Welcome to Gaia! ::

it is called democratic centralism, it is where there are disputes within the group, but they present a unified fron against outsiders. they may dis agree with him, but prefer him to communists is my point.

there are many times when I am more likely to agree with say marx than zerzan, and I think it is pretty likely that many other anarchists would agree with the sentiment(if not necessarily the names). The vast majority of anarchists argue for at least some type of class conflict and many are heavily influenced if not actually based in marxist theory(at least economic theory).

well then they are then anarchoids, not anarchists. most 'anarchists' these days actually have nothing to do with proudhon or his successors, and are thus anarchoids. other than that, i have nothing to say on the para.



anarchism is a petty bourgeois doctrine, mostly aimed at the small busisness owner in the towns, who were crushed between their own impotent means of production on the one hand, and large scale capitalist production on the other. proudhon appealed to these types, you should know this, when he called for 'gratuitous credit' and for small parcels of land for all. now please tell me, if that was not an appeal to the petty artisianate and peasant, what is? and bakhunin, he ADMITTED that his ideas would find more ready acceptance among the artisianates of france, spain, switzerland, and italy, and the peasants of russia, because he appealed to them in the spirit of craftsmanship and quality of the goods of the workman, as opposed to the monotonous turn out of factory production.

again, i will highlight that this is opposed to marx's appeal to the proletariat, which i wont go into further, it is already well known.



^^see above^^



actually, i've only read general histories of the period, and they were from a consevative viewpoint, hating both the reds and blacks.



no, it isnt funny, i admit i dont have much of a knowlege of the period at all, apart from the internal workings of the soviet state, so of course i will not adress it properly. and as i said above, i have only read stuff that goes against both reds and blacks, though it hates the reds more, due to the fact that they were better:p and won.



who, what years and what was the stated cause of punishment?

ok, the responces you gave to the next two quotes were redundant, they were refering to 'lefitst revolutionaries', not nessessarily mahkno.



i said that these people opposed us and therefore they opposed the proletariat. there are backward ellements of the proletariat who sided with the whites, they, as said, were proletairans, but the sided AGAINST the proletariat, that is, objectively, they opposed the proletarian revolution.
due to the subjectivist nature of anarchism, believing that the aftermath of the revolution will be short and all will moraly regenerate themselves, you cannot or will not understand that there are contradictory class interests. and this is why you misunderstood my comment.



only military importance, but political? no.



most of actualy, yeah, the overwhelming majority was, the rest were behind the soviets. the rest fought us.

they dont count.

they were killed.

no, it means you are more anarchist than him, actually.


the exact same person who coud say what a christian is.
just because people say they are something, doesnt mean they are. so, i look at theyr words and deeds, and from that i determin what the person is, politicaly. if someone called themselves an anarchist, and when they listed their beliefs, you found a kind of 10 point programme of fascism, would you call them anarchist or fascist?

by the same token, if someone has anarchistic leanings, but doesnt go the full way, what is wrong with my designation of them as anarchoids, whan really, thats all they are?


do i sence some racism here?


it is because the working class, concentrated at the point of production has economic power, be collectively withdrawing its labour, it can shut down industry, the working class, by virtue of it's social position has an interest in the destruction of property, the planning of industry and an end the the extraction of surplus value. peasants on the otherhand, are masters of their own little plot of land, their economic power consitis in the taxes they pay, that is, almost naught. their military power comes from their mass. they are backward, and have an interest in keeping their property to themselves, and for that matter, in breaking the large estates and farms up and splitting those up among themselves and the proletariat, in other words, they want the world to be petty-bourgeois.


thus these currents no longer deserve the titles of their originators. it is like 'communist' revisionists, who want to look over the ideology, and change it. they are not communists, they belong to different political groupings.
just as the soviet bureaucrat is better denoted as stalinist, so the majority of self styled modern anarchists are better denoted anarchoid.


of course it is great that they mannaged to get that manny people, that is rare outside of australia. but yes, the idology they follow is not able to bring about revolution, and thus they will fail. it is my job as a communist to explain this to them, to all, just as it is your duty to your ideology to propagate your ideas.



really? ok, fine, as long as you keep me and them seperated, i am actually thoughroughly proletarian. not even part of the labour aristocracy. my one parent os on disability support payments, and the other is blue collar. while i wish to go to university, i will only do so if i can get a teaching scholarship(that is, the state pays for my education in exchange for choosing where i will teach for them once i get my degree).



as i said:actually, i've only read general histories of the period, and they were from a consevative viewpoint, hating both the reds and blacks



i would prefer it if you viewed the time spent arguing with myself, or anyone else, ever, as trying to convince the spectators, not the opponent.

your contempt for me lowers your standard of discussion(i hope, for you, that you arent always so angry with opponents)


way back when the comments were first said, you werent. he was just one in a list.


i am someone who consideres themselves to have a scientific understanding of society, and im sure gallenger would say the same about himself.
and with this understanding, i have a better grounding to determine what is needed. please note that such an understanding does not grant infallibility, it only serves as better equipment for the class struggle.

now, let us go through this:
who am i to determine who belongs to the proletriat, that is, that class of people who own nothing but their ability to labour? i am someone who can find out if one bellongs to such a catagory, what more does one need?

and what is best for a group of people? well what are priorities, in the situation we were talking about(russia in 1917) ok, so what do people need? in everycase, if they want to live they need food. they also need a way to get that food. the people demanded peace, so they obviously want it bad enough.
so, we see that people want food and peace, well, done.
i have figured out what they need, and im sure you could have done the same.



and you ignore the moraly regenerate them selves bit, hmm.
so instead of explaining why my comment does not matter(that is prooving the moral regeneration) or explaining your understanding of the class interests in this particular issue, and how you wish to deal with them, you just brush my comment aside. well i must say, ignoring my 'sille rhetoric' does not change anything or help prove your point.


one word replies always work. there is no explaining why it is, or what the correct position to take would be...