Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by ANOK
See you have the real version of communism(anarchocommunism). Not the monster marx built.
There are no anarchocommunist regimes.
Marx didn't build a monster, he really didn't do that much at all. Marx did not invent communism, socialism, nor even what became know as Marxism.
Marxism came from the Communist Manifesto, that was an update of the original draft written by Engels. Marx was commissioned by the Communist League
to finish the book. The contents of the book was the plan the Communist League came up with after a meeting of many communists in London.
Communism was always state free. Read Marx, and this will become clear.
The right wing establishment simply used a twisted version of socialism in order to maintain control of the workers. Communism has nothing to do with
state systems. Marxism called for a temporary state system in order to make the move to communism. The Marxist state system is not communism.
You have to understand how it was in the 1800's, the workers were extremely militant and pro-socialist. They wanted to own their own workplaces.
They had not yet been raised on a diet of TV propaganda that has made modern workers passive. They were a real threat to the establishment, so the
establishments used their own language in order to gain their support. It is a classic manauver, Hitler did the same thing to fool German workers
into voting for him.
But there are state capitalist regimes(like china)?
Libertarian socialism(anarchism) is stateless socialism.
What happens when you have a state "help" implement socialism? USSR,venezuela,cuba,USA?
Once again USSR etc., were NOT socialist. I already explain this, socialism/communism is worker ownership. The USSR etc., had state capitalist
So tell me what is your definition of socialism? If you understand that anarchists are socialists, then how can socialism ever be a state system?
Socialism/communism is an economic system, not a form of government.
There can be a socialist economy with a state system, but the state itself would not be socialist.
Also with a socialist economy the state would be completely different than it is now, or how it was in the USSR.
State systems, like capitalists, get their power from wealth, or rather the mass inequality of wealth. If the workers owned the means of production
it would be really hard for anyone, including the state, to have that much power that you have no way of stopping it.
Capitalism is what gives governments, and individuals, their power and authority. It is the private ownership of the means to produce, whether that
is by a government or by an individual, that gives them their authority.