You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Socialism Sucks #1
However, the communist party, was by all means, communist.
They called themselves communist to cloud the term in the minds of the public, they were tools that served the banksters in this regard.
They never got past being socialists, or state crapitalusts.
Which makes them not communist, by definition.
How is crapitalism at the hands of a dictator communism?
If the state is the agent of the people in that it holds the crapital, how is that communist?
Its not, but heaven forbid we drop the indoctrination forced on us under the guise of education?
I prefer to take back the term.
Just as libertarian will have to come back to the anarchists, too.
I agree that they never got past being socialist. The state took the task of achieving communism into their own hands, and that led to them being the medium between the people and the state-owned property. The state never "dissolved" as Marx said, meaning that by-the-book communism was never achieved. Either way, any form of socialization isn't doing any good for society, whatsoever. Even if Russia achieved absolute, anarcho-communism, they would fail. Simple economic principles prove this point over and over again, not to mention all of the failed socialist states.
Most of the attempts have been bombed into submission by crapitalust bombs.
https://listverse.com/2016/06/29/10-instances-of-anarchist-societies-that-actually-worked/
Capitalism is not a system of governance. It is simply a word used to describe a free market system working without interference. It is naturally anarchistic. There is currently no capitalism present anywhere in the world, because there is not a place where a free market currently exists.
Anarchism works, as long as people know that capitalism is not the problem. In an anarchist society, anyone is free to form a commune, as long as that commune is based on voluntary principles and doesn't strip people of their liberties (as they have done in the past). In an anarchist society, anyone is free to start a business, and create wealth and capital that will benefit all who take part in free trade. The failures of so-called "anarchism" have been due to the fact that anarchism has always been founded under socialist principles, which is why they have never succeeded. Socialism is an involuntary system, and it will never obtain the full support of the people.
Those markets inevitably devolve into rule by force.
The havenots are at the mercy of the haves.
Not historicaly accurate.
Proudhon and bakunin both originated anarchism and hated socialism because it required rule by force and therefore contradicted anarchist principle.
If you care to do the reading go here: theanarchistlibrary.org, look for the author link at the bottom, pj proudhon and m bakunin.
Yep, socialism sucks, for sure.
Communism is much better.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism
This is entirely false. Free trade is not free trade if the deal does not benefit both parties. Like I said in a previous post a few months ago;
There will be wealth inequality, guaranteed, however the rich person still relies on the poor for trades and services, and the poor still rely on the rich for trades and services. If force is applied by either party, it is not capitalism, it is not free.
Also, how have communists come to relate imperialism and trade by force with capitalism? Just something I don't understand. They are completely incompatible.
You have a warehouse full of food.
I have hunger.
How long do the other crapitalusts let you stay in business if you give me food?
The choice between exploitation through wage slavery and starvation is not freely made.
What happened in russia wasnt communism.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism
A capitalist has a warehouse full of food. There is demand for food. The capitalist sells the food because he know he is making a profit. But wait, there is a competitor! The food retailers lower their prices to compete with each other, to make more profit. The people are now supplied with massive amounts of food at very cheap prices, they are no longer hungry.
I don't see how you can't understand this extraordinarily simple concept. Who wins in this situation? The capitalist food retailers are making a profit, therefore giving them the opportunity to invest in their own business and continue to supply food to civilians. The civilians are able to easily afford food now, not to mention apply for new jobs that have been created in the food retail industry. Its called free trade, and no one ever loses.
Lol, the worker and the consumer both lose, the crapitalust takes profits from both.
https://steemit.com/economics/@freebornangel/3ha4aa-keep-working-stop-paying-17
Just a note here that wage rates are a social construct. Therefore 'wage slavery' is inherently a leftist construction that exploits.
I dontbcare about the who or how we label things, just a more equitable distribution of efficiency gains.
The average worker turns out far more stuff and still lives in hovels.