Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Anarchy vs Communism

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Probe, Jul 20, 2010.

  1. Bentheanarchist

    Bentheanarchist Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    931

    10

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    I don't think of Stalin, Lenin, or Mao as socialists. China is a Capitalist country that makes cheap crap out of wage slavery, much like America.
     
  2. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    the very same happened in the former eastern bloc and russia, living standards remained low everywhere, production of consume-goods of quality or at least reliance remained far behind the military production - okay, the arms race during the cold war was co-responsible for this, but besides that it was some intent behind it too - people busy to manage a halfways acceptable living keep silent and don't ask questions.
    everything was "owned by the people" - but the people were lacking the means and the official permission to use and care for their "property", so great parts of the cities looked like rotten slums, shortages of everything from wallpaint to fruits and vegetables were standard,
    and the trade between the socialist brother-states is best explained in an old joke:

    Q: What happens if a Hungarian refuses to pay his garbage bill?
    A: The Russians will stop delivering.
    we were living in the socialist paradise... :'(
    [​IMG]
     
  3. drush

    drush Member New Member


    6

    0

    0

    Oct 5, 2011
     
    haha.
    ps. leftwing-deviance rules.
    but yo, modern state capitalism in china doesn't detract from its revolutionary past.
    i know nobody that may read this comment upholds maoism, but it's fully revolutionary..
    sackin out, listening to crusty punk rock and readin commie propaganda is a potent mixture, highly recommended!
    sorry nothing much else to contribute in this post.
     
  4. drush

    drush Member New Member


    6

    0

    0

    Oct 5, 2011
     
    but wait, also, one major thing i see between anarchy and communism is the anarchists insistence on blaming revisionist fucking coups on the prior revolutionary movements.
    and i agree on one end of that contradiction, like that the cultural revolution didn't go far ENOUGH to prevent the bourgeoisie from seizing power again.
    but anarchism places blame on the inherent workings of building socialism causing capitalism to be restored.
    but it's the only way to prevent capitalist restoration. empasis here, 4 xtruh anarchist solidarity, on the importance of a united front between proletarians, peasants, and intellectuals and 'left-wing deviants'.
     
  5. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    Still remember the old times we were leaving the complete commie-library at the cops table each time we were arrested for loitering, minor rioting and things - soundtrack '77 - it took quite some time to get wise...
    And we still have a maoist in the commune! (really a nice guy, and recently he left for the country like a true intellectual son of the peseants and workers!)
    So in shorts: The problem of the cultural revolution was revisionism on one side - the "first front" of economy management led by deng xiauping and others, claiming the class war in china ended with the victory of the communist party 1949 and setting the priority to development of the national economy - their vision was the leadership of an elite managing the return to "economical stimulus" including bonus-wage system and employment-labour, return to market structures resulting in closing down much of the ineffective industry created during the cultural revolution. this enforced the gaps between rural land and cities again, resulting in rural exodus and high unemployment, social unrest was the consequence.
    but the aim was a high degree of economy growth, outmatching even the old colonial powers - the mixed economy paradise with happy consumers cared for forever by the party, observing observing the "backward" masses for signs of troublemakers to be eliminated.
    maos position was far more socialist but had a unhealthy, dishonest and very hypocritical side - permanent class war even against the party, criticism - and if necessary militant confrontation - about each and every aspect of the socialist development, absolute believe in the revolutionary masses, absolute abolition of privileges and personal advantages and strictly planned economy:
    The socialist saints, only working for the world revolution - the "new" proletarian born out of the cultural revolution.
    The problem with this was that the cultural revolution Mao sparked became kinda purge very similiar to the show trials of moscow 1936 - to eliminate every party-internal critizism at stalins claim of leadership and his competence, the purge included the factual decapitation of the Red Army too - as a possible source for armed resistance or a military coup.
    Each and every "mistake" of the polit bureau and the high soviet was blamed on old comrades turning into counter-revolutionaries and spies - consequently executed and silenced.
    Mao did the same thing, almost 75% of the party members lost their positions, many were killed or injailed, the absolutism of good vs. evil reached unbelievable levels - but the party emerged clean and infinitely wise - always right...
    The black-and-white -view became kind of a weapon against opponents, there was no control of the peoples courts condemnig the accused on fixed quotas, nobody was found innocent, everybody was guilty.
    only the revisionists got away with only light damage - because there were no other economical experts...
    Besides this Mao started to claim his leadership on china and finally the world revolution too, he condemned the soviet bureaucrats and tensions between the socialist brothers grew because moscow didn't gave up it's own claims - the power game began, Mao made friends with nixon and kissinger - bad for the vietnamese and other anti-imperialists, because the US demanded the stop of support for the struggling movements.
    When Mao died the cultural revolution stopped within a month - and the revisionists emerged, they simply had outlasted the storm - and china became what it is today...
    [​IMG]
    wearing a mao-jacket it totally unpunx!
     
  6. nike

    nike Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    439

    0

    6

    Jun 19, 2011
     
    i learned somewhere that hungary and former jugoslavia were kinda exception from the average misery in the eastern bloc, because they had something like a mixed economy and benefitted from a broad private market & trade with the capitalist west? the documentary "weight of chains" gave the statistics for a well grown economy in bloc-free communist jugoslavia - brought down by covered action or the reagan-us and the world banks to weaken the southeast flank of the Warsaw Pact?

    & Gobblez is an ex-communist leftwing-deviant extremist!
     
  7. Bakica

    Bakica Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     

    But in the end they had a debt of 21 billion dollars ( if I'm not wrong ). :ecouteurs:
     
  8. nike

    nike Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    439

    0

    6

    Jun 19, 2011
     
    thats not very much, the greeks enjoyed a public debt of $469.8 billion 2010 and their budget deficit reached 34,5 billions - without ever having been communist and after only ten years in the euro-zone - but if i look around me, i find a real winner:
    germany’s debt may rise beyond 2 trillion euros ($2.8 trillion) by 2013, the end of the next government’s term, as borrowing surges amid the deepest economic crisis since ww II.
    The federal government, the 16 states, cities and towns plan to borrow around 509 billion euros through 2013, ministry documents published in Berlin today show. Germany’s debt will increase to 82 percent of gross domestic product from 65.9 percent last year, violating eu rules - but our angel merkel angel is blaming the greeks for being unwilling....
    i hope our boys in afghanistan will have to pack their bags and go home - the german afghan adventure came up to 17 billions in ten years of "enduring freedom" three times more than officially predicted and may increase to 25 billions 2014.
    peace through austerity measures!
    see why capitalism is bad - its fucking expensive! :ecouteurs: :ecouteurs:
     
  9. butcher

    butcher Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    2

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    The amount of debt don't matter, its the ability to make the repayments that matters...
     
  10. nike

    nike Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    439

    0

    6

    Jun 19, 2011
     
    i know but it doesn't matters at all, just as it doesn't matters how much they spend as long as there is something coming in - and thanks to the neo-liberals there isn't enough to prevent the bankrott.
    but who wants this bound-to-loose farce of social market economy to keep on rollin'?
    i gladly volunteer to make it crash even faster!
     
  11. butcher

    butcher Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    2

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
     
  12. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    Commissar Applez - we're waiting for an report of the magyar exile committee about the goulash communism under János Kádár, who became leader of the happiest barrack within the eastern bloc while being held captive in moscow 1956.
    [​IMG]
     
  13. skulldrix

    skulldrix Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    105

    0

    0

    Jul 9, 2011
     
    Anarchy will always be better than communism. We can live without communism peacefull. I don't think we can live as well without anarchy.
     
  14. Bentheanarchist

    Bentheanarchist Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    931

    10

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    I just read the Bolshevik Myth and it chilled my bones.
     
  15. butcher

    butcher Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    2

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    put a jumper on.
     
  16. Ivanovich

    Ivanovich Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    676

    4

    6

    Jan 31, 2010
     
    Anarchy and communism are on same page in my book.
     
  17. crustybeckham

    crustybeckham Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    358

    4

    13

    Jan 22, 2012
     
    Anarchy vs Communism... Is that Wrestlemania's main event? If it is a TLC match I would go with Communism, however in a "No holds barred contest" Anarchy should be able to pin Communism down.

    :|
     
  18. Bentheanarchist

    Bentheanarchist Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    931

    10

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    I am talking about Authoritian Communism, I believe in Anarcho-communism. The Bolshevik Myth by Alexander Berkman show his and Emma Goldman's time in Russia after being deported from America for their Anarchist beliefs by capitalist pigs. At the begining the Cheka arrest and execute homeless people trying to sell food to Berkman and convict of being speculators. After Berkman attended a secret meeting of Anarchists to discuss what to about the repression of Anarchist by the Bolsheviks; Berkman arranges a meeting with Lenin who tells him about the dictatorship of the proletarian and brands the Anarchists counter-revolutionaries. Berkman goes to a peasant village and finds that most of their food has been taken by the Cheka. Berkman travels to Kharkiv, Ukraine and meets a man who tells he was in a concentration camp for "counter-revolutionaries" for being an anti-Bolshevik intellectual. Berkman later travels to Fastov, a mostly Jewish city in southern Ukraine who tell Berkman that the Bolsheviks are just as bad as the white army led by Deniken and Petlura and Poles at pograming the jews of Russia and Ukraine. Later Berkman sets up a meeting with a menshivik leader who opposes the bolsheviks named Astrov, when Berkman arrives at the building where the secret meeting is to be; Berkman learns that Astrov has been arrested and Astrov later dies in prison because of horrible prison conditions. Then finally Berkman and Goldman learn about an Kronstadt and its suppression by the Bolshevik government. The Red Army soldiers and Russian navy sailors go on strike in solidarity of Petrograd strikes, mill workers striking for better supplies and bread. The Kronstadt sailors and Red Army Soldiers demand free soviets and an end to Cheka taking away food from proletarian and peasants. The Bolshevik radio program Moscow Radio lies about the uprising and says that a white army general and americans are behind it and that it was planned by Anarchists and Social-Revolutionists. Kronstadt is attacked by the Red Army. 1000 killed in battle and 1,200 to 2,168 executed after the battle by the Cheka. Later, Berkman arranges for some of the anarchists to be deported instead of executed. Later, at the end of the book Berkman talks to his anarchist comrade Fanya Baron and Berkman later learns the next day that Fanya has been executed by the Cheka as a "bandit". Berkman decides to try to expose the Bolshevik Myth and decides to leave Russia.
     
  19. Danarchy

    Danarchy Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    116

    1

    1

    Jan 16, 2012
     Canada
    Without taking the time to read through the eight pages of anarchism vs. communism I would put forward that there is no 'authoritarian' or 'anarchist' communism. Communism is Communism and communism in practice is authoritarian, no matter what you do, once a group of people are put 'in charge' and provided with a sense of entitlement and authority they become totalitarian. Any hypenated or programme anarchism is just that, a programme to be imposed by a 'superior' group of the masses. Bakunin said to Marx at the First International exactly what would happen if his Communism came to being and it was proven over and over again. Those that seek to control the activities of others are dictators pure and simple, Communism is about enslavement of the masses for the benefit of a centralised beuracracy whereas Capitalism is about the enslavement of the masses for the benefit of corporate owners.

    Hypenated Anarchism, communism or syndicalism or whatever, creates a programme that runs the risk of being forced to live in a manner outside their choosing. I firmly believe in Industrial Worker Cooperatives, communal (communist type) agriculture, and Trade syndicalism among other structures by I do not hypenate my Anarchism. I do not believe any of the former 'programmes' actually have all of the answers, are independantly perfect and/ or are mutually exclusive. I 'my' ideal anarchism it is up to those directly engaged in the activity to define the construct of the activity and that is the fundamental difference between the philosophy of anarchism and ALL political-isms.

    In philosophical sciences an idea remains a philosophy until, through scientific method, a practical theory becomes established at that time it becomes a practical science. If anarchists remain focused on anarchism as a philosophy of human relations rather than an established programme we leave defining how thinks are done to the workers themselves and lessen the ability of individuals or groups to usurp the revolution for their own ends.

    I hope I have explained myself, but I have two children urging at my feet and time to make snowmen.
     
  20. butcher

    butcher Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    2

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    The thing about Leninoid Marxism is that it is capitalist. Using the example of leninism as a basis for a critique of anarchist communism (or communist tendencies that are actually, like, communist [more or less] - Council Communists, Situationists, Autonomous Marxists, 'ultra-leftists', etc) makes less sense than citing the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to critique democracy.

    What is this 'programme' you refer to?
    Besides, I'm more than willing to 'force people to live in a manner outside their choosing' should they 'choose' to say, be a landlord, employ people, be a cop, set up sweatshops, own slaves, build gas chambers, eat babies, etc.
     
Loading...