Politically, what do you consider yourself as?

a rather moot point dear kaos, anyone who calls themselves an 'existential nihilist' is by definition a complete wanker.

 

But "zwanghafter Masturbationsdrang" would make a great name for a band!

 

hence the joke hahahaha

 

DEESTRUCTOOR

^only awesome if you've seen futurama...

 

I dont know how can some of you be anti-communist .
If you read Marx u will notice that he says , that when a society passes from socialism and reaches communism will be no need to government and it will be desmantled , so i think thats anarchy , not what some kids think " Yeah lets make some shit and fuck someones life!" , anarchy is civilized , and I think that it will be impossible in the next 200 years at least(worldwide maybe local anarchy can be possible)

 

It's true that Marx' utopian vision does seem to fit with the anarchist ideal. However, it's easy to quote Marx himself to show the flaws of Communism (not communism) 'An end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end.' It's AUTHORITARIAN communism I imagine most people on here take issue with. There is plenty anarchists can take from Marx. There's also loads where anarchists can tell him to fuck off. And then there is the history of anarchism and Communism - not good.

 

I cant see what's bad in that "An end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end" , plz can u explain your thought ?

 

It's more, if you see the consequences of the actions of the followers of Marx, you have to say they were very guilty of unjustifiable means. Now, you can suggest that Russia and other Communist movements were not 'real Marxism' but that's like arguing right-wing evangelist Christianity is not 'real Christianity'. It has to be accepted that there was plenty of errors in Marx' attitude (though you can accuse Bakunin, as one example, of being comparatively flawed). There is a relatively obscure quote on Marx that covers his main fault in my opinion: 'His was a sin of omission, not of commission'. (I paraphrase).

 

Sorry, I meant to add that the actions of his followers were worse.

 

Filipe many of us on here are anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho-communist, but we do find fault in authoritarian Communism or Marxist-Leninist tendencies, that doesn't mean that you are not welcome here and that we don't want to hear your opinions ...

 

The so called followers of marx , did not followed this "'An end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end" , and like u sayd i can say that they were not truly marxist , and i will say , because marxism is not an opressive political system , and its not dictatorial neither ,so all of his followers intrepreted his theory like they wanted to , and i wasnt talking about that i was talking about the marx and engels theory it self , and u if u dont think that the 'An end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end" u agree that the USA kill thousands of people in Iraque to get their petrol .

btw this is just a talk , not offensive

 

and i did not sayd that im marxist-leninist
but lets end this , its getting off topic

 

So, what tendency within Marxism would you identify with (if any)?
I like Marx, and have plenty of time for Autonomist Marxists, but I'm not a Marxist. Its my opinion that the State, through socialism, will not 'wither away' and create communism, this is why I'm an anarchist. I think history bears out the reality of this view.

 

I dont think that i identify with any of the Marx tendency just with the theory but I haven't found any political ideology that i totally agree.
Maybe i'll buy some Anarchism theorists and see if I agree with them
Either way i think that a perfect society ( or close to that) needs to be in community and working for the common good.

 

both Marxism and Anarchism argues for that.
don't buy books, download them:
onebigtorrent.org/
zinelibrary.info/

 

thanks :b

 

also this:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/index.htm

 

Haven't you anarchists factored in the fact of the current population? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't all the functioning anarchist communities been pretty small? I don't know if anarchism can work with such a high dense population. The amount of need would greatly outweigh the provisional abilities of the society.

I'm all for regressing back to the founding father's ideal, so I guess technically I'm conversative. Communities need to be broken down smaller, more independent/self sufficient and the government to exist solely to stop catastrophes and infringements made on the people's rights and freedoms. I DO think there needs to be some sort of governing force in a society. The world isn't rainbows and sunshine. People will be assholes, and they will take advantage of something the second they see the opportunity. It's easy to look to the modern experimental communities and think it can be done, but you have to keep in mind these groups are populated by likeminded individuals. Kids don't always grow up to be their parents.

I agree with most of the anarcho causes/protests though.

 

libcom.org/tags/spanish-civil-war
www.4shared.com/file/24717164/ad78902/George_Orwell_-_Homage_to_Catalonia.html
zinelibrary.info/commune-paris
zinelibrary.info/friends-durruti
zinelibrary.info/collectives-spain
zinelibrary.info/memories-maknovist-partisan
zinelibrary.info/remember-spain
zinelibrary.info/towards-fresh-revolution
libcom.org/library/worker-student-action-committees-france-1968-perlman-gregoire
libcom.org/tags/france-1968
libcom.org/history/slogans-68

 

Does this support or contradict the quote? Personally, I think the examples in those articles prove that Anarchism in practice does work in smaller communities. However, I don't see this as a weakness. Localisation and fragmentation, I think, will be almost inevitable in an anarchistic, post-revolutionary world. There are plenty of arguments around population and sustainability, different anarchists answer it differently but, really, I don't think any of the answers can be definitive.