Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Because proper tea is theft!
You have to cross the river of fire.
now that's funny
cos for a moment i thought it was a xtian joke against godless materialists
(sorry John, for stealing your joke)
i knew you LOVED the duck-student-beer joke! :D
Why is six afraid?
Because seven eight nine.
but they had already heard it. the few that hadn't liked it / thought it was terrible. which is the same thing.
is really an anarchist slogan and not a communist one. Whenever I've ever heard the joke its been about anarchists but I guess it works for both.
he was an anarchist. the first, actually.
as Smigs said below it was originally thought up by an anarchist and has been written on a lot more anarchist banners than communist ones. In any case most communists (and most examples to implement communism throughout history) would maintain property but to be owned in a collective way. Ergo to communists private property is theft but to anarchists all property is theft. That's just the way I see it anyway.
that in communism, property is owned by `the state`, whereas in anarchism the state doesn't exist; property is `owned` by whoever's living on it/using it. so, in anarchism, factories are `owned` by the workers; houses are `owned` collectively by the inhabitants (but their descendants have no automatic right to inherit when they die, unless they're also living there). in communism, factories are owned by the state, although (theoretically at least) they are controlled by the workers(?).
er, at least this was coherent in my head..
the state would eventually wither away. State control and "dictatorship of the proletariat" is only meant to be the temporary stage of socialism until world revolution has occured, at that point it will dissolve itself. Essentially the end product of communism is anarchism they just disagree with anarchists on how to get there.
i know :) i was talking about the state control phase :)
communism, that's socialism.
the term 'property is theft' was coined by an anarchist but is equally applicable to communism..
Communism is anarchism so I guess so. I just don't think it can work in modern life and very few communists would ever want to progress past socialism and very few 'socialists' would want to progress past social-liberalism etc etc.
In any case anarchism is just stupid.
a right wing philosophy. anarchism = libertarianism with a breathtaking naivety about hte nature of human beings
things like collective anarchism and anarcho-communism owe more to the left than the right?
anarchism exposes the weakness of measuring political philosophies on a left-right spectrum, anyway.
in theory but in practice, anarchism would deliver outcomes only palatable to the right...
anarchism is all about the theory! consider people who like to watch post-apocalyptic movies: they probably wouldn't want to actually live in a post-apocalyptic world, even if they tell you otherwise! :)
but it just irritates me. anarchism means 'without rule' but we have parts of the world that are unruled and they certainly aren't mutualist...
Near to impossible to achieve without violent means, easily brought down by a bunch of men with guns, economically inefficient, lack of technological progress. Anarchism was what we had at the beginnign of time and we progressed into nation states, it is a natural progression.
are essentially capitalist-derived goals, not objective ones. as for the violence - depends on your interpretation i guess. though that's not necessarily a reason to reject anarchism out of hand.
that you can claim technological progress is a capitalist derived goal. the human race has been doing it for as long as we've been around. yes, it's sped up tremendously since the advent of the industrial revolution, but it was going on before that..
as for anarchism.. i think you could probably run whole communities, towns and cities, rural areas in an anarchist fashion, but overarching state structures would still be necessary. which kinda undermines the anarchist bit..
but capitalism fairly intrinsic to human nature. we've always traded, though not always with currency.
Essentially, there is no difference between a libertarian and an anarchist. It's simply that an anarchist is naive enough to believe that if you remove the shackles of the state people will behave in an egalitarian fashion because people's instincts are egalitarian. This is unforgiveable bullshit that should be afforded zero credibility.
"that's not necessarily a reason to reject anarchism out of hand."
it's not like it'd be any worse.
but the nation state serves to protect most of us from internal violence, don't you think?
anarchism would basically be unfettered capitalism. by creating a state we are imposing restrictions on capitalism, surely?
libertarianism would be unfettered capitalism. social anarchism would be mutually exclusive with the competitive principles on which capitalism is based. but this is all arguing over words basically, and is less important than what either of us actually thinks. personally i think it's good to have a state, it's just that it needn't be so centralised and complex that its activities become linked in an inexorable chain of stagnation masquerading as progress.
which we haven't actually tried out yet. classic 'centralised liberal democracy is the pinnacle of civilization' stuff.
anarchism is is a society without rulers. but anarchists are naive enough to believe that the outcome of removing rule would be egalitarianism. you don't need to be a genius to be able to demolish this.
i'm not really sure what you mean when you say 'stagnation masquerading as progress'. are we talking about environmental degradation here? or just the essential pointlessness of consumerism?
and i think it's equally naive to suggest that anarchism just involves 'removing rule'. society would have to be reconstructed quite considerably. to my mind, the most important component of this would be radical decentralisation.
it just depends what type of efficiency, productive, allocative etc they are trying to achieve. In any case you may call it capitalist but is putting resources to waste ever a good thing?
As for violence I think that is a reason to reject it. Revolution or such like could be the answer if faced against a dictatorship or something like that when you have no other alternative. But to argue for violently bringing down a democratic state so we can all live without a government is unnecessary and foolish, the same goes for communists who seek to overthrow democratic states. Also as JacobJones says below the state protects us from internal violence. Look at what happened to Somalia when the state collapsed, the people were left with no food and nothing but gunmen on the streets.
to provide a blanket justification for many things of which i wouldn't approve.
regarding putting resources to waste, you are right, but the problem comes when humans are regarded as 'resources', which they are under capitalism. putting people to work on an assembly line basis is more 'efficient' than allowing people to switch around and do different jobs, but it's degrading and unfulfilling - even though it's not 'putting resources to waste' in one way, it is in another.
also, when it comes to consumer products, the market is not efficient in terms of the optimum use of resources because there is demand for so much utter shit, which would not be produced if people did not take a short-term view of resource allocation. if 'economically inefficient' encompasses moving away from the market in this respect, then i'd see that as a good thing.
pravda and iskra.
i thought you'd like this one!
you hippo from crete
i like reasonable working hours and good pay looooooooooooool
reasonable working hours and good pay for ALL :-D
a pilot you fucking racist.