Spinner's Political Profile.

I'll get directly to the important part, introductions can come slightly later as I just joined here.

I am an Anarchist. I am a Libertarian Communist. I advocate the abolition of all State systems and apparatuses and all things that stem from it and the Capitalist mode of production, such as law enforcement and security agencies designated to protect property and bourgeois interests. In short, I want all of society's political arrangements totally uprooted, and replaced with a horizontal network of free producers satisfying their own and one another's personal needs. I have very solid ideas on how an Anarchist society is to function, should it succeed to live completely outside of Capitalism and Statism. In short, I am basically for a free humanity.

I believe in revolution. By this, I mean I do not believe in reform. Capitalism and the State are not anything that can be fixed, they are things that must be completely replaced to ensure a prosperous and free people. If it must come down to armed resistance, which it most likely will due to the bourgeois reaction almost certainly being violent, it most likely will. I mean, a group of revolutionaries holding up signs and chanting their demands cannot do what a group of armed revolutonaries with the support of the people and their resources can do. Therefore I believe in a full revolutionary by and for the proletarian class.

I believe completely in the Marxist maxim of "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". I am half-for and half-against Marxism, I respect Marx as the one who basically fathered Anti-Capitalism and laid the economic basis for my beliefs and most of the modern Anarchists beliefs, as well as the Marxists themselves. I also respect the theory of historical materialism, but I am inherently as an Anarchist no dialectician. I do not believe in the Workers' State or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but I do not live in the illusion Communism can be the next step directly after Capitalism. I, therefore, believe in a period of Collectivist Anarchism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism. Currency and the methods the means of production are operated under Collectivism would be phased out into complete Communism.

There's not much else I can really explain without writing specifically forever, so I'll just take questions I suppose.

just so you know that wiki article doesn't exist lol =]

what do you think of syndicalism?

solpacvoicis wrote:

just so you know that wiki article doesn't exist lol =]

what do you think of syndicalism?

Remove the "." after the end. =p

ohh, okay, that works lol

Spinner wrote:

I do not believe in the Workers' State or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Define 'Dictatorship of the proletariat'.
Also, Marx's 'from each... to each' thing was actually basically a quote of Louis Blanc (though not exact. Louis Blanc was a utopian socialist with pinko qualities, last I remember), and he pretty much said that it was impossible until 'labour became not only the means of life, but life's prime want'.

Stos wrote:

Spinner wrote:

I do not believe in the Workers' State or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Define 'Dictatorship of the proletariat'.
Also, Marx's 'from each... to each' thing was actually basically a quote of Louis Blanc (though not exact. Louis Blanc was a utopian socialist with pinko qualities, last I remember), and he pretty much said that it was impossible until 'labour became not only the means of life, but life's prime want'.

Marx believed in the state "in which the State can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" -- he refers to the period between a capitalist and communist society, in his theory.

Personally, I find it ironic that in order for a society to achieve equality, a dictatorship must be in order (I still respect Marx as a fellow anti-capitalist, though).

dictatorship wasn't considered negative at all during the time period - kinda synonymous with authority nowadays o.o;; dictatorship of the proletariat...well, since marx envisioned this society coming out of the bourgeois industrial society, the majority would be proletariat...dictatorship of the proletariat would be dictatorship of the majority, aka democracy....

not that it legitimizes the concept, but remember the context o.o

KenCat wrote:

Stos wrote:

Spinner wrote:

I do not believe in the Workers' State or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Define 'Dictatorship of the proletariat'.
Also, Marx's 'from each... to each' thing was actually basically a quote of Louis Blanc (though not exact. Louis Blanc was a utopian socialist with pinko qualities, last I remember), and he pretty much said that it was impossible until 'labour became not only the means of life, but life's prime want'.

Marx believed in the state "in which the State can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" -- he refers to the period between a capitalist and communist society, in his theory.

Personally, I find it ironic that in order for a society to achieve equality, a dictatorship must be in order (I still respect Marx as a fellow anti-capitalist, though).

This was in order to differentiate himself from the Blanquists (he mainly uses the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' after the 1848 and 1871 revolutions, where Blanquism was highly relevant). However, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is simply socialism before it is international. Or, to quote Marx here, in response to Bakunin's question in his work on Marxism and the State, “There are about forty million Germans. Are all forty million going to be members of the government?” (he then assumed that they wouldn't, and used that as an argument), “Certainly, because the thing starts with the self-government of the commune.” How is that bad, exactly? Marx used the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' exactly to show that he did not believe in a Blanquist 'dictatorship of the few', nor the modern definition of dictatorship, that is, 'dictatorship by some bloke'. To quote Marx again, “... If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare: the next French Revolution will no longer attempt to transfer the bureaucratic-military apparatus from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the precondition for every real people’s revolution on the Continent.” He, in fact, criticized previous revolutions for strengthening it, "Finally, in its struggle against the revolution, the parliamentary republic found itself compelled to strengthen, along with the repressive measures, the resources and centralization of governmental power. All revolutions perfected this machine instead of smashing it.”
Of course, the oft-cited example of 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was the Paris Commune. Well, until the Blanquists decided to take matters into their own hands...

solpacvoicis wrote:

dictatorship of the majority, aka democracy....

That's electoral ("voting for your master") democracy.

There is participatory, direct, consensus democracy which has nothing to do with ruling countries (for example, anarchism is direct/participatory/consensus democracy in the work place and other places).

KenCat wrote:

There is participatory, direct, consensus democracy which has nothing to do with ruling countries (for example, anarchism is direct/participatory/consensus democracy in the work place and other places).

I was wondering what exactly solpac meant about democracy not being legitimized.

actually, i meant that the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't legitimized...especially nowadays...

and any democracy except consensus democracy has a majority exerting its authority on a minority...and whether that is down with good or bad intentions on the part of the majority, with acceptance or rejection on the part of the minority...that's dictatorship.

solpacvoicis wrote:

and any democracy except consensus democracy has a majority exerting its authority on a minority...and whether that is down with good or bad intentions on the part of the majority, with acceptance or rejection on the part of the minority...that's dictatorship.

Heh. So presumably we need everybody to agree with a revolution before it starts? Otherwise it might become... A dictatorship of the proletariat? :O

solpacvoicis wrote:

actually, i meant that the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't legitimized...especially nowadays...

Not really, it's as legitimized, and as misunderstood, as ever.

who said dictatorships were inherently bad...? lol
no system is inherently bad...its what people make of it, or how people come out of it that makes it bad...right...?

hm, and, everyone being affected would need to agree with X revolution, otherwise its not so good, right?

i guess...there's a time and place for everything...

solpacvoicis wrote:

hm, and, everyone being affected would need to agree with X revolution, otherwise its not so good, right?

No, that would be consensus democracy. Well, I suppose the capitalists could go to Mars, I dunno. Heh, the Red Planet.

Stos wrote:

solpacvoicis wrote:

hm, and, everyone being affected would need to agree with X revolution, otherwise its not so good, right?

No, that would be consensus democracy. Well, I suppose the capitalists could go to Mars, I dunno. Heh, the Red Planet.

No, that is not consensus democracy.

Consensus democracy is a decision making structure which involves and takes into account as broad a range of opinions as possible, as opposed to systems where minority opinions can potentially be ignored by vote-winning majorities.

When a group has "reached consensus", it means that they have reached an agreement.. That may have been where you have gotten confused.

solpacvoicis wrote:

who said dictatorships were inherently bad...? lol
no system is inherently bad...its what people make of it, or how people come out of it that makes it bad...right...?

I understand your point, but if you believe in equality, even the best of dictatorships is bad -- there is an inequality of power.

well, okay, but the difference between dictatorships and authority is still fuzzy to me...

seems to me that dictatorship is just the long-term exertion of authority on someone or a group by someone or a group....

so if there is sometimes legitimate authority, wouldn't there sometimes be legitimate dictatorship?

...like, what if someone was really suicidal, either intentionally or unintentionally (they believe they must jump off of the highest object around or else they'll die, or something weird like that)...wouldn't it be a dictatorship of doctors who keep people like that from killing themselves...?

solpacvoicis wrote:

well, okay, but the difference between dictatorships and authority is still fuzzy to me...

seems to me that dictatorship is just the long-term exertion of authority on someone or a group by someone or a group....

so if there is sometimes legitimate authority, wouldn't there sometimes be legitimate dictatorship?

...like, what if someone was really suicidal, either intentionally or unintentionally (they believe they must jump off of the highest object around or else they'll die, or something weird like that)...wouldn't it be a dictatorship of doctors who keep people like that from killing themselves...?

It wouldn't be dictatorship.

Dictatorship is defined in many ways, none of which seem to show how it is good thing (at leas if you believe in equality).. lol

A government in which political power is exercised by a single individual whose rule is considered illegitimate.
A system of government in which a country is ruled by a single person with absolute power.
Unlimited, barrierless rule of one person or a group (party).
Government by a single person or group of people who are in no way held responsible to the general population.

etc.

oh, okay, in which case....dictatorship by those definitions are definitely bad o.o;;

sorry for using a faulty (or maybe outdated) definition of the word ^_^;;

solpacvoicis wrote:

oh, okay, in which case....dictatorship by those definitions are definitely bad o.o;;

sorry for using a faulty (or maybe outdated) definition of the word ^_^;;

Yes, by those definitions -- there CAN be a dictator with good intentions, but having one person hold absolute and unequal political power over others cannot bring equality. That's only to those of you who ironically support (well-intentioned) dictators to bring equality.

Yet a dictator with good intentions could set the cornerstone for a just society and do his best to shatter his own dictatorship bringing to life a society in which equalty thrives. Theoretically speaking of course.

but a person like that...it doesn't matter, because then people learn to trust a higher power (that dictator), which is bad for the creation of equality

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Yet a dictator with good intentions could set the cornerstone for a just society and do his best to shatter his own dictatorship bringing to life a society in which equalty thrives. Theoretically speaking of course.

Theoretically, maybe. Always remember the quote, which has been backed up time and time again by history: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

KenCat wrote:

Stos wrote:

solpacvoicis wrote:

hm, and, everyone being affected would need to agree with X revolution, otherwise its not so good, right?

No, that would be consensus democracy. Well, I suppose the capitalists could go to Mars, I dunno. Heh, the Red Planet.

No, that is not consensus democracy.

Consensus democracy is a decision making structure which involves and takes into account as broad a range of opinions as possible, as opposed to systems where minority opinions can potentially be ignored by vote-winning majorities.

When a group has "reached consensus", it means that they have reached an agreement.. That may have been where you have gotten confused.

I know, I was hardly being serious there.

Quote :

I understand your point, but if you believe in equality, even the best of dictatorships is bad -- there is an inequality of power.

It depends completely on your definition of 'dictatorship'. For example, Marx's use of it was in order mainly to differentiate from the dictatorship of a few in Blanquism. Basically, 'Blanquism believes in the dictatorship of the few, we believe in the dictatorship of a class'.

Stos wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Stos wrote:

solpacvoicis wrote:

hm, and, everyone being affected would need to agree with X revolution, otherwise its not so good, right?

No, that would be consensus democracy. Well, I suppose the capitalists could go to Mars, I dunno. Heh, the Red Planet.

No, that is not consensus democracy.

Consensus democracy is a decision making structure which involves and takes into account as broad a range of opinions as possible, as opposed to systems where minority opinions can potentially be ignored by vote-winning majorities.

When a group has "reached consensus", it means that they have reached an agreement.. That may have been where you have gotten confused.

I know, I was hardly being serious there.

Quote :

I understand your point, but if you believe in equality, even the best of dictatorships is bad -- there is an inequality of power.

It depends completely on your definition of 'dictatorship'. For example, Marx's use of it was in order mainly to differentiate from the dictatorship of a few in Blanquism. Basically, 'Blanquism believes in the dictatorship of the few, we believe in the dictatorship of a class'.

I want no dictatorship, ANY definition of dictatorship is irrelevant. I understand your opposition to Blanquism (and I oppose it more than traditional class dictatorship), but I want equality, which cannot coexist with dictatorship of any kind.

That is a dictatorship of equality.