Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Describe your 'political tradition' in one sentence

I've always viewed the phrase 'anarchist communist' as indistinguishable from the phrase 'turkey voting for christmas'.

If anarchism and communism are such natural bedfellows why are communists so keen on having all the anarchists shot?
Presumably you think North Korea and East Germany were/are Democracies because thet had it in their name?
 
I wonder what's killed the most people in the 20th century, abstract noun "communism" or the tobacco industry?
 
I'm really not sure why, after the events of the last hundred years, it's acceptable to call yourself a communist but not a fascist.

At least fascists don't have the cheek to suggest that the horrors their ideology brought forth were the result of a few innocent misunderstandings and a couple of bad eggs at the top of the food chain.

You just laser painted yourself.
 
Serious communists, or Marxists at least, would usually point to pretty much everything except a few bad apples at the top. For that kind of analysis you'd generally have to look to rabidly anti-communist historians like Richard Pipes.

His Russia Under the Old Regime isn't a bad primer on early Russian state formation, caveats aside.
 
His Russia Under the Old Regime isn't a bad primer on early Russian state formation, caveats aside.

Oh yeah - I've found a lot of his stuff useful for a basic overview of key events etc. But his analysis is the closest to 'bad guys at the top conspiring against the population' that I could think of and I just thought it amusing that it tends to be anti-communists who put forward the kind of top-down baddie account of Stalinism that dopeyfrank was ascribing to commies.

E2A: And when it suited him he could show levels of dishonesty that would make Alan Derschowitz blush.
 
I think per capita it actually comes out quite a bit lower.
Difficult to say really. As barely anyone applies the same death toll methodology to the British and American Empires as they do to Soviet crimes. The one guy who has done for the former came to the figure of 1.8bn, which looks astounding, but really isn't. The British ran an empire of up to 458 million people over the course of 350 years or so, most of whom against their will, which they won by fighting people (other Europeans and indigenous peoples). They also justified all this through ideologies of racial supremacy just as strong as those propagated by the Nazis.
 
I'm completely confused where I stand and don't know the labels, authors or traditions enough to give a decent answer. Most days I'm a state-socialist but I like the sound of anarchism in theory. I just feel state-socialism has a better chance of working. I used to agree with a lot of the things tbaldwin posted and he called himself an authoritarian socialist, but I wouldn't give myself the authoritarian label. So, don't know....:confused:
 
I've always viewed the phrase 'anarchist communist' as indistinguishable from the phrase 'turkey voting for christmas'.

If anarchism and communism are such natural bedfellows why are communists so keen on having all the anarchists shot?
what is an anarchist, if not a type of communist? If you have private property, you have authority. (in fact, private property is a form of authority)

(as to the second point, statists often end up shooting people who are anti-state, particularly during civil wars but not all communists are statists)
 
Eighteenth century English Radical in the spirit of Thomas Paine. Apparently. I'm only about 1/4 way through "Commonsense" so I don't really know if that's an accurate description yet. The description of government makes sense though :hmm:
 
Anyway, this thread could be pretty interesting if Spooky Frank stops his attention seeking and tells us what tradition he's from.
 
Not that, either. Think that film is overrated as well.

It's basically The Big Sleep, but with a hippy. And TBS is far and away the better film, even if The Big Lebowski is a bit of fun.

Difficult to say really. As barely anyone applies the same death toll methodology to the British and American Empires as they do to Soviet crimes. The one guy who has done for the former came to the figure of 1.8bn, which looks astounding, but really isn't. The British ran an empire of up to 458 million people over the course of 350 years or so, most of whom against their will, which they won by fighting people (other Europeans and indigenous peoples). They also justified all this through ideologies of racial supremacy just as strong as those propagated by the Nazis.

I wouldn't mind reading that. Got a reference?
 
I've always viewed the phrase 'anarchist communist' as indistinguishable from the phrase 'turkey voting for christmas'.

If anarchism and communism are such natural bedfellows why are communists so keen on having all the anarchists shot?

Where on earth has this happened?
 
I wouldn't mind reading that. Got a reference?
It's this guy who claims it, although I'm not vouching for the authenticity of it at all. Personally, I think the "avoidable deaths" genocide statistics thing is very questionable (both when applied to Soviet history and here).

What I would say is that given the size of the British Empire, and the imperialist's attitudes toward most of their "subjects", the outright genocide practised in large parts of the Empire (Australia, the Caribbean, North America) and the whole free trade/Malthusian ideology, it would be pretty surprising if they hadn't racked up similar death tolls to the Soviets - most of whose death toll derives not from executions but excess famine deaths and brutal imprisonment anyway.
 
Daughter of a car mechanic and mother who escaped communist Hungary. Probably lower middle class. Broadly collectivist, slightly anarchistic. Considered "a bit radical" by most folk. Considered far too right wing by Teh Urbanz.

That's more than one sentence.
 
Back
Top Bottom