Voting win for Labour grassroots

[Fred B]

Amazing - one of the most important days for the Union and Royal Mail in 2 years and TMans first comment is a not very subtle and not even slightly funny dig at someone else's views.

You have to remember, these screws and their apologists have long since lost the capacity for individual thought. It's unreasonable to expect anything else from T*** man.

Sun readers and the like. Now how did a thread on anarchism come to mention Lenin? Of couse! The person mentioning Lenin doesn't know the difference between a Bakuninite and a Bolshevik. Obviously the subject is too difficult for him.

[Tman]

Amazing - one of the most important days for the Union and Royal Mail in 2 years and TMans first comment is a not very subtle and not even slightly funny dig at someone else's views.

I see putting me on your foe list didn't last too long then........

Next.

[Tman]

Now now Courtney - Perhaps his priorities lie elsewhere have some sympathy for him. I do agree that his comment was not funny, but it is in his usual style.

Wasn't meant to be "funny" it was meant to highlight the bitter irony in some poster's rather strange views. Good to see your as impartial as ever though...

Next..

[Tman]

You have to remember, these screws and their apologists have long since lost the capacity for individual thought. It's unreasonable to expect anything else from T*** man.

Oh please....something more original next time eh?

Next

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Now now Courtney - Perhaps his priorities lie elsewhere have some sympathy for him. I do agree that his comment was not funny, but it is in his usual style.

Wasn't meant to be "funny" it was meant to highlight the bitter irony in some poster's rather strange views. Good to see your as impartial as ever though...

Next..

Now you say I am biased because I don't think your comment was funny. You have a persecution complex where I am concerned am I not allowed a sense of humour and what was wrong about saying its your usual style. It is.

Stop thinking I am out to get you I am not and your overreaction to my post shows how biased and blinkered your approach to me is.

[Tman]

Sun readers and the like. Now how did a thread on anarchism come to mention Lenin? Of couse! The person mentioning Lenin doesn't know the difference between a Bakuninite and a Bolshevik. Obviously the subject is too difficult for him.

Don't think "difficult" comes into it. Many read historical books etc for enjoyment and then some subsequently quote facts to appear eddikated. Having knowlege of an obscure nineteenth century Russian political figure (even though he was bit-part player in the biggest and most tragic con ever perpetrated on the human race) suggests either you need to get out more (much more!) or more likely, it's the common ploy of "your point must be wrong because I can post a name from the period and that really shows I know what I'm talking about".
Not that it shows anything of the kind, of course...

[IWW Fellow Worker]

Sun readers and the like.

You know him then?

[Fred B]

Sun readers and the like.

You know him then?

I know his type. Every job has its suckholes and he's one of many.

[borders]

i dont think anyone would like to live in a state of Anarchy long term, as only the nastiest, if i can put it like that, would survive, it would be dog eat dog.

Unlike the present system where everyone is treated fairly, where everyone is a veritable Good Samaritan, where hunger and want have long since been abolished and everyone lives in harmony regardless of race, nationality, religion or sex, do you mean?

thats the illusion they like to create !!!!!

[andy2007]

The problem was, and still is. That once India gained independance, they dropped Ghandi's ideals, and went for everything they could get. Which is why they quickly descended into violence, despite Ghandi's efforts.

Nothing to do with religious tensions and divisions leading to Partition, then?
[Sigh] Each Religion, believed that they should rule. Is that not greed (in this case for power)?

Just look at what happened in the Communist Countries. It all started out well. The Peasants got some land, and respect. The greedy "upper classes", were deposed. But soon after, they ended up with a far worse regeme. With Secret Police, people "dissapearing" if they disagreed with the Government, etc..

"Started out well"? I suppose if the immediate appropriation and possible imprisonment of the bourgeoisie mill, factory and farm owners etc (apparently if you employed three or more workers, that was you) leading to mass unemployment, starvation, food riots, strikes and summary street executions was "starting out well", then you're right.
Their methods were violent, and not something I support, or would encourage. But the result, initially. Was to stop them being the ones who were being persecuted.

The starvation, riots, etc.. Were caused by a power vacum, because they thought that simply removing the Ruling Classes, would solve their problems (which is the problem with Anarchy too). In order to attempt to solve the problem. They set up a Government. Sadly, this resulted in a terrible, repressive system. Which was far, far, worse than what they had to begin with. Hence, they failed miserably!

More like "frying pan" and "fire" I'd say, but I never was taken in by Lenin's smoke and mirrors philosophies, and as just about every country that's been allowed to, has ditched these concepts ASAP too then it would seem they're proven to be a failure to most people.
{Unless you can be in the upper echelon, who never seem to either suffer or go short when times are hard, but that's another inherent defect the Hard Left don't like to mention when calling for this political system}

Which is precisely why I said: "But soon after, they ended up with a far worse regeme. With Secret Police, people "dissapearing" if they disagreed with the Government, etc..".

I am a Socialist. But I am not, and never will be, a Communist. The entire concept of Communism is fatally flawed. As you rightly said: It's been a total failure, wherever it's been attempted.

[Fred B]

I am a Socialist. But I am not, and never will be, a Communist. The entire concept of Communism is fatally flawed. As you rightly said: It's been a total failure, wherever it's been attempted.

I'd be very interested to see your analysis of libertarian communism as practiced by the Makhnovists and the CNT/FAI. Why do you suppose those attemps were a total failure? What makes you think the entire concept of Communism is fatally flawed? You've obviously found something Meltzer, Bookchin, Pierats and Ward have missed. What, in your view, is the difference between socialism and communism?

[andy2007]

Communism is based on the principle that everyone is equal, and everything belongs to everyone. So you don't have rich or poor. You just have people. In theory, that's an incredibly fair system, as everyone has their own contribution to make. And without combined efforts, nothing of consequence would be achieved.

Socialism in my opinion, is where those who have, help those who have not. For example: Free Healthcare, Minimum Wage, affordable housing, etc., etc.. But those who have the ability, and work hard. Still have the opportunity to make extra, and have a better lifestyle. But ONLY if they earn it.

An example of someone who hasn't earned it. Would be someone who goes to an existing Company. Makes cuts to jobs, services, working conditions, etc.. And then because of an increase in profits. Gets big bonuses. That's not working, that's sponging off others sweat and toil!

We've come across a few of them haven't we?

An example of someone who's EARNED their wealth. Would be someone who started off as a one man band, or small group of people, working together. Who build that Company up, to the point where it makes a fortune.

So long as they contribute to those who would otherwise live in poverty. Then why shouldn't the latter type of person, have a better lifestyle. Let's face it. They earned it by their hard graft, and Brains!

That wouldn't be allowed in a Communist Country, now would it?
Yet, there's nothing wrong in people being rewarded for grafting in my opinion. What do you think?


Why I believe that Communism is fatally flawed
Communists believe that everyone is equal, and that there shouldn't be some who are privilaged, and others who aren't. They achieve this, by deposing, or in some cases, even killing the ruling classes. But what do they replace it with?
Their own type of Government?
Remember the Kremlin in the USSR?
And they weren't the only ones, either! They're just the most famous example, because they were so powerful. If I remember correctly, they were the only Communist Superpower, although I could be wrong.

If someone becomes part of a Government, they get power. And it's only a matter of time, before they start getting perks. Which then makes them more determined to stay in power, because they know that they'll loose those perks, as soon as they leave Government. That's why you end up with such oppressive regiems. And THAT'S the fatal flaw in Communism.

[IWW Fellow Worker]

I've read some of the authors Fred mentions. The clearest arguments for libertarian socialism/libertarian communism are those put forward by Albert Meltzer and Colin Ward (assuming he's the Ward Fred is talking about). I think, Andy, you are confusing state communism (Stalinism) with real communism. Even the Trotskyists didn't support state communism as practiced in the USSR.
Your idea of socialism is that of state control. I don't think I'm doing Marxists an injustice in saying they evisage a stage where the state becomes unecessary and withers away, hence Marxists (except for Stalinists) did not recognise the USSR as a communist country.
My question is, what about those incapable of working hard? The disabled, the elderly, the very young? Also if someone was able to build a company up, he or she would not be able to do so without exploiting other people, or natural rescources which in reality belong to all. What we then have is capitalism, not socialism of any kind anyone outside of the Labour Party would recognise.
I do recommend Albert Metzer for a very straight forward view of all forms of socialism from Anarchism to Marxism and Social Democratic. I'm also told Gramsci is good for a Marxist view, but I haven't read anything by him.

[borders]

nice post IWW, from what i understand , Lenin said Communism would only work if it was adopted worldwide , Lenin and Marx were Internationlists.

[Tman]

Also if someone was able to build a company up, he or she would not be able to do so without exploiting other people, or natural rescources which in reality belong to all. What we then have is capitalism, not socialism of any kind

Above is a perfect example of "fatally flawed" communism.

So if, (for example) someone takes out a bank loan and buys an abandoned farm plus some cattle, sheep and machinery, works hard, makes a sucess of it, employs local labour and produces foodstuffs, in the communist view he not only exploits other people (by employing them) he also exploits the "natural resources" which allegedly "belong to all"? Not only that, but he's then labelled a capitalist as well?

Of course, the facts that the farm was abandoned and produced nothing before he came along, less food was being grown, less local people were employed, and less workers kept employed in the machinery factories, doesn't count for anything then?

The triumph of dogmatism over pragmatism.

Then again, the history books show how well communism in the USSR in the 1930s could organise farming and the food supply. Only a concept as "fatally flawed" as communism could manage to achieve a famine of catastrophic proportions in a country as fertile as the Ukraine.