25th Anniversary of Tiananmen Square

[Jomme]

I'm not sure what you mean but I think that you're saying Napoleon was not a violent man?

What happens when violent people win is that they eventually lose the will to power that put them there in the first place, or they start to feel some sort of similarity to those they oppress, and so they are forced out either by a new type of violent guy or some peaceful process takes place to moderate the system put in place by the initial revolution. But the violence that puts them in power in the first place is generally rather horrible and I don't think is worth it.

In china there is still a rather strong will to power from the party it seems. In the USSR i guess the old communists lost [most of] the will to power and the kleptocracy & attendant state are the new generation of violent men.

Sorry, I'm having a bit of a bad day regarding my explaining-in-English skills. I meant the guys that took control in France during the revolution there were very, very violent. The Ancién Regime they were called IIRC, the guys that were famous for the decapitations by guillotine. They basically killed anyone that even said their name. However they lost their power within a week or so I think. What was the difference here and there? The basic reasons for the revolution were the same. (Égalite, fraternite, libernité = the wish for equality in Russia) So what stopped the Russians from taking the communist usurpers and kicking them to the curb?

[Bampfylde]

Ancien regime normally refers to the aristocratic regime that preceded the revolution. Maybe you are thinking of Robespierre and the Terror, who were in power for a while in 1793-94 a few years after the initial revolution? Or the Directory, also extremely violent, who were in power from the end of the Terror until 1799, when they were deposed in a coup led by Napoleon and the army?

[Jomme]

Ancien regime normally refers to the aristocratic regime that preceded the revolution. Maybe you are thinking of Robespierre and the Terror, who were in power for a while in 1793-94 a few years after the initial revolution? Or the Directory, also extremely violent, who were in power from the end of the Terror until 1799, when they were deposed in a coup led by Napoleon and the army?

Robespierre, thanks, it's been some time since I studied that, no thanks to my exams which were only about the history of the Netherlands and that of America. :\ What's your take on the difference on those situations then?

[Bampfylde]

I don't see them as different at all inherently, people fighting for ideals and betraying them at the same time.
There were lots of groups in the russian revolution, but Lenin came out on top in the end so thats all we remember.

e.g. Makhno and the Black Army in the Ukraine, the Mensheviks, etc, etc…

The initial revolution was in February 1917 but now its called the October revolution. Maybe you can read something out of that

[cultist]

Bamfylde what you describe i think is the concept of silent revolution which i happen to like very much and totally agree of. Bakunin was right when he criticized Marx and told him that all the vanguard party bullshit will lead to total oppression. People are generally fed up with different abuses made in democracies and capitalism systems and want better conditions as a society per whole and as an individual too. And for that you are labeled communist and other idiotic tags like that. The idea is that most systems can work if they keep in mind the human notion and humanity in particular (although every extremist ideology did things in the name of humanity as well). If you value these concepts you tend to move away from any authoritarian system and be closer to your fellow humans.
One thing is certain, i'd rather live in a bad capitalism then in any "communist" country. And i think those poor people think the same. The bullshit that they have to accept is just too much.
Grapefruit i'm not an advocate of any system. I don't know what is best for others. But. There were examples in human history of what you called anarcho-communism that actually worked (until communists. royalty or capitalism killed most of them). Don't expect miracles when most peoples are uneducated or lied to about most of the things they come across. What we have? in each of our countries, where ever they might be, it is the best we can come up with folks.. Yeah, it is us who are to blame first.
Cheers

[Bampfylde]

Anarcho-communism can only work when the conditions are very special, i.e. no scarcity. I think you could do a pretty good job of interpreting large parts of advanced capitalism as creating artificial scarcity (i think i first realised this reading a murakami book where he described advanced capitalism as being all about waste).

I'm not sure of the way out of this but in the past anarchocommunist societies were often pretty mystical i.e. focused on internal matters of the mind, which would reduce one's desire for external goods etc, apart from basic necessities. For example some early christians (and more recently in the English revolution, the "diggers" and "levellers") or some taoists i think, but i'm no expert on that.

Of course spain is an exception to this but they were pretty focussed on fighting an oppressor which really brought them together. And of course that ended pretty badly, but I don't think you can blame the anarchists for that.

I think that technology is one route towards a more anarcho-communist / free society. The internet is pretty amazing in that regard.

[Jomme]

The internet in the western world because the internet has also done a great job at fucking over lots of people simply cause they were using it in these self proclaimed communist countries.

[cultist]

haha, nice addition Jomme

[Bampfylde]

lol, thats true. i kindof meant as a potential tool, though.

[venatorvenator]

"We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKIWjnEPNY