well if you put it like that and make me think about it that way I totally agree. oh wait that's pretty much why I believe (and i assume others but don't want to speak for them) feel the way we do about anarchism/communism.

We've all thought long and hard and probably rethink it on a regular basis and for differing reasons find that anarchism/communism is the way to go.

Your first paragraph is a really bad arguement also. Communism can't work, when has it? America! blah blah blah

Such a dramatic topic.

Then let's stop posting and go help them!

elmerfudd:what i'm trying to say is that the fix doesn't freaking exist in a way of economy and the the fix is in changing the heart of man.

Hey Elmer, I'm not an authority on either Communist or Anarchist theory, but I think what you may be glossing over is that there are several facets surrounding these philosophies that do try and address both the hearts and minds of the individuals adhering to them. It's not just a choice in the type of economy or a way goods are delivered to folks in need, but a way of thinking about your life and how it stands intertwined with the lives of those around you. In this way it stands as a system to educate and help bring about a change in folks' perception of their day to day and what fulfillment, need and want can mean to them. I'm not advocating the switch, just trying to clear up some of the gap between what you see and what Josh and Basta are delineating. Also, I'm fairly sure t he communism/anarchism that Josh and Basta advocate has almost zero to do with forcing anyone to do anything, and in fact revolves more around a natural course of social action that occurs organically when capitalism hits a point of non-sustainability, and, in general, has very little to do with a large central government and more to do with smaller groups of autonomous thought and action.

Hahaha, thats essentially what my head did while reading elmer's two posts so far too, so i guess the board is evened out now.

Alright Elmer, i suppose what you're refusing to break down is the fact that you obviously have no idea what communist theory actually entails, or the (false) idea that "the heart of man" implies an intrinsic morality to social dilemmas whose answers could not be further from any sort of absolute "goodness" a man (or woman, ya pig) could have in their metaphorical heart. Sadly, i somehow know when i dig to find out how someone could be so shallow yet so vocal in their understanding of the extremely complex world of progressive economy and autonomous communal philosophy, you're going to start talking about christ or some shit, which is too much to bear already.

What i will do is say this- communism is a dictatorship. a dictatorship of the proletariat. think about it. wait...think about it. keep thinking.

elmerfudd:resulting in so many people walking the streets in need.

where do you hang out at? i see a few homeless people sometimes but i wouldn't say "so many people".

yeah true. like i said it would be ideal i guess, but as more and more small businesses go under, the bigger companies just get bigger and bigger. so the working class people will just end up being employed by the monopolies. sucks.

that guy:

elmerfudd:resulting in so many people walking the streets in need.

where do you hang out at? i see a few homeless people sometimes but i wouldn't say "so many people".

The shelters are full. Everywhere. In every state. There are hundreds of thousands of homeless in the US.

multiply with females and acquire currency.

id like to address the morality issue because, like fudd, i do believe that the "heart of man(woman)" is present in our society whatever language you use to describe it. the reason im attracted to a more communal social/economical/political theory is because it allows a less "riskier" environment where the "heart of people" isnt subject to the whim of the few. more voices are heard and are accountable to one another

one of my critiques on capitalism is that money becomes the driver and in many cases humanity is stripped from the equation. capitalism is strictly an economic model where communism/anarchism allows for more room to address humanity as a whole.

but i predict that there will be many steps between the present capitalist system and the future/ideal communist/anarchist system josh and basta advocate for. when thinking about economics (and politics) for that matter, one must look at it like its a barb going through history....once we have done the damage, theres no way to "go back" but rather only resourcing the past, and coming up with new models to fit the situation at hand. one of those immediate actions (i think) should be made is that because of the vast globalization of economics (and the various "legal" but completely unjust exploitations, etc that come from it) there needs to be a more global political/social response to seemingly catch up and regulate... an option would be that the UN step up and take actions to truly seek the interests of the "united nations"...and being willing to take the consequences for opposing the ill-behavior of capitalist giants

this is just a small step...creating a more communal/accountable experience worldwide and hopefully from that, it begins to spread to a more micro level

elmerfudd:

well to me it seems just the opposite. would it not keep the working people at bay? keep them from achieving TRUE communism?

I'm really not a scholar on the subject man. I've heard bits and bites from Josh/The Twins on this website, I've read a couple of pamphlets i find at used bookstores. I don't advocate or endorse it because I can't claim to fully understand it at this point. What I'm trying to get across to you is something along the lines of "I think you've got as many holes in your yacht as I do in mine, and maybe you should look at plugging those before you tell someone else what's wrong with their schooner."

That may not make sense, but when you argue the way you currently are, from a position without much knowledge at all about the lifestyle you're condemning, you don't make much sense either.

What i was trying to get at is referenced in one of my earlier posts: The point at which capitalism becomes non-sustainable for a majority of folks on the working end of things. From what I read, and this is in super simple terms because I don't claim to have the authority to speak otherwise, folks eventually get tired of making things or laboring their whole lives for someone else in a power structure (see: metaphorical prison) they, in essence, created for themselves and have the key to unlock. The folks in authority don't keep people "down" as you like to say, the people themselves do that on their own by buying into the entire process and selling off their labor, resources and time for a pittance of actual worth because they feel like they have to in order to get by. When enough folks get fed up, the system collapses under it's own weight or is overturned either politically or socially, sometimes with nice words and sometimes with violence. Again, I'm sure that's full of holes, I encourage you to go read some lit'rature on the matter if you're interested in the differences between the major social/political systems out there. I'm sure some folks on here could point you in the right direction.

yeah i knew far before this that my knowledge level on communism does not amount to much. i'm not really trying or wanting to condemn it necessarily. and obviously i'm not trying to promote capitalism. maybe ya basta and/or josh can provide some examples referring to that system actually working and progressing far beyond a simple idea, statement or lifestyle by a commune.

my message was, which i either did a terrible job of conveying or people just got too caught up in emotion and wanted to blast me, was that if our hearts were in the right place and didn't care so much about how much money we have, companies we own, how many "assets" we claim then there would not be people in need, or maybe not as many. just my alternative i guess to them suggesting communism.

elmerfudd:yeah i knew far before this that my knowledge level on communism does not amount to much. i'm not really trying or wanting to condemn it necessarily. and obviously i'm not trying to promote capitalism. maybe ya basta and/or josh can provide some examples referring to that system actually working and progressing far beyond a simple idea, statement or lifestyle by a commune.

my message was, which i either did a terrible job of conveying or people just got too caught up in emotion and wanted to blast me, was that if our hearts were in the right place and didn't care so much about how much money we have, companies we own, how many "assets" we claim then there would not be people in need, or maybe not as many. just my alternative i guess to them suggesting communism.

I think my main problem with what you said was "people need to change what is in their hearts and everything will be fixed. Now think on that for a bit" and then continued to blast stuff you have no idea what you're talking about.

What you said is not original and nothing i'm sure everyone on here have thought through it and either agree or disagree but for me personally I don't think you can just say everyone change what's in your heart and everything will be fixed.

There are examples of anarchism/communism working in the past. They usually don't end because they're not working they end because surrounding capitalists governments have done full out assaults on them and destroyed them. If you want to read about some check out the Paris Commune or the Zapatista movement in Chiapas, Mexico. The Zapatistas do not claim to follow any particular philosophy but they are a great example of anarchism/communism in action.

anarchist communism, libertarian socialism, etc.... it's all a current with phases and stages that all happen in turn. I say it to put the whole thing into one bucket as it could all be peices along the way of a process or it could be a mixture to your classical more mainstream ideas of what they both are.

The centralized government in communist theory is essentially described as a "scaffolding" type of government that is used to facilitate a larger army more efficiently. This "red army" is of course a somewhat dated idea, as it was mainly to secure the solidarity of said nation on an international level, and to overthrow the government who also uses an army for force. Anyway, when the fighting is done, and the people take over the means of production in peace time, the government withers, or the "scaffolding" is removed and is simply a regulatory bureaucratic type of deal. As we all know (some of us seemingly ONLY know this), the power was never removed after the initial struggle. There was no withering. This was the "failure" of communism, at the hands of a few power hungry stage setters. No one (on a large scale) bothered to differentiate between the actual theory and the dictators who mangled it.

Karl Marx actually only endorsed one movement as the actual communism that he perceived, that being something Josh mentioned earlier, the paris commune. Marx was responsible for a lot of the theory at the turn of the century, but what i mainly take from Marx to apply in a modern context is his breakdown of our relationship to capital, and of course the mechanics of the free market.

Koger, you are essentially correct in all of your assumptions. There is an intrinsic paradox in the exploitative methodology behind capitalism, and that lies in our refusal (historically) to put up with even the things we accepted on massive levels. The nature of capital being as it is, all moves that we make in order to get out from under its grasp will be responded to by capital accordingly, and we see another shift in the way things operate. its constant movement. a current underneath everyday life. we just have to understand what is sweeping us this way and that. you know, knowledge.

I've been to the Marx home.

AMERICA IS #1. GOD BLESS US AND NO ONE ELSE

Josh Topic:AMERICA IS #1. GOD BLESS US AND NO ONE ELSE

That's dumb, God blesses all. Even you.

WOOOOOO! LETS HUNT EM DOWN AND BURN EM!
THESE COLORS DONT RUN!

USA! USA! USA! USA!

ya basta!!!:Koger, you are essentially correct in all of your assumptions. There is an intrinsic paradox in the exploitative methodology behind capitalism, and that lies in our refusal (historically) to put up with even the things we accepted on massive levels. The nature of capital being as it is, all moves that we make in order to get out from under its grasp will be responded to by capital accordingly, and we see another shift in the way things operate. its constant movement. a current underneath everyday life. we just have to understand what is sweeping us this way and that. you know, knowledge.

could you elaborate a little more on this topic? i too am in awe of a system, that is notorious for exploitation, that is supported, without question, by the very people it exploits. however, im trying to make the link between the breaking point (final acknowledgment of instability) of capitalism and the communism/anarchism outcome. the theory makes sense knowing that a strictly economical model (capitalism) is calling most of the shots but the ties it has with our present political model is tight and the lines become more blurred over time. although capitalism and democracy influence each other now, they are still (in theory) separate entities -- thus the breakdown of capitalism wouldnt necessarily breakdown the foundation of democracy. im still very unlearned in this area so these are mere inquiries, not counter-attacks.