Originally posted by no1marauder
The Mensheviks were losers. What are you supposed to do: sit around under a brutal repressive government until it finally reaches sufficient development conditions to rebel? Marxists were and are a bunch of jerks; Bakunin was and still is right.

Yes, I agree with you 100%. I was merely illustrating the standard party line.

Originally posted by lioyank
my question to you is when will "true" communism come into effect? not the fake russian kind. but the type that comes after the peasants in a capitalist society "rise up" altogether, abolish capitalism, and live together peacefully. when will that happen? 50 years? 100 years? 500??? also, do you honestly believe that if/when this happens, there will be ...[text shortened]... ing peace"? don't you think ambitious people will just look to be in positions of power again?

Personally, I don't think the revolution can ever come through violent means. Any revolution that comes to power through military struggle will inevetably mirror the military hierarchy, structure, and mode of thought that brought it into power. Emma Goldman was correct when she said the ends cannot be divorced from the means.

I believe it is possible, but the key point is not in winning the struggle at any cost, but rather in how you wage the struggle. The struggle must mirror what you want the end result to look like.

Originally posted by rwingett
Personally, I don't think the revolution can ever come through violent means. Any revolution that comes to power through military struggle will inevetably mirror the military hierarchy, structure, and mode of thought that brought it into power. Emma Goldman was correct when she said the ends cannot be divorced from the means.

I believe it is possible, ...[text shortened]... n how you wage the struggle. The struggle must mirror what you want the end result to look like.

If the struggle isn't violent, then the end result will look like laissez-faire capitalism, for that is the economic system characterized by voluntary interaction.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If the struggle isn't violent, then the end result will look like laissez-faire capitalism, for that is the economic system characterized by voluntary interaction.

Save it for the big one, Dr. S.

Originally posted by rwingett
Personally, I don't think the revolution can ever come through violent means. Any revolution that comes to power through military struggle will inevetably mirror the military hierarchy, structure, and mode of thought that brought it into power. Emma Goldman was correct when she said the ends cannot be divorced from the means.

I believe it is possible, ...[text shortened]... n how you wage the struggle. The struggle must mirror what you want the end result to look like.

There's a difference between struggle and military struggle.

A revolution, while involving conflict, doesn't have to be a military struggle in the way the Russians did.

It can involve mass action, not necessarily violent, strikes, etc etc.

There are lots of tools to bring down capitalism.

Originally posted by lioyank
my question to you is when will "true" communism come into effect? not the fake russian kind. but the type that comes after the peasants in a capitalist society "rise up" altogether, abolish capitalism, and live together peacefully. when will that happen? 50 years? 100 years? 500??? also, do you honestly believe that if/when this happens, there will be ...[text shortened]... ing peace"? don't you think ambitious people will just look to be in positions of power again?

The global revolution is planned for next Tuesday. Be there or be counter-revolutionary.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If the struggle isn't violent, then the end result will look like laissez-faire capitalism, for that is the economic system characterized by voluntary interaction.

I certainly hope that you won't be making such a claim the central thesis of the BIG ONE, Scribbles; the evidence from anthropology, sociology, history, etc. etc. etc. makes such a grandiose assertion completely untenable. If that is the basis of your position, Wingnut will be Ali to your Chuck Wepner.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I certainly hope that you won't be making such a claim the central thesis of the BIG ONE, Scribbles; the evidence from anthropology, sociology, history, etc. etc. etc. makes such a grandiose assertion completely untenable. If that is the basis of your position, Wingnut will be Ali to your Chuck Wepner.

Tut tut, No1. It is up to me to make that argument. You are only to judge how well I make it. Or how badly I fail to do so.