Colonel, almost sobbing, told the writer Isaac Deutscher:

"I am an old Bolshevik. I worked in the underground against the Tsar and then I fought in the civil war. Did I do all that in order that I should now surround villages with machine-guns and order my men to fire indiscriminately into crowds of peasants? Oh no, no!"

One Moscow agent, mighty Hatayevich, in reprimanding Comrade Victor Kravchenko, one of 100,000 men "selected by the Central Committee of the Party" to help in Collectivization said:

"I'm not sure that you understand what has been happening. A ruthless struggle is going on between the peasantry and our regime. It's a struggle to the death. This year (1933) was a test of our strength and their endurance. It took a famine to show them who is master here. It has cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay, We've won the war."

Some of these witnesses support what happened, some of them were with the government, some of them were just common people, some of them were only children, but all of them gave first hand proof that the famine happened, and it was not on accident. It has been proven that it was not the result of any natural causes, such as a draught, but rather that it was forced on them by refusing to give (or leave) them enough food to survive. You said you can refute all of these statements, so refute them, if you have the evidence.

I will read your link as soon as I can, but if you have not already read everything I just posted, than please do that, it is all important.

"I'm from the United States and I live in Southern California"

I lived in southern california not long ago, but we moved two years ago. How old are you?

Here are some interesting points in that article...

I read the entire article Comrade, and in fact, the link I posted mentions the very man you're talking about. Look at the link under Conquest Fascist Sources, I believe.

HUNDREDS OF UKRAINIAN eyewitnesses of the famine have told their tragic and unbelievable experiences in the book The Black Deeds of the Kremlin, edited by S. 0. Pidhainy.

That very book is mentioned in the link I gave you also. The link I gave you does a VERY GOOD job at explaining these happenings, Comrade. But again, I never claimed a famine never happened, what I claim is that it wasn't purposefully orchestrated by the USSR. But the link gives a great history of collectivization (the start and the lack of grain production, etc..).

Vasyl Hryshko, in his factual study says that in 1935 about 25,000 people died daily in the villages of Ukraine, or more than 1,000 per hour or 17 every minute. It was in early 1933 that the greatest loss of life took place. In the first half of the year foreign travel in Ukraine was banned. No newspaper correspondents were allowed to visit the besieged country until the late summer and fall when signs of the famine had been cleared up. The American journalist William Henry Chamberlin visited Ukraine immediately after the ban on travel was lifted. He says every village he visited had lost at least ten percent of its residents.

Where is the evidence behind these estimates? What are his sources? Where did he get his figures?

And american journalists are very trustworthy, just like Hearst was rolleyes.gif

Some of these witnesses support what happened, some of them were with the government, some of them were just common people, some of them were only children, but all of them gave first hand proof that the famine happened, and it was not on accident. It has been proven that it was not the result of any natural causes, such as a draught, but rather that it was forced on them by refusing to give (or leave) them enough food to survive. You said you can refute all of these statements, so refute them, if you have the evidence.

I never said the famine was the result of any "natural causes" either Comrade. Don't make false claims of mine, which is what you seem to be doing. There is no evidence besides what these "eyewitnesses" say what happened. The only thing you have proven is that there was a famine and that people died from it (from eyewitness accounts). You have, in no way, proven that the famine was made as a weapon by the Soviet State. I say, the famine is a result of collectivization, but not all blame rests on the Soviets. It lies on the Kulaks themselves who protested by burning their livestock (as was implicated in the article you posted) as well as burning their own crops. It was caused by the feud itself. No one group started it. The kulaks contributed to it as much as the rebelling peasants and Soviet State did. It was a result of the "war" that was being waged for peasant freedom.

I will read your link as soon as I can, but if you have not already read everything I just posted, than please do that, it is all important.

Comrade, I've read everything you posted.

I lived in southern california not long ago, but we moved two years ago. How old are you?

I am 20. Where did you live? (Aren't you glad that we can be civilized now? Like I said before, we are both on the same side Comrade, I just see things differently than you.)

Wrong, it is not to ask why wouldn't they lie? For the evidence shows that they already did not lie, and thus it leaves it to your duty to confirm that they gave false accusations.

What evidence shows they did not lie? If any empirical evidence supported their statements (like I said before) I would concede. But neither of you have posted any.

Why should a criminal exaggerate his conditions if they were hard enough. That is, as defiance stated, that Mumia Abu-Jamal could be lying. When he leaves, he may give false accusations how he may have escaped the very gate of death. Again, you are not to give those accusations, being that you have not evidence of their false accusations. I have left it to defiance to reply to your link, thus leaving you to argue that point with him.

A criminal would exaggerate their conditions, as I said before, to make themselves look like "victims" of a cruel "intolerable" regime. To make THEMSELVES look better. It's fairly simple logic Comrade.

If Comrade Mumia decided to make false accusations about the conditions, it would be up to the empirical evidence to prove that what he went through is correct and a norm. There are many ways for this, like photographical or documentary evidence. So far, you haven't provided these two, so why would I just take a CRIMINALS word for it?

Common sense? How is it common sense to lie about conditions if they really are very evil inside of prisons. Do you believe that prison is very jolly? Do you believe that those that went inside of prison are really not tormented from the prison but their crime?

Comrade, goodness, when did I ever say anything remotely similar to what you're saying? Prison/labor camps were bad in the Soviet Union and they should have been because it is PUNISHMENT. But as fat as letting people starve to death and killing people, I just want empirical evidence to support the criminal's accusations. That's all.

And Gandhi agreed with the majority. He did not approve of the UK being in their land, and thus he and the people that agreed with him took upon themselves to peacefully move them out. He was very humble. He was not a man of class except for the fact that he did move against the UK, which proved to be a very big movement.

Comrade, Ghandi wanted the UK out of their land because the UK was exploiting them as a people. Ghandi was a hindu, and the caste system is a very fundamental belief of hinduism. I never said he didn't do anything good, what I said (or meant) was that he has done nothing for proletariat freedom. Hence, he was not a revolutionary in terms of class struggle and proletariat freedom.

To believe that Gandhi agrees with the class, and that Stalin did not slay those people is folly. One must first show overwhelming evidence in order to convict their innocense or guilt? Overwhelming evidence may not be needed if any evidence attacks against it.

Ghandi was a hindu, Comrade, it's fairly logical to assume he agreed with the tennets of its religious system.

About Stalin, I just want evidence. If it's so "folly" provide some empirical evidence, it's that simple.

Again, I left it to defiance to answer your link. I do not know the details of history, and therefore cannot judge it. But I will say that if you should not read his links, why should we read yours?

I read his link, Comrade, in fact, I went over it many times, and am going to ask a couple of friends about it because it does have a lot of eyewitness accounts. I'm going to see what their opinion on this is (probably on the socialistfront.org forums, they're pretty helpful at this sort of thing). I only ask that you grant me the same courtesy, Comrade.

: Dataika Jan 27 2004, 04:25 PM

Anarchist Comrades, there is a debate going on at the socialist front forum about the Ukranian famine.

If you want to get responses from more "educated" "Stalinists" and Maoists then go to this link and ask questions. I'm sure, if you are polite, they will respond courteously. Of course, if you go in there flinging around insults and the like you will get them flung fright back at you.

http://www.socialistfront.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=9&t=904

That's the thread, tell me what you think of the links Chairman Mao provided.

: defiance Jan 27 2004, 06:01 PM

"You have, in no way, proven that the famine was made as a weapon by the Soviet State"

Actually if Kravchenko's report was true, than I have proven it, whether or not you say I have. Now the question is, was he telling the truth? He worked in the soviet government up until that time, so that at least goes in his favor. The author calls him anti communist, and somehow that's supposed to prove him wrong. But the author leaves out the reason why he's anti-comunist. I might be wrong, since I haven't read the whole thing, but so far I have found very little eyewitness acounts that say it was a good time, except government officials. But if we can't trust anti-communists, than why should we depend on pro-communists, since obviously they're not going to be objective about it either.

I also noticed a few problems with his credibility. In the section called "the essantial role of the most oppressed masses" he qoutes from Lynne viola several times. thess are the first two quotes :"Although centrally initiated and endorsed, collectivization became, to a great extent, a series of ad hoc policy responses to the unbridled initiatives of regional and district rural party and government organs. Collectivization and collective farming were shaped less by Stalin and the central authorities than by the undisciplined and irresponsible activity of rural officials, the experimentation of collective farm leaders left to fend for themselves, and the realities of a backward countryside" "The state ruled by circular, it ruled by decree, but it had neither the organizational infrastructure nor the manpower to enforce its voice or to ensure correct implementation of its policy in the administration of the countryside .... The roots of the Stalin system in the countryside do not lie in the expansion of state controls but in the very absence of such controls and of an orderly system of administration, which, in turn, resulted as the primary instrument of rule in the countryside." At the end of these quotes he says :"This conclusion, drawn from a careful observation of the real progress of collectivization, requires two comments. The thesis of `Communist totalitarianism' exercised by an `omnipresent Party bureaucracy' has no real bearing with the actual Soviet power under Stalin. It is a slogan showing the bourgeoisie's hatred of real socialism. In 1929--1933, the Soviet State did not have the technical means, the required qualified personnel, nor the sufficient Communist leadership to direct collectivization in a planned and orderly manner: to describe it as an all-powerful and totalitarian State is absurd." Than he says within the next paragraph "Viola's judgment according to which `repression became the principal instrument of power' does not correspond to reality". First he says she closely observed the famine and was therefore very accurate, than he says she did not correspond with reality. How does that make sense? Her reports were not at all biase, and he was quite glad to use her referrences, yet when she said that repression was the primary instrument of power, he accused her of not corresponding to reality. Maybe I'm just nitpicking, but that was one thing I noticed that seemed a little strange considering that she "closely observed the collectivization", and should therefore not be counted out so easily.

"The 1932-1933 Ukrainian famine had four causes. First of all, it was provoked by civil war led by the kulaks and the nostalgic reactionary elements of Tsarism against the collectivization of agriculture. The second cause of the famine was the drought that hit certain areas of Ukraine in 1930, 1931 and 1932. The third cause of the famine was a typhoid epidemic that ravaged Ukraine and North Caucausus. The fourth cause of the famine was the inevitable disorder provoked by the reorganization of agriculture and the equally profound upheaval in economic and social relations: lack of experience, improvization and confusion in orders, lack of preparation and leftist radicalism among some of the poorer peasants and some of the civil servants."

First of all, when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union during World War two, it was commonly practised by communist guerrillas to destroy anything that could be used by the enemy, including crops, livestock, etc. I think it's somewhat hypocritical to call the Kulaks criminals for the same exact thing. Second of all, since the famine and drought did not hit most of the rest of Russia, food could have easily been collected and sent to Ukrain to help the starving people there. I seriously doubt that the government would have objected to taking food from the other districts for that prupose, if they had really cared, especialy considering that they were already taking food from the Kolkhozes in the first first place. Third of all, the fact that it allowed in so much chaos and corruption should be considered a problem with the method of distribution, not an excuse for letting the government go. And of course the author completely neglects the fact that there was a huge amount of reserve food going to foreign trade exports, as well as the govenment itself. Kravchenko was not the only government official who said that, Comrade Somanov also implied that that as well, and as far as I know he did not try to escape or rebell against the Soviet government, but I might be wrong there.

"Where is the evidence behind these estimates? What are his sources? Where did he get his figures?"

This quote from the article that you supposedly read gives an answer,"While no official statistics about this tragedy have been published, there is a document - The Small Soviet Encyclopedia of 1940, in which it is stated that Ukraine had in 1927 a population of 32 millions, and in 1939, only twelve years later, a population of 28 million. Where had the 4 millions gone to, apart from what should have been the natural increase of at least another 4 million?" That seems pretty reasonable to me, but maybe that's a lie too. Is the Small Soviet Encyclopedia Fascist? If not than please explain this interesting little fact it gives.

"I never said the famine was the result of any "natural causes" either Comrade. Don't make false claims of mine, which is what you seem to be doing. There is no evidence besides what these "eyewitnesses" say what happened. The only thing you have proven is that there was a famine and that people died from it (from eyewitness accounts). You have, in no way, proven that the famine was made as a weapon by the Soviet State. I say, the famine is a result of collectivization, but not all blame rests on the Soviets. It lies on the Kulaks themselves who protested by burning their livestock (as was implicated in the article you posted) as well as burning their own crops. It was caused by the feud itself. No one group started it. The kulaks contributed to it as much as the rebelling peasants and Soviet State did. It was a result of the "war" that was being waged for peasant freedom."

First you ask for eyewitness acounst, than when I give you them you say it's not enough. Your real problem is that you are are just too stubborn to admit that you're wrong. I never said ot was only the governments fault, nor did I say that I agreed with the system they had before. But just because the first system was bad, that doesn't mean that the new system can get away with it's atrocities. The fact is, the government wasn't starving, and there was plenty of food being taken from the Ukrain at that time, it just wasn't going to the right place. Consider this quote :"In April, 1933, I travelled through Ukraine to Odessa, and ... a Red Army brigade commander (General) told me: 'We had a communal farm in Ukraine attached to my regiment ... Everything went well until a year ago (1932). Then the whole set-up changed. We began to get letters asking for food. Can you imagine that, that they asked food from us? We sent what we could, but I didn't know what had happened until I went to the farm only a month ago (March 1933). My God, you wouldn't beleive it. The people were almost starving. Their animals were dead. I'll tell you more, there wasn't a cat or dog in the whole village, and that is no good sign ... Instead of two hundred and fifty families there were only seventy-three, and all of them were half-starved. I asked them what happened. They said 'Our seed grain was taken away last spring.' They said to me, 'Comrade Commander, we are soldiers and most of us are Communists. When the order came that our farm must deliver five hundred tons of grain, we held a meeting. Five hundred tons of grain! We needed four hundred tons to sow our fields, and we only had six hundred tons. But we gave the grain as ordered." What was the result? I asked the brigade commander."Barren fields," he told me. "Do you know that they ate their horses and oxen, such as was left of them? They were starving, do you know that? Their tractors were rusty and useless; and remember, these folks weren't kulaks, weren't class enemies. They were our own people, our soldiers. I was horrified..." Is that a lie too? I don't think it is, but you might think differently.

"I am 20. Where did you live? (Aren't you glad that we can be civilized now? Like I said before, we are both on the same side Comrade, I just see things differently than you.)"

I lived near the city of Temecula, if you know where that is, alot of people I've told that to didn't regognize it. What area do you live in? Yes it's good to know that we can still talk normal outside of our debate. I apoligize for any statements made earlier that seemed overly argumentive, I was just trying to put my point across strongly. I hope you understand, I'm not normally like that, only sometimes. Anyway, sorry the post is so long, I'm just responding to some important points.

: Dataika Jan 28 2004, 09:41 AM

QUOTE
Actually if Kravchenko's report was true, than I have proven it, whether or not you say I have. Now the question is, was he telling the truth? He worked in the soviet government up until that time, so that at least goes in his favor. The author calls him anti communist, and somehow that's supposed to prove him wrong. But the author leaves out the reason why he's anti-comunist. I might be wrong, since I haven't read the whole thing, but so far I have found very little eyewitness acounts that say it was a good time, except government officials. But if we can't trust anti-communists, than why should we depend on pro-communists, since obviously they're not going to be objective about it either.


The fact that Kravchenko left the USSR speaks volumes about his anti-communistic and opportunistic tendencies. Of course to this you'll simply say "he was outraged by the economic policy!" Which I can't argue against since I'm not a mind reader, but the question would be "Why was he one of the only ones and how come MORE officials haven't come out with this story?"

Comrade, I never said it was a great time in the Soviet Union, nor did I say the witnesses said that. Good grief.

We can't trust anyone fully without some kind of evidence to corroborate their testimony.

QUOTE
also noticed a few problems with his credibility. In the section called "the essantial role of the most oppressed masses" he qoutes from Lynne viola several times. thess are the first two quotes


Comrade please tell me where he said that everything she said was accurate. Furthermore, his point was made clear from the beginning. He disagreed with her one-sided VIEW of the facts, NOT the FACTS she presented themselves.

He agreed with her on a specific idea (that Soviets were NOT some all-knowing beuracracy) and disagreed with her on another. He gave explanations as to why. If you have a problem with his explanations, fine, but don't insult his "character" nor the way he presented his points. It only shows the OBVIOUS lack of knowledge of the subject on your part.

QUOTE
First of all, when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union during World War two, it was commonly practised by communist guerrillas to destroy anything that could be used by the enemy, including crops, livestock, etc.


The Ukranian Kulaks were criminals and class enemies of the working class BEFORE this. The acts they committed are listed just as a REASON for it.

QUOTE
Second of all, since the famine and drought did not hit most of the rest of Russia, food could have easily been collected and sent to Ukrain to help the starving people there.


Comrade you obviously haven't not heard of the economic food shortages throughout the Soviet Union of this time? That's simply, astonishing. The grain shortages of 1927, the decific in export trade, the need for the people to ration (which is sort of like, what, a DEPRESSION?). You're making it seem as if they horded all this food by themselves and purposefully mass-murdered people, which just ignores the facts. Here's a site that's ANTI-STALIN and still does a reasonable job at explaining hte situation. http://econc10.bu.edu/economic_systems/theory/marxism/soviet/industrialization_debate_.htm

QUOTE
Third of all, the fact that it allowed in so much chaos and corruption should be considered a problem with the method of distribution, not an excuse for letting the government go. And of course the author completely neglects the fact that there was a huge amount of reserve food going to foreign trade exports, as well as the govenment itself.


The fact that it did allow a lot of chaos (most by overzealous party members taking things into their own hands) only shows the system is not perfect (which nothing is).

"Neglects" the "fact" that there were huge amoung of reserve food? WHAT IN BLAZES? Just read the article I posted before, that's utter NONSENSE, Comrade.

QUOTE
Comrade Somanov also implied that that as well, and as far as I know he did not try to escape or rebell against the Soviet government, but I might be wrong there.


Post the quote

QUOTE
This quote from the article that you supposedly read gives an answer,"While no official statistics about this tragedy have been published, there is a document - The Small Soviet Encyclopedia of 1940, in which it is stated that Ukraine had in 1927 a population of 32 millions, and in 1939, only twelve years later, a population of 28 million. Where had the 4 millions gone to, apart from what should have been the natural increase of at least another 4 million?" That seems pretty reasonable to me, but maybe that's a lie too. Is the Small Soviet Encyclopedia Fascist? If not than please explain this interesting little fact it gives.


Well Comrade a lot people died from diseases related to malnourishment (not actual starvation in itself) and a lot of peasants FLED the Soviet Union. So this nothing but CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence. Had we been in a court, a competant lawyer could have easily shown that PEASANTS were FLEEING and being RUN OUT by the lower peasants themselves. So there could be any NUMBER of reasons as to why this number changed so drastically. Not to mention the fact that there was conflict between the poor peasants and the kulaks, and hence deaths would be the result (not of the famine, though).

QUOTE
First you ask for eyewitness acounst, than when I give you them you say it's not enough. Your real problem is that you are are just too stubborn to admit that you're wrong.


Comrade, I asked for witness accounts that corroborate with empirical evidence. You haven't provided anything BUT these accounts.

And the facts that you did "provide" I admit to and argue agianst your INTERPRETATION of these facts.

QUOTE
I never said ot was only the governments fault, nor did I say that I agreed with the system they had before.


You said they were using it as a "weapon." For something to be used as a weapon that means they pruposefully used it on someone or some other entity to harm them. Since this was never the case and it was a result of stiff economic policies that were unreasonable for some farms [and like I said before, I never claimed Stalin was perfect nor that his country was, but he SHOULD be respected. Che Guevara wasn't very good with economics, but he, likewise, SHOULD BE RESPECTED] and protest from the Kulaks (who helped cause the grain and trade exports to begin with) and other peasants, it wasn't a weapon used by anyone. Like I said before, it was the result of a class-war. The elimination of the capitalist market in the country side and the defence of the workers. The liquidation of the "kulak class."(note, this does not mean they wanted to kill the KULAKS, they wanted to kill the CLASS, that is, the structure of the classes involved in the country-side)

QUOTE
The fact is, the government wasn't starving, and there was plenty of food being taken from the Ukrain at that time, it just wasn't going to the right place.


Comrade, this notion disagrees with historic reality.

QUOTE
Consider this quote


Well Comrade, that quote is the word of someone (whom you didn't bother mentioning) who supposedly talked to a RED army General (whom he neglects to bother mentioning his name). Even if this quote was accurate it proves that there were food shortages, the general claimed he sent what he COULD, meaning there were problems with sending food to them because they themselves were RATIONING THE FOOD. The overbearing and unrealistic grain production cost still falls short of mass murder, it may have been bad economic policy (which it might have been reasonable, had party officials and kulaks hadn't taken things into their own hands, as well, we will never know Comrade), but it wasn't used to distinguishy and indiscriminately kill Ukranian peasants. And like the author mentioned the blame doesn't just fall on Stalin, it falls on those who were burning livestock and withholding grain production to increase their profit (and engage in foreign trade by themselves) to cause the grain shortage to begin with (again, the book covers this quite well). So Comrade, again, JUST THE FACTS.

As an anti-Stalinist Comrade said, "I might be able to blame Stalin with 'criminal neglegence' but it falls well short of mass murder or genocide."

QUOTE
What area do you live in? Yes it's good to know that we can still talk normal outside of our debate. I apoligize for any statements made earlier that seemed overly argumentive, I was just trying to put my point across strongly. I hope you understand, I'm not normally like that, only sometimes.


I live in San Bernardino. Yes, I do that too, Comrade, with heated issues such as this, it is to be expected.

: Vìcmælon Jan 28 2004, 02:34 PM

Dudes, I think its blatantly obvious this thread has gone waaaay off topic.

Why not create another for discussing Soviet history?

Vic

: defiance Jan 28 2004, 04:23 PM

"The fact that Kravchenko left the USSR speaks volumes about his anti-communistic and opportunistic tendencies. Of course to this you'll simply say "he was outraged by the economic policy!" Which I can't argue against since I'm not a mind reader, but the question would be "Why was he one of the only ones and how come MORE officials haven't come out with this story?"'

Well at least you were right about one thing, that is why he left. The problem with your arguments is that they are all based on the assumption that those people were lying and that the Soviet Union was free and equal. Try to be more objective from now on, cause you're really destroying the debate and basically proving how arrogant you are. I mean for gods sake Dataika, Kravchenko worked in th government, he left because of what he saw. How can you deny that, what proof do you want? Any witnesses you dismiss as anti-communists and therefore not reliable, but any communists you dismiss as revisionists or traitors and therefore not reliable. Comrade Somanov was another one who questioned the campaign, "Victor ... I'm of peasant origin myself and the sufferings of my people hurt me deeply. Tears, blood, death, exile. And why? The land is fertile, the people are hard-working. Why must we let them starve and die and perish? The more I think of it the more confused I get." He was chief of the political department, but you'll probably call him a liar too. Seven million people is a huge number, doesn't give you any doubts at all about the reasons for the famine? Your arguments are completely biased, so what am I supposed to do to convince you? Don't just tell me you want "proof", because that's not all you want. Here's an interesting point right here, "In 1990 the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine issued a statement admitting that the Famine was man-made by Stalin's Soviet government". Of course, you'll probably say that's a lie too.

"Comrade you obviously haven't not heard of the economic food shortages throughout the Soviet Union of this time? That's simply, astonishing. The grain shortages of 1927, the decific in export trade, the need for the people to ration (which is sort of like, what, a DEPRESSION?). You're making it seem as if they horded all this food by themselves and purposefully mass-murdered people, which just ignores the facts. Here's a site that's ANTI-STALIN and still does a reasonable job at explaining hte situation."

There may have been shortages, but there was nothing like what was happening in Ukrain and Byelorussia. "Official Soviet reports referred to the 1932 harvest as of medium quality: poor results or failure were never mentioned. (page 29) 1933 was a particularly critical year for the food supply of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, 1.8 million tons of grain and other foodstuffs were exported ... In the first eight months of 1934, during which period the acute lack of foodstuffs continued, the export was even more considerable; 591,835 tons of grain, worth 13.6 million roubles were exported ... via the Black Sea ports." Doesn't that seem at all strange to you? "The peasants who were with me when we found the 'State reserves' stared with unbelieving eyes and cursed in anger. Subsequently I came to know that in many other parts of the country the government hoarded huge reserves while peasants in those very regions died of hunger. Why this was done only Stalin's Politburo could tell -- and it didn't." Maybe the poliburo told you why? If so, please tell me. Because the Kulaks were not the only people who suffered from that famine, and I want to know why children had to starve to death while government officials and foreigners feasted (not to mention all those who didn't die but still starved). If you can't give me a reason than I've won the argument.

There are also some other things I haven't been able to answer yet. First I would like to bring up the Korean War again. You saud that the reason South Korea was invaded ws because they "thought" they were going to invade. By your reasoning, both on this and on sacrifising innocent lives for the greater good, the war in Iraq is completely justified, except that the attackers this time are capitalists, which somehow makes it worse. But unless I'm wrong, you are against the war, right? Explain how that war was any different.

Secondly I would like to bring up Gandhi again. If you research the subject you will find that Gandhi was strongly outspoken against the caste system. He spent much of his time writing and acting against the treatment of the lower castes, especialy the caste known as the untouchables. If you want I can get some direct quotes, but I don't enough have time at the moment. If you want a good picture of his life, watch the movie Gandhi, it's an exellent movie.

: regilas Jan 28 2004, 06:56 PM

QUOTE
I live in San Bernardino. Yes, I do that too, Comrade, with heated issues such as this, it is to be expected.


Heh heh, so do I.

We lived in a place east of Temecula and south of Hemet. We lived not far from where you live. From 30 minutes to 45. But, since we are "waaaaaaaaaay off topic" then let us get back to Anarchy and you may start your Stalin Debate

: Dataika Jan 28 2004, 09:28 PM

QUOTE
Well at least you were right about one thing, that is why he left. The problem with your arguments is that they are all based on the assumption that those people were lying and that the Soviet Union was free and equal.


Comrade, I never said that everyone in the Soviet Union was FREE and EQUAL as certainly class enemies were not.

QUOTE
Try to be more objective from now on, cause you're really destroying the debate and basically proving how arrogant you are. I mean for gods sake Dataika, Kravchenko worked in th government, he left because of what he saw.


Of course all we have is his "word" and I don't plan on taking a deserters "word for it" when it comes to FACTS and history, Comrade. If there was empirical evidence to corroborate his testimony, then I would give it a second thought, but you haven't provided any. You're resting your entire case on his testimony.

QUOTE
Any witnesses you dismiss as anti-communists and therefore not reliable, but any communists you dismiss as revisionists or traitors and therefore not reliable.


Comrade, I dismiss them if they have an obvious bias against the government (as a deserter or criminal would) and there is no empirical evidence to support their claims. You do the same for the witnesses provided in the book I provided a link to. You claim they were "all in the government" and are "therefore" not reliable.

QUOTE
Comrade Somanov was another one who questioned the campaign, "Victor ... I'm of peasant origin myself and the sufferings of my people hurt me deeply. Tears, blood, death, exile. And why? The land is fertile, the people are hard-working. Why must we let them starve and die and perish? The more I think of it the more confused I get."


Comrade Somanov had the right to question it. What he is doing is assuming that the Soviet Government was "letting" them starve, which was far from the case. If you think this is absolue proof of a man made famine, you are being quite rediculous.

QUOTE
Seven million people is a huge number, doesn't give you any doubts at all about the reasons for the famine?


Of course I've had doubts, Comrade, but tehre are many reasons for it, as described in the book. So far, you haven't been able to adequately argue against them, so until you present some facts, don't expect me to believe you.

QUOTE
Don't just tell me you want "proof", because that's not all you want. Here's an interesting point right here, "In 1990 the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine issued a statement admitting that the Famine was man-made by Stalin's Soviet government". Of course, you'll probably say that's a lie too.


This is coming from a government that had denounced Stalin for well over 35+ years, why would they have any reason to lie? De-STALINIZATION?! GOODNESS WHATS THAT?!

QUOTE
There may have been shortages, but there was nothing like what was happening in Ukrain and Byelorussia.


I didn't say it was, but it does show a reason why it would be so tough to respond to the famine and why it's rediculous to claim that there was all kinds of "horded" food.

QUOTE
Doesn't that seem at all strange to you?


No it doesn't, the fact that they needed to respond to the export crisis in order to defend its revolution by rapid industrialization (as described in the article I posted).

QUOTE
"The peasants who were with me when we found the 'State reserves' stared with unbelieving eyes and cursed in anger. Subsequently I came to know that in many other parts of the country the government hoarded huge reserves while peasants in those very regions died of hunger. Why this was done only Stalin's Politburo could tell -- and it didn't."


Who is that quote from?

QUOTE
Maybe the poliburo told you why? If so, please tell me. Because the Kulaks were not the only people who suffered from that famine, and I want to know why children had to starve to death while government officials and foreigners feasted (not to mention all those who didn't die but still starved). If you can't give me a reason than I've won the argument.


First you have to prove that it happened to begin with, which you haven't done. So, unless you can prove that such a thing happened I've won the argument.

QUOTE
By your reasoning, both on this and on sacrifising innocent lives for the greater good, the war in Iraq is completely justified,


No the war on Iraq was based on lying, imperialism, and oil. This has nothing or any kind of reflection on the Korean War. South Korea was actually gathering its forces and recieving aid from the Americans, how unreasonable is it to assume that an attack would be coming from imperialistic America against a socialist bloc?

QUOTE
Secondly I would like to bring up Gandhi again.


This article says differently Comrade, and claims that he supported the social heirarchy... http://codesign.scu.edu/hinduism/changes.html

: defiance Jan 29 2004, 06:09 PM

QUOTE
Of course all we have is his "word" and I don't plan on taking a deserters "word for it" when it comes to FACTS and history, Comrade. If there was empirical evidence to corroborate his testimony, then I would give it a second thought, but you haven't provided any. You're resting your entire case on his testimony.


The definition of empirical evidence, is evidence taken from personal observation and experience. If you mean my own experiance, than you're dreaming if you think it'll mean anything, since I'm only fifteen and the famine took place in 1933. If you mean someone elses experience, I have given plenty of that, it's your own fault if you're to arrogant to give it a second thought. I also have more than one persons testimony, so don't tell me it's the only thing I have. The only defence you have is the assumption that the Soviet Union was completely good and therefore anyone who came from there and had anything bad to say about it, must have bad motives. If you can't bring yourself to be honest about this, than that's your problem.

QUOTE
Comrade, I dismiss them if they have an obvious bias against the government (as a deserter or criminal would) and there is no empirical evidence to support their claims. You do the same for the witnesses provided in the book I provided a link to. You claim they were "all in the government" and are "therefore" not reliable.


Once again you are assuming that he had a selfish reason for deserting, which comes from your "obvious bias" against anyone who was anti-communist. And I did not say that they were all in the government, I said that there was very little "empirical evidance". Those quotes that I did find were either from before the famine, or were not very detailed, or came from people who did not live in Ukrain at the time (such as government officials). I also said that these should be taken with just as much skepticism as the other witnesses. The argument that they were anti-communist is forcing the debate to be very one sided. Not to mention, any one who saw these crimes and still continued to follow Stalin, obviously wouldn't have cared either way and didn't have a very strong conscience, which means they probably wouldn't mind lying. Once again, try to be more objective.

QUOTE
Comrade Somanov had the right to question it. What he is doing is assuming that the Soviet Government was "letting" them starve, which was far from the case. If you think this is absolue proof of a man made famine, you are being quite rediculous.


I didn't say it was "absolute proof", I said he implied that they could have stopped it. Considering that he was very high up in the system, I would think he knew quite well what was happening, unless it was being hidden from him, which is obviously still corrupt. And as you have said many times, "stop putting words in my post comrade".

QUOTE
This is coming from a government that had denounced Stalin for well over 35+ years, why would they have any reason to lie? De-STALINIZATION?! GOODNESS WHATS THAT?!


That is also coming from a government that is communist, which is what asked for right? So yeah, why would they have a reason to lie? And try to avoid lame jokes. If you're going to insult my opinions, you might as well at least make it funny.

QUOTE
No it doesn't, the fact that they needed to respond to the export crisis in order to defend its revolution by rapid industrialization (as described in the article I posted).


Maybe you're forgetting that they were Soviet marked? Either that or you're just too arrogant to argue the real point. Anyway they could have easily found and raided the plants, like they did with every other peasants home in the Ukraine. But they obviously didn't, since, as I said before, the exports were Soviet marked.

QUOTE
Who is that quote from?


I guess you haven't read the article very well. I was just bringing the quote back to attention, but you seem to enjoy resorting to delaying tactics to slow down my argument, which is an good sign that you either can't argue your point, or you're just straight out losing.

QUOTE
First you have to prove that it happened to begin with, which you haven't done. So, unless you can prove that such a thing happened I've won the argument.


I have proven it, so please respond to the question.

QUOTE
No the war on Iraq was based on lying, imperialism, and oil. This has nothing or any kind of reflection on the Korean War. South Korea was actually gathering its forces and recieving aid from the Americans, how unreasonable is it to assume that an attack would be coming from imperialistic America against a socialist bloc?


Why don't you prove that they were? I wouldn't be surprised, but so far I've never heard anything like that, nor have you shown me any proof of it. Until you do I won't believe it.

QUOTE
This article says differently Comrade, and claims that he supported the social heirarchy...


First of all, I don't care what the website says, the fact still is that he was strongly against the class system and he constantly identified himself with them. Second of all, I've only read the beggining so I might be wrong, but what I read didn't say anything about Gandhi supporting the caste system. It did say (rightly) that the system is illegal, but that it is still practised today in many places in India. However, this does not mean that the Indian government, or Gandhi, supported it, or have done anything to help it remain. If you do find anything in there that says or implies that, I'll be happy to respond. I am no fan of the Indian government, but to say that Mohandas Gandhi was a supporter of the caste system is just straight out ignorance, and it shows how little you know about him.

: Dataika Jan 30 2004, 09:27 AM

QUOTE
The definition of empirical evidence, is evidence taken from personal observation and experience. If you mean my own experiance, than you're dreaming if you think it'll mean anything, since I'm only fifteen and the famine took place in 1933.


No, it's any kind of evidence gathered from expirementation, ie. archeology.

QUOTE
If you mean someone elses experience, I have given plenty of that, it's your own fault if you're to arrogant to give it a second thought.


You've given me eyewitnesses with nothing to corroborate their testimony. You're relying on about 3 witnesses. Out of the WHOLE SOVIET UNION.

And by the way, something that easily refutes what the criminal said is a look in the Soviet Archive done by the American Historical Review. I'll give you a source for this study. Apparently, the percentage of people killed in labor camps was only numbered at about 450,000 during the WHOLE STALIN ERA. And who knows how most of these deaths came about, lack of medicines for diseases (after all, penicllin and common anti-bodies didn't come around until AFTER WWII), prisoners fighting each other. Who KNOWS.

QUOTE
also have more than one persons testimony, so don't tell me it's the only thing I have.


You've given me three, one talked about the conditions of the labor camp, one says he "saw" the supplies "horded" and one says the government supported the famine. One eyewitness actually wrote a book called "I CHOSE FREEDOM" that says he chose freedom when he joined the United States. He's obviously bourgeoisie if he thinks the United States is a "free" nation. The other was a criminal (which needs no further explanation) and another one assumes that the government can help. This is in no way "proof" that such a thing happened, Comrade.

QUOTE
The only defence you have is the assumption that the Soviet Union was completely good and therefore anyone who came from there and had anything bad to say about it, must have bad motives.


Wrong Comrade, why do you keep making these allegations? All I claimed was that they were not perfect, but they did take the first step in proletarian revolution, and industrialized themselves to withstand Nazi invasion, and rival capitalism. This should be respected.

QUOTE
Once again you are assuming that he had a selfish reason for deserting, which comes from your "obvious bias" against anyone who was anti-communist.


Come on Comrade, he chose "freedom" in the United States. At a time when there were countless racist attitudes and bourgeois oppression. This man is obviously bourgeoise. This conclusion was reached by observing his actions and empirical evidence, Comrade. You should try using it.

QUOTE
And I did not say that they were all in the government, I said that there was very little "empirical evidance".


As with your quotes, Comrade. You DID say that they were "all government sources." Which is far from the case, but still implies a dismissal based on that fact.

QUOTE
Those quotes that I did find were either from before the famine, or were not very detailed, or came from people who did not live in Ukrain at the time (such as government officials).


Comrade, you really need to read the book again if you think they weren't "detailed." The "witnesses" you have were all people who visited the Ukraine (like the witnesses presented in the book), deserters, or Kulaks who left the Ukraine to tell their "story." Too bad they wont mention that they were attacking collective farms with terrorist tendencies(contributing to the famine), fighting a class war with poor peasants (again contributing to the famine), and burning crops and livestock (again, another contribution to the famine).

QUOTE
The argument that they were anti-communist is forcing the debate to be very one sided.


Comrade, I've shown how they were anti-communist. Again, eyewitness testimony with an OBVIOUS BIAS MUST have corroborating evidence. It's fairly simple logic, if a man who hates you says that you killed someone, SHOULD that be enough to convict you?

QUOTE
Not to mention, any one who saw these crimes and still continued to follow Stalin, obviously wouldn't have cared either way and didn't have a very strong conscience, which means they probably wouldn't mind lying.


What CRIMES Comrade? YOU HAVENT PROVIDED ANY!

QUOTE
I didn't say it was "absolute proof", I said he implied that they could have stopped it. Considering that he was very high up in the system, I would think he knew quite well what was happening, unless it was being hidden from him, which is obviously still corrupt.


How high up in the system was he? What rank did he have? How do I know he was "supposed" to know what was happening?

And besides, I'm quite certain that he did "know" that they weren't hoarding, but he thought since the grain export trading were going on that the Soviet Union had food to spare. This is far from the case.

QUOTE
That is also coming from a government that is communist, which is what asked for right? So yeah, why would they have a reason to lie? And try to avoid lame jokes. If you're going to insult my opinions, you might as well at least make it funny.


You are an idiot. Look, they weren't communist, they were bourgeois socialist, and they had been bad talking Stalin for 35+ years before that time. They talked about Stalin's "Crimes" for 35+ years before that time. OF COURSE they would affirm such a thing, they were trying to get in good with the west (as they had been for a LONG TIME). I didn't ask for "communist" resources, Comrades, especially not revisionist ones; I asked for witness accounts that corroborate with evidence, it wasn't a joke, it was sarcasm.

QUOTE
Maybe you're forgetting that they were Soviet marked? Either that or you're just too arrogant to argue the real point. Anyway they could have easily found and raided the plants, like they did with every other peasants home in the Ukraine. But they obviously didn't, since, as I said before, the exports were Soviet marked.


What are you talking about? Where's the evidence for this "marking"? Or is that from another of your "witnesses." They HAD TO EXPORT TO DEFEND THE REVOLUTION BY INDUSTRIALIZING. They had no Control over the terrible class war being waged in the country side between rich and poor peasants, with rich peasants terrorizing the collective farms. Besides, the majority of the peasants didn't die from hunger, they died from diseases related to lack of nourishment (ones that weren't curable until AFTER WWII).

Or would you rather they try and distribute the grain unequally, not export anything so the country ITSELF becomes poor, and allow the NAZIS and WESTERNERS to invade the country and fall?

QUOTE
I guess you haven't read the article very well. I was just bringing the quote back to attention, but you seem to enjoy resorting to delaying tactics to slow down my argument, which is an good sign that you either can't argue your point, or you're just straight out losing.


Comrade, because I don't feel like reading that quote and "checking" your quotes over and over with that article, I'm "losing"? All you've done is point out ludicrous claims and "witnesses" with very bias political views, and NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE, to try and "prove" that the Soviet Union MASS MURDERED millions of people.

QUOTE
I have proven it, so please respond to the question.


Proven it with the "testimony" of a deserter, kulaks, and Ukranian nationalists. Yet no evidence outside this testimony. Yup, whatever buddy.

QUOTE
Why don't you prove that they were? I wouldn't be surprised, but so far I've never heard anything like that, nor have you shown me any proof of it. Until you do I won't believe it.


It is readily available in the link I gave you. http://www.alternativeinsight.com/Korean_War.html Here it is again.

QUOTE
First of all, I don't care what the website says, the fact still is that he was strongly against the class system and he constantly identified himself with them.


Of course you aren't disputing the FACTS that the website gives to support its conclusion and that it has no reason to lie. But ok.

QUOTE
Second of all, I've only read the beggining so I might be wrong, but what I read didn't say anything about Gandhi supporting the caste system. It did say (rightly) that the system is illegal, but that it is still practised today in many places in India.


It said he declared the "untouchables" children of God and fought for their rights to be in their cast. He also (after liberating India from the british) reunified their social heirarchy system.

QUOTE
However, this does not mean that the Indian government, or Gandhi, supported it, or have done anything to help it remain.


Come on now Comrade, the government says PLAINLY that Ghandi secured India's social heirarchy with its independence to Britain. I guess he wasn't too big on removing the cast system, huh? As I said before, he's a hindu, he helped reunify the social heirarchy while removing british control, and he made a speech praising the untouchables. These are all facts, the only repsonse you've conjured up is "he's against it!!! Trust me!!"

QUOTE
I am no fan of the Indian government, but to say that Mohandas Gandhi was a supporter of the caste system is just straight out ignorance, and it shows how little you know about him.


You have done NOTHING to prove that anything is contrary to the case.

: regilas Jan 30 2004, 02:05 PM

Definition of Empirical:

Empirical (em pir'i kel)

1. based on or derived from experience, experiment, or observation: empirical proof.

2. relying on practical experience, without regard for, or benefit of, scientific principles or practice, esp. in medicine.

That is the definition of empirical. Look it up in your dictionary.

Now then, he has given three eyewitness accounts and you have given alternative insight, which seems more as if it is turning events into opposite action.

But please, go on. Tell me why the most popular opinion given to anybody says Stalin has done this, and you out of a random number chosen believes that he has not. It is folly.

Also, names found. You are to look for these names and tell us if these prisoners betrayed the soviet government. And it is your job, being that the majority knows Stalin did this and you do not:

Alexei Rykov, Nikolai Bukharin, Grigori Zinoview, and Lev Kamenev.

You are to search for these people online or off, it does not matter. But do not state that we are to do thus, for many already know that this is true. If you choose not to search and inform us that it is our duty, then I will simply leave this discussion, for there is not use in discussing it if you are not willing to back up your proof. I have givent the names, you are to give us the evidence.

: regilas Jan 30 2004, 02:11 PM

Click http://www.zdlr.net/board/index.php?showtopic=5572 to continue the debate in the History Section.

: Dataika Jan 30 2004, 02:25 PM

QUOTE
That is the definition of empirical. Look it up in your dictionary.


I did, you must have missed the part that says EXPIREMENT. 1. based on or derived from experience, experiment, or observation: empirical proof.

QUOTE
Now then, he has given three eyewitness accounts and you have given alternative insight, which seems more as if it is turning events into opposite action


I have given books, FACTS and reasons to disregard or not TRUST their accounts.

QUOTE
But please, go on. Tell me why the most popular opinion given to anybody says Stalin has done this, and you out of a random number chosen believes that he has not. It is folly.


Well gee, if everyone says it, it must be true. Please don't tell me you're using this kind of reasoning, it's folly in itself. The most popular opinion said that black people weren't human, or on the level of white citizens. This was clearly wrong, because the facts weren't presented.

QUOTE
Also, names found. You are to look for these names and tell us if these prisoners betrayed the soviet government. And it is your job, being that the majority knows Stalin did this and you do not:


They don't "know" anything. I don't have to prove anything, you're making the accusations, you have to back them up. That's like me saying, you're a rapist who engages in sex with little children. Do you have to prove you aren't? No, I have to prove that you do. Even if the whole city believed me, it is my job and of the accusers to provide the evidence. Sorry Comrade, you lose again.

QUOTE
Alexei Rykov, Nikolai Bukharin, Grigori Zinoview, and Lev Kamenev.


Good Grief Comrade, it would take pages and pages to explain each trial and give adequate explanations. So I'll just provide a link to them... http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node86.html#SECTION001000000000000000000

But since it looks as if you just searched for "innocent victims" on google, I'll take it you don't know the first things about these people to begin with. What are your objections about the trials?

QUOTE
You are to search for these people online or off, it does not matter. But do not state that we are to do thus, for many already know that this is true.


Stupid reasoning Comrade. Who is "everyone" the "majority"? Is the majority always correct? If the majority make an accusation they don't have to back it up? Then why are you against what you SAY happened in the Soviet Union? The "majority" "knew" that all these people were spies/criminals/enemies.

You are a coward, you put forward names which you have no knowledge of and then you back out saying "I don't have to provide evidence, people already have."

QUOTE
If you choose not to search and inform us that it is our duty, then I will simply leave this discussion, for there is not use in discussing it if you are not willing to back up your proof.


Pulling names out of your ass while not specifying what they were "incorrectly" charged and convicted of, or why you think they are "innocent" when it was determined in the jury and the trials that they were not innocent. You probably don't even know who half the people you mentioned even were, let alone know any specifics about the trials. Nice try, coward.

: defiance Jan 30 2004, 04:16 PM

QUOTE
No, it's any kind of evidence gathered from expirementation, ie. archeology.


Please give me some specific kind of evidence to look for, cause the Soviet Encyclopedia says up to seven million people died in the famine doesn't seem to mean much to you. In fact, tell me how much evidence it will take to convince you that it happened and I will try to find it. I wonder if any can convince you though, cause no matter what I find you'll either call it propaganda, or you'll simply say it was justified and that it had to be done.

QUOTE
And by the way, something that easily refutes what the criminal said is a look in the Soviet Archive done by the American Historical Review. I'll give you a source for this study. Apparently, the percentage of people killed in labor camps was only numbered at about 450,000 during the WHOLE STALIN ERA. And who knows how most of these deaths came about, lack of medicines for diseases (after all, penicllin and common anti-bodies didn't come around until AFTER WWII), prisoners fighting each other. Who KNOWS.


Where did those numbers come from? If they came from the Soviet government, than you obviously can't completely trust them, as they had every reason to lie about it. And that doesn't refute what the "criminal" said, which had nothing to do with numbers, but with the conditions in the camps.

QUOTE
You've given me three, one talked about the conditions of the labor camp, one says he "saw" the supplies "horded" and one says the government supported the famine. One eyewitness actually wrote a book called "I CHOSE FREEDOM" that says he chose freedom when he joined the United States. He's obviously bourgeoisie if he thinks the United States is a "free" nation. The other was a criminal (which needs no further explanation) and another one assumes that the government can help. This is in no way "proof" that such a thing happened, Comrade.


That's about the most pathetic argument you've given. The name of the book does not prove anything, other than that he chose freedom from the oppression of the Soviet government. And you really need to stop assuming that because a person was a criminal, he must be lying, and that since he was given a trial, than obviously he was guilty. For that matter, Mumia Abu Jamal was guilty, so was Rueben Carter, Leonard Peltier, Sherman Austin and many other prisoners who claim to be innocent. After all, they did have jury, so it must have been fair. So here's what I'm gonna do, I want you to find G. Zheleznov and F. Balinski and prove that they deserved to go to the labor camp, like the other cases that Regilas named. And no, it is not our job, YOU are accusing THEM of being criminals, so YOU have to prove it, especialy the ones who wrote the letter. If you can't prove they were criminals (innocent untill proven guilty right, or was that not the law in Russia), than you can't prove they were lying, which means you can't prove that those atrocities didn't happen.

QUOTE
Wrong Comrade, why do you keep making these allegations? All I claimed was that they were not perfect, but they did take the first step in proletarian revolution, and industrialized themselves to withstand Nazi invasion, and rival capitalism. This should be respected


Respected in what way? Like I said, Hitler also rivalled the capitalists, does that entitle him to any respect? What about Pol Pot of the Khmer Rouge, a professed Communist who murdered thousands of innocent people? Does he deserve any respect? You called him a fascist, which shows either the lack of knowledge you have on the subject, or your admittance that he did kill those people. And you also claimed that all of those witnesses were lying, so I'm not making any baseless allegations, I'm simply presenting a reasonable argument and asking you to either do the same, or stop being so stubborn that you will even deny evidence from eyewitnesses.

QUOTE
Comrade, you really need to read the book again if you think they weren't "detailed." The "witnesses" you have were all people who visited the Ukraine (like the witnesses presented in the book), deserters, or Kulaks who left the Ukraine to tell their "story." Too bad they wont mention that they were attacking collective farms with terrorist tendencies(contributing to the famine), fighting a class war with poor peasants (again contributing to the famine), and burning crops and livestock (again, another contribution to the famine).


Why don't you just post some quotes from the book that interest you, instead of telling me to read the entire book?

QUOTE
What CRIMES Comrade? YOU HAVENT PROVIDED ANY!


As usual you have missed my point. I said anyone who did witness them (if they did happen) and didn't "desert" the government, obviously didn't care one way or the other and is therefore unreliable. Like I said, try to be more objective.

QUOTE
How high up in the system was he? What rank did he have? How do I know he was "supposed" to know what was happening? And besides, I'm quite certain that he did "know" that they weren't hoarding, but he thought since the grain export trading were going on that the Soviet Union had food to spare. This is far from the case.


Once again, delaying tactics. You should already know that he was chief of the political department, but I guess you didn't read the article very well, no matter how many times you read it. And what makes you so certain that he did know? He certainly didn't sound like it, but maybe you know more about him than me (which doesn't seem very likely, considering that you didn't even know who he was until now. Not to mention that you don't even believe what people do say, let alone what they don't say).

QUOTE
Proven it with the "testimony" of a deserter, kulaks, and Ukranian nationalists. Yet no evidence outside this testimony. Yup, whatever buddy.


Once again, don't bother looking at the reason he "deserted", let's just use that word as an excuse for not believing anything he says. OK, whatever comrade. Oh and of course, we certainly can't trust those Ukrainian nationalists, only the Russian ones who invaded their land. And please tell me what you're talking about when you say I quoted from Kulaks, cause it's really easy to make accusations when you don't have to back them up. By the way, you still haven't answered the question, so please do that.

QUOTE
It is readily available in the link I gave you. http://www.alternativeinsight.com/Korean_War.html Here it is again.


QUOTE
Of course you aren't disputing the FACTS that the website gives to support its conclusion and that it has no reason to lie. But ok.


Just post the evidence please, I don't feel like spending all day researching it, I've already spent enough time on Ukraine.

QUOTE
Come on now Comrade, the government says PLAINLY that Ghandi secured India's social heirarchy with its independence to Britain. I guess he wasn't too big on removing the cast system, huh? As I said before, he's a hindu, he helped reunify the social heirarchy while removing british control, and he made a speech praising the untouchables. These are all facts, the only repsonse you've conjured up is "he's against it!!! Trust me!!"


Can you explain to me how any of that refutes what I said? How does praising the untouchables make him a supporter of the caste system? And how does "reunifying the the social hierarchy" (another words, unifying the classes, giving everyone the right to vote, including women and the lower classes, giving them equal rights etc) prove anything except that he was against their inequality? I guess you aren't to big on researching the facts, huh?

QUOTE
You have done NOTHING to prove that anything is contrary to the case.

Actually that's your job, since you're the one accusing. Sorry comrade, you lose again.

QUOTE
Stupid reasoning Comrade. Who is "everyone" the "majority"? Is the majority always correct? If the majority make an accusation they don't have to back it up? Then why are you against what you SAY happened in the Soviet Union? The "majority" "knew" that all these people were spies/criminals/enemies.


Well that's at least your reasoning anyway, since you keep using that same excuse for people who claim that their only crime was stealing food to feed their families and that they had already paid for it. As I said earlier, why don't you prove that Zheleznov and Balinski were guilty? That they were criminals doesn't prove anything, so are Mumia and the rest of them and so was Josef Stalin, who as matter of fact, spent several sentences in prison for revolutionary activities.

People like you are the reason why communism, or "socialist transition" became so repressive, cause its leaders were so blind and arrogant that even when something was completely obvious (like stopping the exports so they could feed the peasants) they refused to see it. Even if they didn't purposely starve them (and I have every reason to believe they did), they certainly didn't handle the situation very well, to say the least.

QUOTE
it wasn't a joke, it was sarcasm.


Uh, sarcasm is a form of joking.

So what's it like under the Terminator as the governor? Has he done anything different yet?

: Dataika Jan 31 2004, 09:21 PM

QUOTE
Please give me some specific kind of evidence to look for, cause the Soviet Encyclopedia says up to seven million people died in the famine doesn't seem to mean much to you. In fact, tell me how much evidence it will take to convince you that it happened and I will try to find it. I wonder if any can convince you though, cause no matter what I find you'll either call it propaganda, or you'll simply say it was justified and that it had to be done.


Comrade, just give me some sort of evidence beyond the word of deserters, fascists, criminals, kulaks, ukranian nationalists, etc... Some sort of archeological discoveries, mass graves, anything of the sort would be nice. Even a memo from the Soviet Government telling everyone to withhold food from the Ukranians would be nice, something like that. ANYTHING other than the words of the aforementioned people.

QUOTE
Where did those numbers come from? If they came from the Soviet government, than you obviously can't completely trust them, as they had every reason to lie about it. And that doesn't refute what the "criminal" said, which had nothing to do with numbers, but with the conditions in the camps.


The Soviet Archives, that was released in the Gorbacheuv (spelling?) years. Of course, they wouldn't lie because they were so anti-stalin it was sickening, but okay. Believe whatever make-believe bias you want occured. I'm just merely providing evidence that counters your claims. ANd the reason why I brought it up was because if the "camps were as bad" as what the Criminal CLAIMED they were, there'd be MANY MORE deaths.

QUOTE
That's about the most pathetic argument you've given. The name of the book does not prove anything, other than that he chose freedom from the oppression of the Soviet government. And you really need to stop assuming that because a person was a criminal, he must be lying, and that since he was given a trial, than obviously he was guilty.


He's a criminal who was convicted by the courts, if he is innocent, it wasn't proven. And since you haven't provided a case for me to overturn the courts decision (ie. no evidence, tamporing by Soviet Officials, etc..), I wont accept his "word" for it. Comrade, I'm not saying he's necessarily lying, but what I'm saying is I'm slow to TRUST what a Criminal says about the system. If there is any corroborating evidence, then please, feel free to present it (How many times must I mention this?).

The fact that he joined the United States under the guise that it was a "free" nation is preposterous and only shows his opportunism and hate of the socialist way of life. He left a socialist nation to join an imperialist capitalist nation. What a guy I can trust.

QUOTE
For that matter, Mumia Abu Jamal was guilty, so was Rueben Carter, Leonard Peltier, Sherman Austin and many other prisoners who claim to be innocent. After all, they did have jury, so it must have been fair.


Comrade, there's a difference between the Soveit Penal system and the American one. There is ADEQUATE evidence to prove that these men are innocent. You could find it in a heartbeat, so I won't even go into detail about htis. All you've done is proven that they are "innocent."

QUOTE
So here's what I'm gonna do, I want you to find G. Zheleznov and F. Balinski and prove that they deserved to go to the labor camp, like the other cases that Regilas named. And no, it is not our job, YOU are accusing THEM of being criminals, so YOU have to prove it, especialy the ones who wrote the letter.


You are an idiot. These men have already been found guilty by the courts. In order to overturn this decision YOU must provide the evidence and YOU must provide a lack of trustworthiness in the way the trial was handled. So, what exactly are your objections? Do you claim in these cases there wasn't enough evidence? Do you claim that there was certain tampering among the Police of the time? What is the evidence? Are there any witnesses that dispute the claim of the Soveit Officials? Is there a contradiction in the way the case was presented? Etc..

Don't expect me to "prove" they were innocent because it was already done. If you have an objection provide a reason as to why you provide the objection. The above are just a few list of reasons you can use.

QUOTE
If you can't prove they were criminals (innocent untill proven guilty right, or was that not the law in Russia), than you can't prove they were lying, which means you can't prove that those atrocities didn't happen.


Comrade, I don't have to prove they were criminals. The courts already convicted them, you have to provide reasons as to why the trial was unfair, unjust or otherwise.

QUOTE
Respected in what way? Like I said, Hitler also rivalled the capitalists, does that entitle him to any respect?


No I don't respect the Soviet Union for just "rivaling capitalism." I respect them for building MARXIAN SOCIALISM and in doing so WERE ABLE TO RIVAL CAPITALISM through SUCH A NEW, REVOLUTIONARY IDEAL.

QUOTE
You called him a fascist, which shows either the lack of knowledge you have on the subject, or your admittance that he did kill those people.


Who are you speaking of Pol Pot? He may have called himself a communist, but no communist I know would agree with him.

QUOTE
And you also claimed that all of those witnesses were lying, so I'm not making any baseless allegations, I'm simply presenting a reasonable argument and asking you to either do the same, or stop being so stubborn that you will even deny evidence from eyewitnesses.


COMRADE THREE WITNESSES!! MY GOD! One is a bourgeoisie imperialist, one is a lowly "Comrade" who assumed something (which he provides no evidence for what he asks of the Soviet government) and the OTHER A CRIMINAL! FOR GOD SAKES ANY LAWYER WORTH TWO CENTS WOULD HAVE A FIELD DAY WITH THESE "WITNESSES" in the court room.

QUOTE
Why don't you just post some quotes from the book that interest you, instead of telling me to read the entire book?


Comrade, when you say "they weren't detailed" it implies that you went over the book. I'm telling you, you didn't go over it well enough.

QUOTE
As usual you have missed my point. I said anyone who did witness them (if they did happen) and didn't "desert" the government, obviously didn't care one way or the other and is therefore unreliable. Like I said, try to be more objective.


Lmao, a guy who's telling me to trust a man who left a socialist country so he could support a capitalist imperialist nation is "respectable" and "trustworthy" tells ME to be more objective! LMAO!!

Trusting him would be like trusting a traitor from Cuba about how "horrible" Che Guevara was. Give me a freaking break.

QUOTE
Once again, delaying tactics. You should already know that he was chief of the political department, but I guess you didn't read the article very well, no matter how many times you read it


Im sorry I didn't memorize it Comrade, good grief.

QUOTE
And what makes you so certain that he did know? He certainly didn't sound like it, but maybe you know more about him than me


If he didn't know that grain was being exported to make up the trade deficit, why should I beleive he knew ANYTHING about the actual famine?

QUOTE
Once again, don't bother looking at the reason he "deserted", let's just use that word as an excuse for not believing anything he says. OK, whatever comrade. Oh and of course, we certainly can't trust those Ukrainian nationalists, only the Russian ones who invaded their land. And please tell me what you're talking about when you say I quoted from Kulaks, cause it's really easy to make accusations when you don't have to back them up. By the way, you still haven't answered the question, so please do that.


Oh my God, okay. I'll just be blind and not take into account that he deserted the Soviet Union for the States (OF ALL DAMN PLACES, THE MOST IMPERIALIST, CAPITALIST NATION THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN! NOT TO MENTION THEIR TREATMENT OF MINORITIES.). I would believe what he said better if you have any form of archeological evidence, or anything of the sort to back up his claims, but you don't so. Why should I just take his "word" for it?

Or let's trust the Ukranian Nationalists (otherwise known as KULAKS) who loved starving their own peasants before the bolsheviks moved in! Because they really loved their peasants! As for "Kulaks" that's what the UKRANIAN NATIONALISTS ARE. It's like trusting Cubans in Miami on whether or not Che Guevara was a "good man." Of course they wont say he was because they were part of the regime before him, they were the rich land owners, they were those who were profiting off of the workers in the country. So, you can't believe them ONLY on their word, without any form of SEPARATE EVIDENCE.

About Ghandi, you just keep dodging everything so I just wont talk about him anymore. He's your great hero and he was a great proletarian revolutionary (if you want to believe that, fine), but quite frankly, it has nothing to do with the issue, so I'll make the issue be one for this particular thread.

QUOTE
Well that's at least your reasoning anyway, since you keep using that same excuse for people who claim that their only crime was stealing food to feed their families and that they had already paid for it. As I said earlier, why don't you prove that Zheleznov and Balinski were guilty? That they were criminals doesn't prove anything, so are Mumia and the rest of them and so was Josef Stalin, who as matter of fact, spent several sentences in prison for revolutionary activities.


Josef Stalin was guilty for those revolutionary activities. He won't deny it and neither will I, you're an idiot. You prove their innocent, it was already proven they were guilty, you need to prove that their innocent. Was there a lack of evidence? What evidence can be said to the contrary? Was the jury pool bias? Was there Soviet Official tampering? Like I said before, you can't just say "well they're innocent because I say so." With no reasoning as to why I should trust you over the courts of Russia. Of course when you find a reason, feel free to submit it.

Mumia is filled with evidence that directly CONFLICTS with the courts. Witness tampered with, police corruption, etc.. What's your evidence behind any of these happeneing with Zheleznov and Balinski?

QUOTE
People like you are the reason why communism, or "socialist transition" became so repressive, cause its leaders were so blind and arrogant that even when something was completely obvious (like stopping the exports so they could feed the peasants) they refused to see it. Even if they didn't purposely starve them (and I have every reason to believe they did), they certainly didn't handle the situation very well, to say the least.


MY GOD COMRADE! You've mad the BEST ARGUMENT YOUVE MADE THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE FREAKING DEBATE! "I could charge Stalin with criminal neglegance but not genocide or mass murder." I agree the situation wasn't handled well but it wasn't all Stalin's fault as to the reason it turned out so ugly. Was there some error in the handling of economic sectors of the Soviet Union? OF COURSE COMRADE!! IM NOT A DOGMATIC FOLLOWER OF STALIN. I just merely respect him (as I've said before, I don't think he or Stalin was freakin perfect, they have my respect for implementing Leninist policies and establishing dictatorship of the proletariat).

QUOTE
Uh, sarcasm is a form of joking.


Sarcasm is a way of mocking another person. Joking is making light of a situation, yet sarcasm is where one party attempts to ridicule another party through means that are laughable to parties outside of the party being ridiculed (of course you wont think that something making fun of your intelligence is "funny"). I found it quite amusing, and had any marxist-leninst people been on the board, I"m sure they would have too considering how clueless you were. Oh well.

QUOTE
So what's it like under the Terminator as the governor? Has he done anything different yet?


Fat chance SON. Insulting me throughout the whole post and then trying to have a decent conversation with me wont work now. Sorry.

This is my last post on this subject Comrade, until you come forward with anything concrete don't expect a reply. I don't have the time nor the inclination to keep asking for some evidence while you reply with the "word" of criminals, deserters, kulaks and other things of the sort. So until whenever Comrade...

: defiance Feb 1 2004, 09:17 PM

http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/sov-hol.html

I just read this article, it's very interesting. You should have posted it for me, it's an excelent study. Now that I've read it I wonder if it isn't majorly exaggerated. Here's another intresting page though, called http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/k2grain.html. I would like to point out certain orders,

To place the following villages on the black list for overt disruption of the grain collection plan and for malicious sabotage, organized by kulak and counterrevolutionary elements:

1. village of Verbka in Pavlograd raion, Dnepropetrovsk oblast... 5. village of Sviatotroitskoe in Troitsk raion, Odessa oblast. 6. village of Peski in Bashtan raion, Odessa oblast.

The following measures should be undertaken with respect to these villages :

1. Immediate cessation of delivery of goods, complete suspension of cooperative and state trade in the villages, and removal of all available goods from cooperative and state stores.

2. Full prohibition of collective farm trade for both collective farms and collective farmers, and for private farmers.

3. Cessation of any sort of credit and demand for early repayment of credit and other financial obligations.

4. Investigation and purge of all sorts of foreign and hostile elements from cooperative and state institutions, to be carried out by organs of the Workers and Peasants Inspectorate.

5. Investigation and purge of collective farms in these villages, with removal of counterrevolutionary elements and organizers of grain collection disruption.

The Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee call upon all collective and private farmers who are honest and dedicated to Soviet rule to organize all their efforts for a merciless struggle against kulaks and their accomplices in order to: defeat in their villages the kulak sabotage of grain collection; fulfill honestly and conscientiously their grain collection obligations to the Soviet authorities; and strengthen collective farms.

Note the first two orders: 1. Immediate cessation of delivery of goods, complete suspension of cooperative and state trade in the villages, and removal of all available goods from cooperative and state stores.
2. Full prohibition of collective farm trade for both collective farms and collective farmers, and for private farmers.

I have no certain opinion on the subject, now that I have that article, but I do have a possible idea. I think the combination of drought, sabatoge, cessation of food and goods distribution in some areas, and exporting too much of the food obtained, may be the reasons for the extreme results. I believe that the governments part in the famine was exaggerated, but they still carry some responsibilty. I am going to research some more, so I can see how many people died, how many people fled and how many people were deported during that time, to get a more accurate opinion of the entire situation. I still believe what kravchenko said, but it doesn't neccessarily mean that the government was solely to blame. I am also going to do some research on the mass arrests and on the labour camps. There's a book out right now, I haven't read it, but it supposedly has alot of research behind it, it's called "Gulag: a History", I think you can figure out what it's about. Anyway, I'm going to see if I can find any interesting information in there. Maybe you'll believe it, maybe you'll deny it, but either way, I want to know what you think of it. Anyway, here's my response to some of your other statements...

QUOTE
The fact that he joined the United States under the guise that it was a "free" nation is preposterous and only shows his opportunism and hate of the socialist way of life. He left a socialist nation to join an imperialist capitalist nation. What a guy I can trust.


The fact that he came here doesn't prove anything, except that he didn't like the Soviet Union and he took advantage of the best chance to leave. Where should he have gone? Sure there's other places, but that doesn't mean we should totally dismiss what he says. All you've come up with against him is that he left a socialist nation for a capitalist one. But you are still leaving out the question of why he left. Look at it objectively, he was in the government of the USSR, he was a professed communist, so why did he leave his own country? He said his reasons, so why I should automaticaly consider him a liar?

QUOTE
About Ghandi, you just keep dodging everything so I just wont talk about him anymore. He's your great hero and he was a great proletarian revolutionary (if you want to believe that, fine), but quite frankly, it has nothing to do with the issue, so I'll make the issue be one for this particular thread.


If there is something that you have read, that you see as proof that he supported the caste system, please post it so I can respond, cause I'm already busy researching the Soviet Union and since you are the one accusing, you have to come up with the evidence. The same with the Korean war.

QUOTE
Fat chance SON. Insulting me throughout the whole post and then trying to have a decent conversation with me wont work now. Sorry.


What are talking about? I didn't insult you, but if I did I'm sorry. Anyway you've insulted me so many times I don't know howyou can even dare to accuse me of insulting you. I was just trying to have a normal conversation outside of our long debate, so I'm sorry if that offended you, I didn't mean for it to. I had meant to ask that earlier, but my posts were already so long that I didn't want to make them any longer. As you have said several times though, we're on the same side, we just see some things differently.

: Dataika Feb 2 2004, 09:29 AM

QUOTE (defiance @ Feb 2 2004, 05:17 AM)
http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/sov-hol.html

I just read this article, it's very interesting. You should have posted it for me, it's an excelent study. Now that I've read it I wonder if it isn't majorly exaggerated. Here's another intresting page though, called http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/k2grain.html. I would like to point out certain orders,

To place the following villages on the black list for overt disruption of the grain collection plan and for malicious sabotage, organized by kulak and counterrevolutionary elements:

1. village of Verbka in Pavlograd raion, Dnepropetrovsk oblast... 5. village of Sviatotroitskoe in Troitsk raion, Odessa oblast. 6. village of Peski in Bashtan raion, Odessa oblast.

The following measures should be undertaken with respect to these villages :

1. Immediate cessation of delivery of goods, complete suspension of cooperative and state trade in the villages, and removal of all available goods from cooperative and state stores.

2. Full prohibition of collective farm trade for both collective farms and collective farmers, and for private farmers.

3. Cessation of any sort of credit and demand for early repayment of credit and other financial obligations.

4. Investigation and purge of all sorts of foreign and hostile elements from cooperative and state institutions, to be carried out by organs of the Workers and Peasants Inspectorate.

5. Investigation and purge of collective farms in these villages, with removal of counterrevolutionary elements and organizers of grain collection disruption.

The Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee call upon all collective and private farmers who are honest and dedicated to Soviet rule to organize all their efforts for a merciless struggle against kulaks and their accomplices in order to: defeat in their villages the kulak sabotage of grain collection; fulfill honestly and conscientiously their grain collection obligations to the Soviet authorities; and strengthen collective farms.

Note the first two orders: 1. Immediate cessation of delivery of goods, complete suspension of cooperative and state trade in the villages, and removal of all available goods from cooperative and state stores.
2. Full prohibition of collective farm trade for both collective farms and collective farmers, and for private farmers.

I have no certain opinion on the subject, now that I have that article, but I do have a possible idea. I think the combination of drought, sabatoge, cessation of food and goods distribution in some areas, and exporting too much of the food obtained, may be the reasons for the extreme results. I believe that the governments part in the famine was exaggerated, but they still carry some responsibilty. I am going to research some more, so I can see how many people died, how many people fled and how many people were deported during that time, to get a more accurate opinion of the entire situation. I still believe what kravchenko said, but it doesn't neccessarily mean that the government was solely to blame. I am also going to do some research on the mass arrests and on the labour camps. There's a book out right now, I haven't read it, but it supposedly has alot of research behind it, it's called "Gulag: a History", I think you can figure out what it's about. Anyway, I'm going to see if I can find any interesting information in there. Maybe you'll believe it, maybe you'll deny it, but either way, I want to know what you think of it. Anyway, here's my response to some of your other statements...

QUOTE
The fact that he joined the United States under the guise that it was a "free" nation is preposterous and only shows his opportunism and hate of the socialist way of life. He left a socialist nation to join an imperialist capitalist nation. What a guy I can trust.


The fact that he came here doesn't prove anything, except that he didn't like the Soviet Union and he took advantage of the best chance to leave. Where should he have gone? Sure there's other places, but that doesn't mean we should totally dismiss what he says. All you've come up with against him is that he left a socialist nation for a capitalist one. But you are still leaving out the question of why he left. Look at it objectively, he was in the government of the USSR, he was a professed communist, so why did he leave his own country? He said his reasons, so why I should automaticaly consider him a liar?

QUOTE
About Ghandi, you just keep dodging everything so I just wont talk about him anymore. He's your great hero and he was a great proletarian revolutionary (if you want to believe that, fine), but quite frankly, it has nothing to do with the issue, so I'll make the issue be one for this particular thread.


If there is something that you have read, that you see as proof that he supported the caste system, please post it so I can respond, cause I'm already busy researching the Soviet Union and since you are the one accusing, you have to come up with the evidence. The same with the Korean war.

QUOTE
Fat chance SON. Insulting me throughout the whole post and then trying to have a decent conversation with me wont work now. Sorry.


What are talking about? I didn't insult you, but if I did I'm sorry. Anyway you've insulted me so many times I don't know howyou can even dare to accuse me of insulting you. I was just trying to have a normal conversation outside of our long debate, so I'm sorry if that offended you, I didn't mean for it to. I had meant to ask that earlier, but my posts were already so long that I didn't want to make them any longer. As you have said several times though, we're on the same side, we just see some things differently.

QUOTE
have no certain opinion on the subject, now that I have that article, but I do have a possible idea. I think the combination of drought, sabatoge, cessation of food and goods distribution in some areas, and exporting too much of the food obtained, may be the reasons for the extreme results.


What that order says is to stop delivary of goods to like 5 villages IN THE WHOLE OF UKRAINE. The 5 villages with KULAK and COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY elements, or would you rather they feed their opposition and assist them in trying to overthrow collectivizing grain and attempt to take the Soviet Union down from the inside.

QUOTE
The fact that he came here doesn't prove anything, except that he didn't like the Soviet Union and he took advantage of the best chance to leave. Where should he have gone? Sure there's other places, but that doesn't mean we should totally dismiss what he says. All you've come up with against him is that he left a socialist nation for a capitalist one. But you are still leaving out the question of why he left. Look at it objectively, he was in the government of the USSR, he was a professed communist, so why did he leave his own country? He said his reasons, so why I should automaticaly consider him a liar?


Would you consider the Cubans in Miami authoritative descriptors of Che? I think not Comrade. What you have to do is examine is his character (since he didn't give any evidence for his claims but what he supposedly "saw"), and ask why he would have a reason to lie. If he has one, he is bias, and if someone is bias evidence must be provided to corroborate the claim of the eyewitness. Otherwise, it's not reasonable to just "assume" that a traitor to the capitalist imperialist nation of the United States, is just "telling the truth." Especially when there is no evidence to back up his statements.

QUOTE
What are talking about? I didn't insult you, but if I did I'm sorry. Anyway you've insulted me so many times I don't know howyou can even dare to accuse me of insulting you.


I've only insulted you in response to your immature tactics of responding to me. You've said things such as "people like YOU are the reason socialism failed" or "YOU'RE JUST TOO STUBBORN PRAISING YOUR IDOL OF STALIN!" Of course if you can see where I did insult you without provocation, I encourage you to post it.

QUOTE
I was just trying to have a normal conversation outside of our long debate, so I'm sorry if that offended you, I didn't mean for it to.


It's hard to do it Comrade when someone's telling you that YOU'RE the reason that the revolution failed in Russia.

QUOTE
I had meant to ask that earlier, but my posts were already so long that I didn't want to make them any longer. As you have said several times though, we're on the same side, we just see some things differently.


I understand, Comrade, I apologize if I jumped down your throat.

As for the question, the terminator governor is a complete idiot. He doesn't want to tax the rich so he's going to cut education if he cant get some 15 million (or billion?) dollar bond. I hope he has a stroke in office smile.gif

: defiance Feb 2 2004, 03:40 PM

QUOTE
I understand, Comrade, I apologize if I jumped down your throat.

As for the question, the terminator governor is a complete idiot. He doesn't want to tax the rich so he's going to cut education if he cant get some 15 million (or billion?) dollar bond. I hope he has a stroke in office


Yeah, it's those wonderful right wingers. Don't you just love him? I'm just waiting for him to go and "terminate" the Mexican immagrants on the border. But hey, "don't be ungrateful and hypocritical of the government whom has provided opportunity, clean water, lit highways, protection, and rights". After all, we are the government, POWER TO THE OPPRESSORS.

By the way, I found this quote from Gandhi, "we must rid ourselves of the caste system". You may have misunderstood what your article said. When it said he attempted to unify the castes, it didn't mean he was trying to restore it, it meant he was making everyone equal, so they could all vote, go to school etc. If you read any account of Gandhi, you will find that he was quite down on the caste sytem. Also, he was not a complete Hindu, he very strongly believed in religious unity.

You still haven't given me evidence for Korea, so I guess you haven't found any worth posting.

: Dataika Feb 2 2004, 03:44 PM

QUOTE (defiance @ Feb 2 2004, 11:40 PM)
QUOTE
I understand, Comrade, I apologize if I jumped down your throat.

As for the question, the terminator governor is a complete idiot. He doesn't want to tax the rich so he's going to cut education if he cant get some 15 million (or billion?) dollar bond. I hope he has a stroke in office


Yeah, it's those wonderful right wingers. Don't you just love him? I'm just waiting for him to go and "terminate" the Mexican immagrants on the border. But hey, "don't be ungrateful and hypocritical of the government whom has provided opportunity, clean water, lit highways, protection, and rights". After all, we are the government, POWER TO THE OPPRESSORS.

By the way, I found this quote from Gandhi, "we must rid ourselves of the caste system". You may have misunderstood what your article said. When it said he attempted to unify the castes, it didn't mean he was trying to restore it, it meant he was making everyone equal, so they could all vote, go to school etc. If you read any account of Gandhi, you will find that he was quite down on the caste sytem. Also, he was not a complete Hindu, he very strongly believed in religious unity.

You still haven't given me evidence for Korea, so I guess you haven't found any worth posting.

QUOTE
You still haven't given me evidence for Korea, so I guess you haven't found any worth posting.


Comrade I gave you a link. If you chose not to read it/acknowledge it/argue against it, there is nothing I can do. I've provided the evidence.

QUOTE
By the way, I found this quote from Gandhi, "we must rid ourselves of the caste system". You may have misunderstood what your article said. When it said he attempted to unify the castes, it didn't mean he was trying to restore it, it meant he was making everyone equal, so they could all vote, go to school etc. If you read any account of Gandhi, you will find that he was quite down on the caste sytem. Also, he was not a complete Hindu, he very strongly believed in religious unity.


Comrade, I know this was how Ghandi felt. I was playing Devil's advocate on the situation. I wanted you to prove that he didn't support it and you have. Good show Comrade.

QUOTE
Yeah, it's those wonderful right wingers. Don't you just love him? I'm just waiting for him to go and "terminate" the Mexican immagrants on the border. But hey, "don't be ungrateful and hypocritical of the government whom has provided opportunity, clean water, lit highways, protection, and rights". After all, we are the government, POWER TO THE OPPRESSORS.


Comrade, I agree with you 100%. Now you see why I want to just get rid of these vermin and send them to the GULAGS!! smile.gif

: defiance Feb 2 2004, 07:05 PM

QUOTE
Comrade, I know this was how Ghandi felt. I was playing Devil's advocate on the situation. I wanted you to prove that he didn't support it and you have. Good show Comrade.


Well thanks alot, what was the point of that? Now I'm going to play devil's advocate with you. Prove that the Nazi's killed six million jews. I think you really believed that Gandhi was a supporter of the castes (you sure were serious with statements like "shut the hell up, you didn't change anything, so shut the HELL up), but either way please tell me, what is your real opinion about Gandhi?

QUOTE
Comrade, I agree with you 100%. Now you see why I want to just get rid of these vermin and send them to the GULAGS!!


Of course I understand why you want that. I just think it's very dangerous for the common people, as it leaves them open for repression and persecution. Of course, you don't believe anything of what Straycat was saying, or the countless others who hated both Stalin and his successors, but that's your own problem, I'm just going to find what I can and show it to you. I sure hope you're not "playing devil's advocate" like you claim you were with Gandhi (which I seriously doubt for some reason).

: Dataika Feb 2 2004, 10:03 PM

QUOTE (defiance @ Feb 3 2004, 03:05 AM)
QUOTE
Comrade, I know this was how Ghandi felt. I was playing Devil's advocate on the situation. I wanted you to prove that he didn't support it and you have. Good show Comrade.


Well thanks alot, what was the point of that? Now I'm going to play devil's advocate with you. Prove that the Nazi's killed six million jews. I think you really believed that Gandhi was a supporter of the castes (you sure were serious with statements like "shut the hell up, you didn't change anything, so shut the HELL up), but either way please tell me, what is your real opinion about Gandhi?

QUOTE
Comrade, I agree with you 100%. Now you see why I want to just get rid of these vermin and send them to the GULAGS!!


Of course I understand why you want that. I just think it's very dangerous for the common people, as it leaves them open for repression and persecution. Of course, you don't believe anything of what Straycat was saying, or the countless others who hated both Stalin and his successors, but that's your own problem, I'm just going to find what I can and show it to you. I sure hope you're not "playing devil's advocate" like you claim you were with Gandhi (which I seriously doubt for some reason).

QUOTE
Well thanks alot, what was the point of that? Now I'm going to play devil's advocate with you.


Comrade you should be happy, you were able to "prove" the point.

QUOTE
Prove that the Nazi's killed six million jews.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

QUOTE
I think you really believed that Gandhi was a supporter of the castes (you sure were serious with statements like "shut the hell up, you didn't change anything, so shut the HELL up),


Comrade, that was when I was upset at the pacifist philosophy you were preachign while attempting to belittle any belief that a violent revolution was possible.

Any webpage will tell you that Ghandi was against the caste system, Comrade, any webpage.

QUOTE
but either way please tell me, what is your real opinion about Gandhi?


He was a good man, and revolutionary in thought and resistance. Of course I don't believe violence is NEVER necessary, and I don't agree with him on some particular issues, but I still don't prefer his form of revolution over mine, Marx, or Comrade Mao or Stalin or Che.

QUOTE
Of course I understand why you want that. I just think it's very dangerous for the common people, as it leaves them open for repression and persecution.


And that's one of the brightest points you've brought up. However, people will have elections, politicans will not win because they have the most money, they will win because the people elect them.

QUOTE
Of course, you don't believe anything of what Straycat was saying, or the countless others who hated both Stalin and his successors, but that's your own problem, I'm just going to find what I can and show it to you.


Straycat did nothing but appeal to emotions. Of course if you could find any facts within their posts, you can present them to me, I don't mind. It's not my problem that you guys don't "like" Comrade Stalin. What is my problem is you attacking my ideology and then when it's asked of you to present facts you refer to nothing but bourgeois "historians" for your information.

QUOTE
I sure hope you're not "playing devil's advocate" like you claim you were with Gandhi (which I seriously doubt for some reason).


Which is fine, because I don't give two craps about what a kid thinks anyway.

: defiance Feb 3 2004, 10:15 PM

QUOTE
Comrade you should be happy, you were able to "prove" the point.


I know that, it's just strange for you to do that when you already know I'm right, regardless of you political ideology.

QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial


Uh, thanks.

QUOTE
Comrade, that was when I was upset at the pacifist philosophy you were preachign while attempting to belittle any belief that a violent revolution was possible.

Any webpage will tell you that Ghandi was against the caste system, Comrade, any webpage.


It's not that I don't think violence is ever neccessary. There are some cases where it's the only thing you can do, like the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto, or the Native Americans. But in general I think that violence will make the matters worse. The Russian Revolution is a poorexample in some ways, the Russian government had already collapsed from a mutiny among the soldiers during a bread strike, and the provisional government was broken from the start. The fact is, the United States would never fall that easily, not even at its worst periods (strengthwise), like the Veitnam War. Unless it was fighting in it's own country and losing all of the battles, and the government was falling apart, it would be way too hard to beat them in combat. And if you can't beat them at first, there's no reason to think you can beat them later, cause they're way to powerful. Violence will only bring more and worse repression.

QUOTE
And that's one of the brightest points you've brought up. However, people will have elections, politicans will not win because they have the most money, they will win because the people elect them.


Well if it could work it would be pretty good, although I still think anarchy is better. But how are you going to enforce that plan? As long as money is the system of barter, whoever has it will always be more powerful. How can you stop that without getting rid of money? Not that I have anything wrong with getting rid of it, but what about you?

QUOTE
Which is fine, because I don't give two craps about what a kid thinks anyway.


And I don't give a crap whether or not you do, that's your own problem. But it's not very wise.

: devinu Feb 5 2004, 10:22 AM

Maybe I am repeating was has already been said, but I really don't know because I haven't read all 16 or so pages of this debate. Honestly, I do think anarchy could work. It kinda reminds me of the cold war where nobody would bomb anybody because it could easily be done right back. Lawlessness could work in my opinion, becasue most people have established morals, and would continue to instill those morals in their children, like it or not. It would take great conflict and violence to remove any form of government that is holding power. There are a few exceptions to this like Brazil, but I feel those are special circumstances. Of course, many ideas look great on paper, but then never turn out like planned (communism, socialism, democracy). I just think that you can take away all the rules and then people will live by their own. They may not have any set of rules of ways to enforce them, but they would live, just as primitive man could live. I guess the main point is that it is a good idea on paper, and based on that, I think it could work. If this makes me an anarchist, so be it.

: defiance Feb 5 2004, 02:50 PM

Those are the same reasons why I think anarchy could possibly work, cause people can get along with each other whether or not there's a government make them. But I wouldn't rule out any other form of government, I think socialism has worked rather well, at least in countries like Norway and Sweden. What do you mean when you say it's failed? So far it's the best form of government we've had. I don't believe we need violence either, I think nonviolence has far more potential to create a lasting and stable system, which everyone can be happy under. Oh one question, what happened in Brazil?

: resist Feb 5 2004, 02:59 PM

new zealands government seems to be going well,
recently a news reporter/presenter debated the head governer of new zealand
''helen clark'' on national tv about GE and the government importing GE seeds, he keeped contradicting her and asking her questions that she could not answer as if she did the truth would come out and she would be fucked in the next elections,

he didnt dissapier or get murded, its didnt get censored, etc,
new zealand is an almost free country.........i think, i hope.

: defiance Feb 5 2004, 03:19 PM

Yeah, New Zealand sounds good. Isn't it Socialist?

: devinu Feb 5 2004, 03:50 PM

I know that socialism went well in Sweden and Norway, but I am not really up on the history. Was it Owens? Either way the same guy tried to get it to work ni America, and it just failed miserably. I also don't know if socialism is still being used in Sweden and Norway today, so I was kinda going out on a limb. I THOUGHT Brazil went through a nonviolent revolution, but maybe I was wrong. I couldn't find anything on the internet to back me up, so maybe it just came out of my ass. Anyways, I agree that a nonviolent revolution would be more beneficial and long-lasting, but I just don't see greedy capitalists handing over power without a fight. Since, democracy and capitalism go hand in hand, that would quickly result in a civil war. Finally, I don't think EVERYONE can be happy under any system. In fact, it's better to have some unhappy people to inspire change and to keep the system in check.

: defiance Feb 5 2004, 08:20 PM

Sweden and Norway are still considered Socialist, although some people on here claim that it's sold out to Capitalism and it's not pure Socialism, but as long as it works it's fine for me. Attempts at Socialism failed in the US because not enough people supported it, not because it didn't work to help anyone. Socialism has never been installed in the United States, so it's not realy a complete failure, that's like saying the Green Party is a failure, or the Independent Party is a failure, etc.

The idea that violence is needed to overthrow Capitalism, is based on the assumption that all power rests on military victory alone, but that is a mistake. It's true that many people do obey military authority, because they fear reppression, but the real source of power is the people's obedience to it. When people in India refused to obey British rule, despite British reppression, Britain had no choice but to leave India, because they couldn't afford to stay there, whether or not they wanted to.

If all of the people are happy under it, than there is no reason to check or change the system. What is wrong with that? Or are you being sarcastic? I think it's wierd when people come up with ideas like that.

: devinu Feb 6 2004, 02:25 PM

I don't believe everyone would be happy under any system. There can be a majority that is happy, and that could hold enough power to keep it in place. You can't please everyone though. Military might is a display of power, when you can use it to defeat your opponents. A way to dissolve capitalist systems without violence is theoretically possible. A government may be able to dissolve itself. I don't think our government could because of the numerous people who hold much of the power wouldn't be able to agree to give it all up,and they would probably use force to remove anyone they wanted. Without using force, what can you do? Even with a strong backing and a majority of people ready to use peaceful means, what would you do? Go and politely ask the governement to destroy themselves? They would throw you out on your ass, if they didn't just charge you with treason or something. They would forceably take any sort of power you had gained with thier own military strength. In America, the power rests in the hand of a few who we willingly choose. I think people WANT someone to tell them what to do and how to act. You see this in schools everyday. If a teacher gives an assignment and does't put specific guidelines down, the students will ask questions until the guideline are clear. If the teacher doesn't answer the questions clear enough, most of the students would sit doing nothing and probably come out with nothing. A few of the students would use the oppertunity to freely do whatever the assignment may be to their full potential, and exceed any expectations the teacher secretly may have. the guidelines meant to provide structure end up holding people back and limiting their potential. This is why I think it could work, because eventually people would adapt to the situation. But this is also why I think it would be neccessary to change by force. Forceful means would be fast and immediate, and the people formerly in power, the people who don't want change, who feel the need to be controlled, would be thrusted into a situation they would have to adapt to, because they aren't going to willing give it up.

: regilas Feb 6 2004, 02:32 PM

New Zealand is expensive, tho

But hey, Middle Earth sounds good to me.

Yeah, anarchy.

But as Raddishu said:

(True) Democracy, Socialism, Communism, and Anarchy are basically all the same when used as they truly are.

: defiance Feb 6 2004, 09:02 PM

QUOTE
I don't believe everyone would be happy under any system. There can be a majority that is happy, and that could hold enough power to keep it in place. You can't please everyone though. Military might is a display of power, when you can use it to defeat your opponents. A way to dissolve capitalist systems without violence is theoretically possible. A government may be able to dissolve itself. I don't think our government could because of the numerous people who hold much of the power wouldn't be able to agree to give it all up,and they would probably use force to remove anyone they wanted. Without using force, what can you do? Even with a strong backing and a majority of people ready to use peaceful means, what would you do? Go and politely ask the governement to destroy themselves? They would throw you out on your ass, if they didn't just charge you with treason or something. They would forceably take any sort of power you had gained with thier own military strength. In America, the power rests in the hand of a few who we willingly choose.


Once again, you are assuming that military force is the only form of popular power. But as I said before, there are many other ways you can force the authority to collapse. Strikes are a basically a small picture of what the entire country can do against the government, they can simply refuse to obey it, and go on a sort of political strike. This is my idea, the people have a general boycott and strike over the entire country, then form their own council for leadership, which could hold the movement together for the time, and once the econimy has collapsed, it will only be a short while before the government does to. After the government falls, a new council would be formed, which would quickly relinquish most of it's already limited power and influence, to a series of small community leadership councils, which would help to ease the transition to anarchy, and eventually their would only be influential leaders, not rulers, who would simply rise from the people following him. They would not need to be elected to power, or any other way of choosing rulers, people would simply follow them, if they followed anyone at all. It would obviously take more detailed planning than that, but I think you understand my basic idea. It would also take a long time to fully change to pure anarchy, cause there are many people now who would probably try to overrun people's freedom and rights, in large scale or small. But I don't support the method of transition that communism uses, cause it only leads to corruption and oppression.

QUOTE
I think people WANT someone to tell them what to do and how to act. You see this in schools everyday. If a teacher gives an assignment and does't put specific guidelines down, the students will ask questions until the guideline are clear. If the teacher doesn't answer the questions clear enough, most of the students would sit doing nothing and probably come out with nothing. A few of the students would use the oppertunity to freely do whatever the assignment may be to their full potential, and exceed any expectations the teacher secretly may have. the guidelines meant to provide structure end up holding people back and limiting their potential. This is why I think it could work, because eventually people would adapt to the situation. But this is also why I think it would be neccessary to change by force. Forceful means would be fast and immediate, and the people formerly in power, the people who don't want change, who feel the need to be controlled, would be thrusted into a situation they would have to adapt to, because they aren't going to willing give it up.


Just because they want details on the job they have to do, doesn't mean they wanted to be told what to do in first place. They just want the details on how to do their job, which they have to do either way, cause if they don't they'll have more problems. It's like saying, because you asked for the details about your nations laws, so you knew more specifically how to live with them, you must want the laws to begin with. If the government demands taxes and you don't want to pay them, but you have to anyway, so you ask how much you have to pay, does that mean you do support paying them? Not saying whether you really do or not, just as an example. Aren't you simply trying to adapt to the circustances? I mean, most kids hate school, yet they still ask how to do their work at school. So does that mean they really do?

: POATG Dec 4 2004, 02:56 PM

i am wondering if anarchy would work. would it?

: Grimer 54 Dec 4 2004, 03:00 PM

I don't think so. Not on such a large scale as America.

: somasoul Dec 4 2004, 03:23 PM

The way I see it is that there will always be a need for government. People will always want to pawn things off that an individual cannot do to a group. Things like roads need constant attention and a constant group of people will probably be needed to address those concerns in any given community. The size and scope of government may very from the smaller, libertarian type organizations to the larger socialist style agencies.

Would anarchy work? Maybe if there's less than a two dozen people living somewhere. Even then you'd probably need someone to settle trivial disputes and such. Government is a nessecity, I've yet to meet someone who can prove to me otherwise.

: Rage Head Dec 5 2004, 12:15 PM

I believe it has worked in smaller countrys. But it wouldn't work in America. The people wouldn't be able to handle it. Socialism maybe. But Americans are scared of stepping outside of the box that they're in.

: AP Dec 5 2004, 12:41 PM

Scared of stepping out of the box were in? How 'bout no.....Anarchy just sounds stupid, who would pay for road service, trash and waste disposal service, who would filter our water? Who would control mail service? Those are just a FEW things where anarchy goes wrong....


Also, why would someone WANT anarchy? Are you really that "oppressed"? I don't think so....

: 57ds Dec 5 2004, 01:41 PM

QUOTE(AP @ Dec 5 2004, 12:41 PM)



  Are you really that "oppressed"?  I don't think so....
[right][snapback]146941[/snapback][/right]



Yes. And we becoming radiply more and more oppressed. See beyond what Uncle Sam is telling you.

: Grimer 54 Dec 5 2004, 01:54 PM

QUOTE
Yes. And we becoming radiply more and more oppressed. See beyond what Uncle Sam is telling you.


um...?

: dankru Dec 5 2004, 02:00 PM

QUOTE(defiance @ Feb 5 2004, 11:19 PM)
Yeah, New Zealand sounds good. Isn't it Socialist?
[right][snapback]71404[/snapback][/right]


NZ is a democracy with a Labour/Green Government in power. I would hardly call that Socialist, especially considering what Labor/Labour parties around the world are selling out to these days.

: Rage Head Dec 5 2004, 02:08 PM

AP, why do you talk in Political sections, when all you do is say, that's stupid or something, when yet you probably know little of the matter? Just wondering.

: AP Dec 5 2004, 02:15 PM

QUOTE(Rage Head @ Dec 5 2004, 06:08 PM)
AP, why do you talk in Political sections, when all you do is say, that's stupid or something, when yet you probably know little of the matter? Just wondering.
[right][snapback]146958[/snapback][/right]



I don't just say "that's stupid". You know damn well anarchy wouldn't work in the U.S., and why would you want anarchy anyways? What's the point? You with your computer don't seem very deprived to me. What do YOU know of anarchy? Or is it just cool?

: Rage Head Dec 5 2004, 06:37 PM

Well I didn't know much of anarchy. But if you look in the Socialism vs. Anarchy thread that I made. You'll get some more understanding from both stand points. Yes I agree it couldn't work in America, but maybe somewhere else. I just don't think it's kind of stupid that you just say things like "I agree" or "That's stupid" type posts, and it doesn't seem like you've looked hard into both sides. I try my hardest to understand both sides of the story, and then make my mind. Open minds are the ones I respect most. I think you should try to have an open mind about things.

P.S. Sorry if I offended you. But seriously, try to understand others. It makes the world a happier place. Just try.

: revomojo Dec 8 2004, 08:48 AM

the #1 authority on anarchy today...

Anarchism Interview
by Noam Chomsky and Ziga Vodovnik; December 06, 2004


July 14, 2004 in Cambridge, MA.

Ziga Vodovnik: When somebody declares himself as an anarchist, he basically tells very little about his inspirations and aspirations – about the question of means and ends. This only confirms an old truth that we can not define anarchism as self-sufficient dot, but rather as a mosaic composed of many different dots or political views (and aspirations) – green, feminist, pacifist, etc. This question of means and ends is part of a fascination of anarchism in theory but sometimes part of frustration in practice. Do you think that this diversity makes anarchism ineffective and an inconsequential body of ideas, or rather makes anarchism universally adaptable?

Noam Chomsky: Anarchism is a very broad category; it means a lot of different things to different people. The main strains of anarchism have been very concerned with means. They have often tended to try to follow the idea that Bakunin expressed, that you should build the seeds of the future society within the existing one, and have been very extensively involved in educational work, organizing and forming collectives, small collectives and larger ones, and other kinds of organizations. There are other groups that call themselves anarchist, who are also mostly concerned about means – so, what kind of demonstrations should we carry out, what sort of direct actions are appropriate and so on and so forth. I don’t think it is possible to ask whether it is effective or not. There are different ways of proceeding, effective in different circumstances. And there is no unified anarchist movement that has a position to talk about. There are just many conflicting strains that often disagree quite sharply. There have never been many anarchists, as far as I know, who object to carrying out what they call reformist measures within existing society – like improving women’s rights, worker’s health,� There are other anarchists whose positions are primitivist, who want to eliminate technology and return to the soil�

ZV: In theoretical political science we can analytically identify two main conceptions of anarchism – a so called collective anarchism with Bakunin, Kropotkin and Makhno as main figures and which is limited to Europe, and on another hand so called individualistic anarchism which is limited to US. Do you agree with this theoretical separation, and in this perspective, where do you see the historical beginnings (origins) of anarchism in the U.S.

NC: The individualistic anarchism that you are talking about, Stirner and others, is one of the roots of -- among other things -- the so-called “libertarian� movement in the US. This means dedication to free market capitalism, and has no connection with the rest of the international anarchist movement. In the European tradition, anarchists commonly called themselves libertarian socialists, in a very different sense of the term “libertarian.� As far as I can see, the workers’ movements, which didn’t call themselves anarchist, were closer to the main strain of European anarchism than many of the people in the US who called themselves anarchists. If we go back to the labor activism from the early days of the industrial revolution, to the working class press in 1850s, and so on, it’s got a real anarchist strain to it. They never heard of European anarchism, never heard of Marx, or anything like that. It was spontaneous. They took for granted wage labor is little different from slavery, that workers should own the mills, that the industrial system is destroying individual initiative, culture, and so on, that they have to struggle against the what they called “the new spirit of the age� in the 1850s: “Gain Wealth, Forgetting all but Self.� Sounds rather familiar. And the same is true of other popular movements – let’s take the New Left movements. Some strains related themselves to traditional collectivist anarchism, which always regarded itself as a branch of socialism. But US and to some extent British libertarianism is quite a different thing and different development, in fact has no objection to tyranny as long as it is private tyranny. That is radically different from other forms of anarchism.

ZV: Where in a long and rich history of people’s struggles in the US do you see the main inspiration of contemporary anarchism in the U.S.? What is your opinion about the Transcendentalism as an inspiration in this perspective?

NC: Maybe you’ll discover something in your research on this topic, but my feeling is that the Transcendentalist movement, which was mostly intellectuals, may have had some influence on individualist anarchism, but didn’t connect, to my knowledge, in any significant fashion with the working class popular movements, which much more resemble the anarchism of Bakunin, Kropotkin, the Spanish revolutionaries and others.

ZV: Most of the creative energy for radical politics – for the new movement of movements or so-called anti-capitalist, even anti-globalization movement, is nowadays coming from anarchism, but only few of the people involved in the movement actually call themselves “anarchists�. Where do you see the main reason for this?

NC: I think it has always been true. Most activists, people in human rights struggles, women’s struggles, labor struggles, and so on, didn’t call themselves anarchists, they didn’t draw from any knowledge or understanding of anarchist tradition. Maybe in the US they heard of Emma Goldman, but they just developed out of their needs, concerns, instincts, natural commitments. I don’t think we have to work very hard to bring ordinary people in the US, who never heard of authentic anarchism, to help them come to the kind of understanding that young women from the farms and workers from the urban slums had from 1850s, also on their own. In the mid 19 century when the workers in the mills, in Lowell and in Salem, were developing a very lively and active working class culture, I doubt that they knew anything about the Transcendentalists, who were right from the same neighborhood and about the same period.

ZV: Ordinary people often confuse anarchism with chaos and violence, and do not know that anarchism (an archos) doesn't mean life or state of things without rules, but rather a highly organized social order, life without a ruler, “principe�. Is pejorative usage of the word anarchism maybe a direct consequence of the fact that the idea that people could be free was and is extremely frightening to those in power?

NC: There has been an element within the anarchist movement that has been concerned with “propaganda by the deed,� often with violence, and it is quite natural that power centers seize on it in an effort to undermine any attempt for independence and freedom, by identifying it with violence. But that is not true just for anarchism. Even democracy is feared. It is so deep-seated that people can’t even see it. If we take a look at the Boston Globe on July 4th - July 4 is of course Independence Day, praising independence, freedom and democracy – we find that they had an article on George Bush’s attempt to get some support in Europe, to mend fences after the conflict. They interviewed the foreign policy director of the “libertarian� Cato Institute, asking why Europeans are critical of the US. He said something like this: The problem is that Germany and France have weak governments, and if they go against the will of the population, they have to pay a political cost. This is the libertarian Cato Institute talking. The fear of democracy and hatred of it is so profound that nobody even notices it. In fact the whole fury about Old Europe and New Europe last year was very dramatic, particularly the fact that the criterion for membership in one or the other was somehow not noticed. The criterion was extremely sharp. If the government took the same position as the overwhelming majority of the population, it was bad: “Old Europe – bad guys.� If the government followed orders from Crawford, Texas and overruled an even larger majority of the population, then it was the hope of the future and democracy: Berlusconi, Aznar, and other noble figures. This was pretty uniform across the spectrum, just taken for granted. The lesson was: if you have a very strong government you don’t have to pay a political cost if you overrule the population. That’s admirable. That’s what governments are for – to overrule the population and work for the rich and powerful. It is so deep-seated that it wasn’t even seen.

ZV: What your opinion about the “dilemma� of means - revolution versus social and cultural evolution?

NC: I don’t really see it as a dilemma. It makes sense, in any system of domination and control, to try to change it as far as possible within the limits that the system permits. If you run up against limits that are impassable barriers, then it may be that the only way to proceed is conflict, struggle and revolutionary change. But there is no need for revolutionary change to work for improving safety and health regulations in factories, for example, because you can bring about these changes through parliamentary means. So you try to push it as far as you can. People often do not even recognize the existence of systems of oppression and domination. They have to try to struggle to gain their rights within the systems in which they live before they even perceive that there is repression. Take a look at the women’s movement. One of the first steps in the development of the women’s movement was so-called “consciousness raising efforts�. Try to get women to perceive that it is not the natural state of the world for them to be dominated and controlled. My grandmother couldn’t join the women’s movement, since she didn’t feel any oppression, in some sense. That’s just the way life was, like the sun rises in the morning. Until people can realize that it is not like the sun rising, that it can be changed, that you don’t have to follow orders, that you don’t have to be beaten, until people can perceive that there is something wrong with that, until that is overcome, you can’t go on. And one of the ways to do that is to try to press reforms within the existing systems of repression, and sooner or later you find that you will have to change them.

ZV: Do you think that the change should be achieved through institutionalized (party) politics, or rather through other means such as disobedience, building parallel frameworks, alternative media, etc?

NC: It is impossible to say anything general about it, because it depends on circumstances. Sometimes one tactic is right, sometimes another one. Talk of tactics sounds sort of trivial, but it is not. Tactical choices are the ones that have real human consequences. We can try to go beyond the more general strategic choices – speculatively and with open minds – but beyond that we descend into abstract generalities. Tactics have to do with decisions about what to do next, they have real human consequences. So for example, let’s take the upcoming Republican National Convention. If a large group that calls itself anarchist acts in such a way as to strengthen the systems of power and antagonize the public, they will be harming their own cause. If they can find actions that will get people to understand why it makes sense to challenge systems of formal democracy without substance, then they picked the right tactic. But you cannot check or look in a textbook to find the answers. It depends on careful evaluation of the situation that exists, the state of public understanding, the likely consequences of what we do, and so on.

ZV: The United States has a very long history of Utopism – of different attempts towards alternative social orders. Transcendentalism was also famous because its Brook Farm and Fruitlands experiments. French thinker Proudhon once wrote that: “Freedom is the mother, not the daughter of order.� Where do you see life after or beyond (nation) state?

NC: My feeling is that any interaction among human beings that is more than personal - meaning that takes institutional forms of one kind or another - in community, or workplace, family, larger society, whatever it may be, should be under direct control of its participants. So that would mean workers' councils in industry, popular democracy in communities, interaction between them, free associations in larger groups, up to organization of international society. You can spell out the details in many different ways, and I don't really see a lot a point in it. And here I disagree with some of my friends; I think spelling out in extensive detail the form or future society goes beyond our understanding. There surely will have to be plenty of experimentation - we don't know enough human beings and societies, their needs and limitations. There is just too much we don't know, so lots of alternatives should be tried.

ZV: On many occasions activist, intellectuals, students, have asked you about your specific vision of anarchist society and about your very detailed plan to get there. Once you have answered “that we can not figure out what problems are going to arise unless you experiment with them.� Do you also have a felling that many left intellectuals are loosing too much energy with their theoretical disputes about the proper means and ends, to even start “experimenting� in practice.

NC: Many people find this extremely important and find that they cannot act as, let’s say, organizers in their community unless they have a detailed vision of the future that they are going to try to achieve. OK, that’s the way they perceive the world and themselves. I would not presume to tell them it's wrong, maybe it is right for them, but it is not right for me. A lot of flowers have a right to bloom. People do things in different ways.

ZV: With the process of economic globalization getting stronger day after day, many on the left are caught between a dilemma – either one can work to reinforce the sovereignty of nation-states as a defensive barrier against the control of foreign and global capital; or one can strive towards a non-national alternative to the present form of globalization and that is equally global. What's your opinion about this riddle?

NC: As usual, I don't see it as a conflict. It makes perfect sense to use the means that nation states provide in order to resist exploitation, oppression, domination, violence and so on, yet at the same time to try to override these means by developing alternatives. There is no conflict. You should use whatever methods are available to you. There is no conflict between trying to overthrow the state and using the means that are provided in a partially democratic society, the means that have been developed through popular struggles over centuries. You should use them and try to go beyond, maybe destroy the institution. It is like the media. I am perfectly happy to write columns that are syndicated by the New York Times, which I do, and to write in Z Magazine. It is no contradiction. In fact, let's take a look at this place (MIT). It has been a very good place for me to work; I've been able to do things I want to do. I have been here for fifty years, and have never thought about leaving it. But there are things about it that are hopelessly illegitimate. For example, it is a core part of the military-linked industrial economy. So you work within it and try to change it.

ZV: Many oppose “democracy� since it is still a form of tyranny – tyranny of the majority. They object to the notion of majority rule, noting that the views of the majority do not always coincide with the morally right one. Therefore we have an obligation to act according to the dictates of his conscience, even if the latter goes against majority opinion, the presiding leadership, or the laws of the society. Do you agree with this notion?

NC: It is impossible to say. If you want to be a part of the society, you have to accept the majority decisions within it, in general, unless there is a very strong reason not to. If I drive home tonight, and there is a red light, I will stop, because that is a community decision. It doesn't matter if it is 3 a.m. and I may be able to go through it without being caught because nobody is around. If you are part of the community, you accept behavioral patterns that maybe you don't agree with. But there comes a point when this is unacceptable, when you feel you have to act under your own conscious choice and the decisions of the majority are immoral. But again, anyone looking for a formula about it is going be very disappointed. Sometimes you have to decide in opposition to your friends. Sometimes that would be legitimate, sometimes not. There simply are no formulas for such things and cannot be. Human life is too complex, with too many dimensions. If you want to act in violation of community norms, you have to have pretty strong reasons. The burden of proof is on you to show that you are right, not just: "My conscience says so." That is not enough of a reason.

ZV: What is your opinion about so-called “scientific� anarchism – attempts to scientifically prove Bakunin's assumption that human beings have instinct for freedom. That we have not only a tendency towards freedom but also a biological need. Something that you were so successful in proving with universal grammar (language)�

NC: That is really a hope, it is not a scientific result. So little is understood about human nature that you cannot draw any serious conclusions. We can't even answer questions about the nature of insects. We draw conclusions – tentative ones -- through a combination of our intuitions, hopes, some experiences. In that way we may draw the conclusion that humans have an instinct for freedom. But we should not pretend that it is derived from scientific knowledge and understanding. It isn't and can't be. There is no science of human beings and their interactions or even simpler organisms that reaches anywhere near that far.

ZV: Last question. Henry David Thoreau opens his essay “Civil Disobedience� with the following sentence: “That government is the best that governs the least or doesn’t govern at all.� History teaches us that our freedom, labor rights, environmental standards have never been given to us from the wealthy and influential few, but have always been fought out by ordinary people – with civil disobedience. What should be in this respect our first steps toward another, better world?

NC: There are many steps to achieve different ends. If we take the immediate problems in the US, probably the main domestic problem we face is the collapse of the health care system, which is a very serious problem. People can't get drugs, can't get medical care, costs are out of control, and it is getting worse and worse. That is a major problem. And that can be, in principle and I think in fact, dealt within the framework of parliamentary institutions. In some recent polls 80% of the population prefer much more reasonable programs, some form of national health insurance, which would be far cheaper and more efficient and would give them the benefits they want. But the democratic system is so corrupted that 80% of the population can't even put their position on the electoral agenda. But that can be overcome. Take Brazil, which has much higher barriers than here, but the population was able to force through legislation which made Brazil a leader in providing AIDS medication at a fraction of the cost elsewhere and in violation of international trade rules imposed by the US and other rich countries. They did it. If Brazilian peasants can do it, we can do it. Instituting a reasonable health care system is one thing that should be done, and you can think of a thousand others. There is no way of ranking them; there is no first step. They should all be done. You can decide to be engaged in this one or that one or some other one, wherever your personal concerns, commitments and energy are. They are all interactive, mutually supportive. I do things I think are important, you do things you think are important, they do what they think is important, they can all be means for achieving more or less the same ends. They can assist one another, achievements in one domain can assist those in others. But who am I to say what the first step is?

ZV: Do you go to the polls/ Do you vote?

NC: Sometimes. Again, it depends on whether there is a choice worth making, whether the effect of voting is significant enough so it is worth the time and effort. On local issues I almost always vote. For example, there was recently a referendum in the town where I live that overrode ridiculous tax restrictions, and I voted on that. I thought it is important for a town to have schools, fire stations, libraries and so on and so forth. Usually the local elections make some kind of difference, beyond that it is� If this state (Massachusetts) were a swing state, I would vote against Bush.

ZV: And what about upcoming elections?

NC: Since it is not a swing state, there are other choices. One might have reasons to vote for Ralph Nader, or for the Green Party, which also runs candidates apart from the presidency. There are a variety of possible choices, depending on what’s evaluation of the significance.

* Ziga Vodovnik is Assistant/Young Researcher at the Department of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, Europe.





clap2.gif clap2.gif clap2.gif clap2.gif clap2.gif clap2.gif clap2.gif clap2.gif clap2.gif clap2.gif

: NoiseUnited Dec 8 2004, 11:08 AM

I enjoyed that interview personally. I realize much has blossomed from anarchistic ideals. Anarchism is just that, an ideal. To strive for decision making by the majority in place of voting for someone to make decisions for them seems ok to me. If you think majority decision making will lead to immorality, chaos, etc, then use your first amendment right to persuade those who think anarchy is a good idea otherwise. Things such as the example Somasoul had given, road repair would be realized by majority rule. The amount of resources allowed to it, specific locations of repair, really not too different than the current situation. Though I think foreign policy among others would be extremely different. I do agree anarchy wouldn't work in America as it stands currently. But I don't see anything wrong with trying to change that. That is what first needs to be addressed and is in my eyes: why the current system should be changed and how that would be possible. I currently share Chomsky's opinion that change using reform is what should be utilized, until the barriers for positive change have not allowed it, then revolution should be enacted. What's positve can be seen different to many people, but those conveying their message in a civilized manner shouldn't be condemned. Particularly if they're just expressing their right to free speach. That should be for both sides of the spectrum and beyond. Basically, it hurts your arguement and productivity in general.

Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)