Reply With QuoteI don't react from a Tory viewpoint. Unfortunately that's a moniker I live with because politics in the UK is so polarised
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Ok. Glad we cleared that up. Anytime from now on there's a mention of Labour we won't see you reciting the Tory viewpoint on the subject then. Glad to hear.Originally Posted by Feedback wrote on Wed, 27 January 2016 21:14
You're confusing socialism and communism. Hope that helps.East Germany and the SDP were very much socialist and not communist like the anarcho syndicalist soviets of the USSRYet socialism plays a stronger role in countries like Sweden and Norway (yes I know these aren't socialist countries as sometimes wrongly portrayed), countries that are far stronger than the UK.I am an exponent of the social market economic model with little state involvement, a free market but high taxation to promote wealth equality.The nordic countries do it well as does Switzerland and the old West Germany.
I don't react from a Tory viewpoint. Unfortunately that's a moniker I live with because politics in the UK is so polarised
Been following Leanne Wood for a while on FB (not stalking ala sludge mode), seems to talk a bit of sense and a nice milf, she posted a piccy today of her early years, bit of a Siouxsie Sioux when younger and a deffo YES
that's exactly what we saw in the USSR, everyone was equal, no one was more important than anyone else.
Be careful what you wish for.
Tory Fanboy NMFQATYou're confusing socialism and communism. Hope that helps.East Germany and the SDP were very much socialist and not communist like the anarcho syndicalist soviets of the USSRYet socialism plays a stronger role in countries like Sweden and Norway (yes I know these aren't socialist countries as sometimes wrongly portrayed), countries that are far stronger than the UK.I am an exponent of the social market economic model with little state involvement, a free market but high taxation to promote wealth equality.The nordic countries do it well as does Switzerland and the old West Germany.
And when were soviets in the USSR (or even before the October revolution) 'anarcho syndicalist'? There were anarchists and anarcho syndicalists inside the Petrograd soviet before the Bolsheviks seized power - but they didn't control it.You're confusing socialism and communism. Hope that helps.
I didn't say they did, but generally anarcho syndicalists want workers councils to control the economy, and that's exactly what we ended up with in the USSR - certainly that was the promise but as we know reality is often different from ideologyYou're confusing socialism and communism. Hope that helps.East Germany and the SDP were very much socialist and not communist like the anarcho syndicalist soviets of the USSR
what does the F stand for in NMFQAT?You're confusing socialism and communism. Hope that helps.East Germany and the SDP were very much socialist and not communist like the anarcho syndicalist soviets of the USSRYet socialism plays a stronger role in countries like Sweden and Norway (yes I know these aren't socialist countries as sometimes wrongly portrayed), countries that are far stronger than the UK.I am an exponent of the social market economic model with little state involvement, a free market but high taxation to promote wealth equality.The nordic countries do it well as does Switzerland and the old West Germany.Yet you're a fan of the Tories? They're about as far removed from your ideals as you can get.
No mutha ****ing question about that?You're confusing socialism and communism. Hope that helps.East Germany and the SDP were very much socialist and not communist like the anarcho syndicalist soviets of the USSRYet socialism plays a stronger role in countries like Sweden and Norway (yes I know these aren't socialist countries as sometimes wrongly portrayed), countries that are far stronger than the UK.I am an exponent of the social market economic model with little state involvement, a free market but high taxation to promote wealth equality.The nordic countries do it well as does Switzerland and the old West Germany.Yet you're a fan of the Tories? They're about as far removed from your ideals as you can get.I'm a fan of the tories? Am I really?
Anarchists don't do leaders (that is the whole premise of anarchism), or parties for that matter - therefore the idea that anarcho syndicalists were part of the machinery of the USSR holds no water.You're confusing socialism and communism. Hope that helps.East Germany and the SDP were very much socialist and not communist like the anarcho syndicalist soviets of the USSRWhy are you confusing/comparing a Stalinist satellite state with a political party, and again with revolutionary workers councils? The difference isn't just East Germany and the USSR, they are completely different things.
you're a theorist Archie. the fact is that the idea of the petrograd soviet was to enact anarcho-syndicalism - government through a series of workers councils - however the reality is often very different from the theory. The reason is due to human nature. Whereas the majority (of anarcho-syndicalists and communists) may by and large want the theory to be put into practice, giving people power tends to corrupt even the most munificent individual. Very rarely does the practice work according to the theoryYou're confusing socialism and communism. Hope that helps.East Germany and the SDP were very much socialist and not communist like the anarcho syndicalist soviets of the USSRWhy are you confusing/comparing a Stalinist satellite state with a political party, and again with revolutionary workers councils? The difference isn't just East Germany and the USSR, they are completely different things.And when were soviets in the USSR (or even before the October revolution) 'anarcho syndicalist'? There were anarchists and anarcho syndicalists inside the Petrograd soviet before the Bolsheviks seized power - but they didn't control it.
Simply stating something is a fact, does not make it a fact. Would you like to present some evidence of the presence of anarcho-syndicalsists running things in the USSR
Rather than go off on one and start a you said I said thread let me try and paraphrase.
The petrograd soviet was full of anarcho-syndicalists. However when they seized power many forget they were representing the masses and abused the power bestowed upon them. That is the reality of politics - ideology disappears when power is presented.
On the contrary, anarchists were persecuted by the communists. As this contemPorary essay written by leading russian anarchist Emma Goldman bears testament - My Disillusionment in Russia
There were anarchists (not sure how many would see themselves as 'anarcho syndicalists') amongst the 3000+ delegates to the Petrograd soviet (not the Executive Committee), and anarchists involved in the July Days revolt and in the Military Revolutionary Committee leading up to the October Revolution.
They were part of the scene (until crushed by the Bolsheviks in early 1918) but never major players.
It's not worth an argument but Feedy constantly uses the terms 'syndicalist' and 'ararcho syndicalist' to describe the politics of everyone from Leninist Bolsheviks through to right wing Labourites holding office in a trades council. As far as I can see he either doesn't understand what he's saying (and mis-identifies the people and their beliefs) or he is on another wind-up and does it just to be an irritant.
that's cleared all that up then
I thought you were above sarcasm, your patronising reply is not warranted but dare I say it symptomatic of those on the left who don't appreciate opinions of those outside looking in. I'm well aware of well anarcho-syndicalism thank you very much, it seems you and Archie - differing factions on the left - can't even agree whether anarcho-syndicalists were present at the petrograd soviet or not, or if they were, in what number. Yet you criticise me for, what you incorrectly assume, is a misunderstanding of what syndicalism is. It seems here that even on the left of politics, definitions appear to be used differently.
However, I use the term anarcho-syndicalist to describe Archie, because that is what he is. he subscribes to what I perceive to be an anachronistic ideology that attempts to fuse politics and economic theory into a single paradigm. As with all political ideologies it creates a powerful class - in this case the workers who set the economic agenda by direct action through their various collectives and syndicates. There is no room for the economic inactive, the pensioners, school children or students in this theory - all focus is on the workers. The argument is that anarcho-syndicalism is all inclusive is often cited as workers will take care of the wider community, but history shows us time and again that power corrupts.
I refer back to the Bolsheviks who were only a party for the activists rather than the wider membership and the parallels are similar with anarcho-syndicalism. Both ideologies look to create a political caste based on the few rather than wider society and both strive for economic and social change through direct worker action. The Bolsheviks went on to form the communist party of the soviet union. the main difference, certainly as I've read it, between the two ideologies is that syndicalist shun the concept of political parties due to their being ingrained within the concept of state whereas the bolsheviks were looking to establish a state where the working class held the political power. However in that respect there is little difference when you consider the end game of both ideologies is the same - the workers control the economic and political levers
I am not really sure what your aim is here. It can't be to try and persuade anyone to change their mind on the subject, because those of us that know the subject can see that you do not. And I very much doubt that anyone unfamiliar with anarcho-syndiclism reading this thread will frankly give a flying **** about this debate. Even I cannot be arsed to waste the rest of my afternoon explaining it to you, as you clearly have your mind made up and nothing will change it.
my parting comment goes back to the anachronistic viewpoint you hold. We aren't in the 19th century anymore, society has evolved. Using another anachronism - the means of production - this is now held by the vast majority who have worked or are working. Pension funds and insurers hold the keys to the economy and these are funded by those who have worked. In fact, insurance is something you'd think you would buy into as it is a great example of the collective sharing of risk across all sections of society - and almost all people have insurance and buy into the concept of common risk sharing.I assume it is John 1959 you are accusing of being sarcastic and patronising, which is odd, because he has been neither. He was just trying to work out why you were using the term anarcho-syndicalism and making reasonable assumptions.you assume correct. I take it you read the 'you and Archie' part of my post and took that as meaning the post being directed at Jon.His post was patronising. He is making assumptions that I am trolling simply because I am expressing an alternate opinion.No one has disputed whether or not there were anarcho-syndiclaists around at the time of the Russian revolution. I have even provided a link to a contemporaneous article written by a Russian anarchist on the subject. The point is though, at no time did they ever have any power, and indeed were brutally persecuted by the communists. You cannot be corrupted by power, if you have no power to be corrupted by.you are talking about two factions are a very similar ideology. there were many power struggles going on at that time within the movement but almost all factions had the end goal of the worker dictatorship in mind.There is a massive difference between the Bolsheviks and the anarchists. I can only assume that this is inconvenient for you, hence your refusal to accept the facts.once again you label your opinion as fact. the anarchists (syndicalists) and bolsheviks are very close politically, in that they have far more in common than not. Both want to see workers control the economy although in the case of the former the workers will also have separated political power.
And yet here you are, disputing historical facts. Go figure
I'm not disputing history, I'm disputing your interpretation of it.my mind is never made up Archie. What I don't listen to is opinion dressed up as fact. If you make a statement without rhetoric and hyperbole then you will find I will listen and take on board.
At what point did the anarchists hold any power?my mind is never made up Archie. What I don't listen to is opinion dressed up as fact. If you make a statement without rhetoric and hyperbole then you will find I will listen and take on board.And yet here you are, disputing historical facts. Go figure
Changing goalposts. That old chestnut. In what way have I changed goalposts? In what way have I made out you've said something you've not?
FWIW I never said the anarchists held power, I said they played a part in the 1917 revolution
Posting Permissions
