Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Socialist Progressives
In reply to the discussion: Libertarian Communism - your thoughts? [View all]Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)11. I had a picture in my mind of Kissinger getting the now pissed off MIC to rally around him
He convenes the rest of the G-20 countries, promises various stuff they've all wanted for years and everyone goes to town on our stateless workers.
I think everyone would like to see greater worker control and the end of capitalism. It would just be nice if it lasted!
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
84 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
That was early on. After Trotsky went after the Anarchists, and Stalin took power
Taverner
Jul 2012
#4
How do you keep capitalist states from eating your lunch without central control?
Starry Messenger
Jul 2012
#5
Well the failures of the anarchists in Spain weren't due to lack of central control.
white_wolf
Jul 2012
#6
It also didn't help that Stalin was purging any non-Bolshiveks from the Spanish Republic
Taverner
Jul 2012
#8
I had a picture in my mind of Kissinger getting the now pissed off MIC to rally around him
Starry Messenger
Jul 2012
#11
Capitalism itself hinges on central control. Without it they are made irrelevant.
joshcryer
Jul 2012
#15
The "central power structure" (i.e. the state), under Marxism, is just a word for "the workers"...
LooseWilly
Jul 2012
#39
The workers themselves DO constitute a "state" if they take over the "machinery" of a state and
LooseWilly
Jul 2012
#49
The "machinery of a state" are the police and property systems they've implemented.
joshcryer
Jul 2012
#69
The what what? The "anarchist federation"?? Is that like the "socialist business league"??
LooseWilly
Jul 2012
#40
"Shit ain't happening with significant influence from capitalists and totalitarians"? Really?
LooseWilly
Jul 2012
#46
I think you've voiced something that I've always thought was an essential point.
LooseWilly
Jul 2012
#50
The USSR accomplished a great deal. I've made that point in GD on this site several times.
white_wolf
Jul 2012
#51
I guess I'm enough of a fan of Lenin to think that a socialist Greece can stand alone.
LooseWilly
Jul 2012
#56
You do realize the mere fact that I disagree with his theories doesn't make him an asshole,right?
white_wolf
Jul 2012
#59
Everyone that I disagree with is an asshole... it's just a rhetorical flourish, no need to blush...
LooseWilly
Jul 2012
#65
Same. In a centralized system corruption can be at the top, and you can't get rid of it.
joshcryer
Jul 2012
#18
I didn't mean to imply that the Soviets supported Somalia at that time, sorry about that.
Starry Messenger
Jul 2012
#35
If power is "centralized" in the hands of the workers, then the state, as an apparatus of oppress-
LooseWilly
Jul 2012
#44
Fair point. Perhaps I should have rephrasied my subject title to say something like:
white_wolf
Jul 2012
#45
I was hoping to have you enlighten me on Trotskyism... but alas you present merely platitudes...
LooseWilly
Jul 2012
#58
Unfortunately I'm a prole myself.. and I have to be at work in 4 1/2 hours...
LooseWilly
Jul 2012
#67