Joka wrote:Worker protections? Nonexistent under communism especially after the inner political party or vanguard becomes the new elite (manager class) essentially becoming the new oppressive dictatorship of the working class altogether. Marxist or communist hypocrisy is always amusing and never ceases to amaze me. It all comes down to the Marxist and communist historical betrayal of anarchists, my motto is never again.
Communist gov'ts provided guaranteed full employment even for those who turned up late, skipped entire workdays and told their boss to eat a dick. Capitalist countries with similar levels of development force young women to work 36 hour shifts with no toilet breaks before their boss tells one of them to eat his dick.
Do you believe that if the anarchists had won in Spain that they would let everyone do as they pleased? The commies could continue being commies and the fascists could continue practicing fascism?
David Graeber wrote:Let us imagine that anarchist militias in Spain had routed the fascist army, which then completely dissolved, and kicked the socialist Republican Government out of its offices in Barcelona and Madrid. That would certainly have been victory by anybody’s standards. But what would have happened next? Would they have established Spain as a non-Republic, an anti-state existing within the exact same international borders? Would they have imposed a regime of popular councils in every singe village and municipality in the territory of what had formerly been Spain? How exactly? We have to bear in mind here that were there many villages towns, even regions of Spain where anarchists were almost non-existent. In some just about the entire population was made up of conservative Catholics or monarchists; in others (say, the Basque country) there was a militant and well-organized working class, but one that was overwhelmingly socialist or communist. Even at the height of revolutionary fervor, most of these would stay true to their old values and ideas. If the victorious FAI attempted to exterminate them all — a task which would have required killing millions of people — or chase them out of the country, or forcibly relocate them into anarchist communities, or send them off to reeducation camps — they would not only have been guilty of world-class atrocities, they would have had to give up on being anarchists. Democratic organizations simply cannot commit atrocities on that systematic scale: for that, you’d need Communist or Fascist-style top-down organization, since you can’t actually get thousands of human beings to systematically massacre helpless women and children and old people, destroy communities, or chase families from their ancestral homes unless they can at least say they were only following orders.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library ... of-victory
Also, the zionists already use your motto.
B0ycey wrote:But that's just it. The US poor look at these people and believe that his what a fair lifestyle should be. The US poor in terms of the real poor (poor in poor countries) are not poor. They are in fact very wealthy and I'm sure people living in poor nations would love to trade places with them. If you can feed yourself and your family, and have the time and money to write your discontent on the internet, I think perhaps your lifestyle isn't so shit after all. But that doesn't mean the US shouldn't share its wealth more fairly throughout its society.
I think you don't have much knowledge of 3rd world poverty. A family of peasant farmers can scratch enough coin together to buy a 2nd hand iphone 1 and can buy a fully charged car battery each week to charge it. Internet is cheap when you aren't subject to a monopoly, too. Even if you can't afford your own phone you can still talk to the other people in the village and benefit from their access to youtube and facebook.
You also aren't familiar with the lifestyle of the wealthy who own multiple mansions, yachts, aircraft and private islands, which allows them access to multiple organ transplant registries whilst the poor are bankrupted my medical emergencies.
Bread and circuses isn't good enough.
That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens