|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:54 am
Read some of these sources: WikipediaCrystalinksWatsonHistory-WorldNow, these are all about the Celtic peoples of ancient Europe. The reason I am showing you this is simple: the Celts are the best example of true Communism in action I can find. Celtic society had no money. Celts ived by hunting and gathering, and sometimes growing crops. Everything was shared with everyone. Freedom was very big among the Celts, as they spoke and did whatever they wished. This seems similar to Communism to me. VERY similar. Personally, I really do think Celts were Commies. So if you want to read up on an example of Communism actually WORKING, read about these Celts.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:21 am
-was lurking again-
A lot of ancient societies fit into communism. In fact, I do believe that in the Manifesto it mentions this fact. The argument against those ancient societies working that way as to why we can't is that we have technology and we're so much more complex, which is crap. Technology is an interesting obstacle to overcome to make modern day communism.
Funny thought. Right-wing is described as wanting to go back being the only time they desire change, yet communism is a left-wing ideology... and we want to move back? WHOA BRAIN FREEZE.
Thanks though. I'll read it later when I have time and will probably reference it in arguments more.
As for you, I suggest reading up on the history of Israel, especially if some religious nuts try to attack you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:12 pm
Actually, they were more anarcho-communist, as they were very self-governed (no state government or anything) as far as I know.
Gotta love the Celts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:22 pm
Actually, I think conservatism is more staying traditional and old ways socially while liberalism is a social move as well.
Depending on how the social aspect of communism is treated, it may or may not be a move backward. If it's a move to a more totalitarian, faux Communism with the ruling class of haves forcing the have nots to work, that's a step backwards. That kind of move is socially conservative. If it's a move forwards for personal freedom, worker rule, etc, it's a move forward because it inherently is more progressive and socially liberal than there even was during ancient times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:36 pm
The celts did have a very intresting goverment system or a lack of one I should say. Bascically all profesional and craftsmen were entitled to were entitled to become members of a tuath. Each tuath's members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their "kings." Also the king had pretty much no political power; he could not decree or administer justice or declare war. Basically he was a priest and militia leader, and presided over the tuath assemblies. Most of the political pwer was in the hands of the members. Wvwey ywar they would form an assembly which decided all common policies, such as declaring war or peace on another tuath, and electing or disposing of their "kings". And unlike other socities no one was stuck or bound to a given tuath, either because of kinship or of geographical location. Individual members were free to, and often did, secede from a tuath and join a competing tuath. Of course it was by no means perfect, but it's interesting none the less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:15 pm
Poison the Dreamer Actually, they were more anarcho-communist, as they were very self-governed (no state government or anything) as far as I know. Gotta love the Celts. . dont poison the Celts with you Anarchist Mumbo-Jumbo. They were nothing more then an advanced tribalism community, which Marx referred to as primitive-communism. The closest thing we ever got to an Anarcho-Communist society was the Spanish civil war (hopefully it stays that way) and even then the anarchists wouldn't have gotten as far as they did without the help of the Communists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:35 pm
Comrade Robson Poison the Dreamer Actually, they were more anarcho-communist, as they were very self-governed (no state government or anything) as far as I know. Gotta love the Celts. . dont poison the Celts with you Anarchist Mumbo-Jumbo. They were nothing more then an advanced tribalism community, which Marx referred to as primitive-communism. The closest thing we ever got to an Anarcho-Communist society was the Spanish civil war (hopefully it stays that way) and even then the anarchists wouldn't have gotten as far as they did without the help of the Communists. Let's be nice here? Yes? Nevermind that a classless, worker ruled society has to be anarchist to a degree because a ruling class is in fact a class. The Celts were, as was pointed out, governed by tuaths instead of a higher up government. This didn't make them anarchist but seems more like it than actual communism, which would require them all being equal and all members of the tuaths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:19 am
Poison the Dreamer Comrade Robson Poison the Dreamer Actually, they were more anarcho-communist, as they were very self-governed (no state government or anything) as far as I know. Gotta love the Celts. . dont poison the Celts with you Anarchist Mumbo-Jumbo. They were nothing more then an advanced tribalism community, which Marx referred to as primitive-communism. The closest thing we ever got to an Anarcho-Communist society was the Spanish civil war (hopefully it stays that way) and even then the anarchists wouldn't have gotten as far as they did without the help of the Communists. Let's be nice here? Yes? Nevermind that a classless, worker ruled society has to be anarchist to a degree because a ruling class is in fact a class. The Celts were, as was pointed out, governed by tuaths instead of a higher up government. This didn't make them anarchist but seems more like it than actual communism, which would require them all being equal and all members of the tuaths. No, Marxism is not Anarchism and is not anarchist in any degree. Again as Comrade Robson stated the Celts are simply a higher tribalism or potluck communism which has nothing to do with marxist economics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:35 pm
I don't think I ever said Marxist = anarchist or anything similar. I'd appreciate it if every time I opened my mouth my words weren't twisted around.
Communism, I said, by the general ideals of it should or is generally anarchist. Dictatorships or state rule is inherently against the basic ideas of classlessness and worker rule, unless of course you want to move away from those ideas, in which case I personally wouldn't call it communism.
*But*, if you agree that a communist society *has* to be classless, ruled by the workers, etc, to be considered communist, I'm not sure how you can't at least see similarities. While anarchism doesn't have to be anything close to communistic, it certainly can be. A true communist society that is entirely classless, ruled by workers, and relies on willing cooperation would be anarchist or at least anarchistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:20 am
You all have it wrong. Communism should NEVER be anarchistic. It should be a highly Libertarian Democracy, with some adhocracy points in it.
People need laws and rules, but they should be brought about by the people, not some guys we pay to brownnose others for more money and status.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:01 am
Anarchism, and Anarcho-Communism are ideologies based upon feeling, and mysticism, with a dash of political and ideological vagueness. In other words neither are backed by science and therefore are petty. The subjectivity of human ideas has been hindering human progress for some time now and its high time it is abolished. Marxism lies, not in subjective reality, but in objective reality that is to say, it builds it foundation in science and things that can be proven.
I scoff at the anarchists and anarcho-communists who claim they are "revolutionary". When you start basing on your political ideologies on logic rather then emotion, i shall listen and be more "kind"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:58 pm
Thanks for being polite?
No wonder this guild is falling apart when you try to have a nice debate and people are rude. Not sure if I want to stay. sweatdrop
All political ideals at the end of the day are subjective, and I'm sorry, how is Marxism based on science?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:16 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:58 pm
Just because he wrote about it doesn't mean all of his ideals were drawn from scientific study. Natural science has little to do with political and social philosophy.
Nevertheless, I'll read this. Thank you I guess?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
