HOME | DD
TapiocaDeath โ Anarchist Communist Flag
by-nc-sa
Published: 2007-01-10 03:52:07 +0000 UTC; Views: 8937; Favourites: 24; Downloads: 170
Redirect to original
Description
Just a little flag I made.Related content
Comments: 22
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
Red and Black revolution! For full liberation of (A)ll!
Not naive, but a reality. Take care
spread the word.
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
Nice 
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
looks like this has been said...but it is not possible to be both an anarchist and a communist..just not possible
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Yes it is, both ideologies are very similar.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
Nice, I always thought the choice of colors, black and red, was a good one, as they look really stark and menacing together, the mark of a political goal that will not compromise or settle for less. Admittedly, the hammer and sickle is a symbol I thought was more Soviet than general socialist, myself.
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
Don't see how those two words can be placed together. Anarchism is indeed unity, but yet not equality. When there are no rules only the strong survive, and that leaves the weak to die. Dose that seem equal?
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
No, it doesn't sound equal, but that is not what any socialist anarchist espouses, comrade.
Check it out:
[link]
Thanks for the comment!
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Thats what you imply once you add the anarchist view to the communist policy.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
There's a real difference between what one implies and what another infers. "Anarchism is ... not equality. ... there are no rules, only the strong survive, and that leaves the weak to die. ..." is your inference, not what I was implying. 
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Yes but Anarchism is a system with no structure. How are you to disperse equality if there is nothing to disperse it with? Oh sure chaos will be directed at the bourgeoisie but then what? There will be members of the proletariat will assume that power they just dethroned and the cycle will start again. With power comes corruption. And if you allow that one person to realize since they are stronger their will is law then you have just created another.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
"Yes but Anarchism is a system with no structure." What? I'm sorry, but you must be thinking of something else. Anarchism, whether one is speaking of petit-bourgeoise mutualism or (more commonly) anarcho-communism (or anarchist communism, or communist anarchism, or libertarian communism [which itself includes council communism, anarcho-syndicalism, DeLeonism, et. al.) absolutely IS an organized structure, with workers' councils, federations, syndicates, etc.
"How are you to disperse equality if there is nothing to disperse it with?" Beats me.
"Oh sure chaos will be directed at the bourgeoisie but then what?" I'm assuming here that by "chaos" you mean organized resistance from the proletariat (and in some instances with the peasantry, and various sympathetic individuals and groups from other classes, though not the classes themselves); followed by, or perhaps more preferably in conjunction with, the development of dual-power structures (workers' councils, etc.); direct warfare with the state, monopolization of arms distributed by the councils, etc. etc. The strategy varies on who you ask, because differences of opinion on tactics and thus strategy varies widely of course - but I'm more than willing to discuss my specific feelings over PM on here on on AIM; my AIM SN is Zanturaeon of course.
"There will be members of the proletariat will assume that power they just dethroned and the cycle will start again." This sentence doesn't make sense.
"With power comes corruption." Absolutely! In fact, this is the core of the anarchist analysis (in addition to the Marxism espoused by anarcho-communists such as myself).
"And if you allow that one person to realize since they are stronger their will is law then you have just created another." What one person? Under anarchism (excluding of course so-called "anarcho-capitalism"), power is taken from the bourgeoisie and their lackeys directly by the proletariat and their allies and sympathizers (always under the lead of the proletariat); the proletariat empowers themselves, there is no "one person". Furthermore, no "one person"'s "will is law".
I mean no insult here, this is entirely constructive criticism, comrade, but I feel that you are lacking somewhat on your knowledge of exactly what anarchism is. As I've stated above, it does not mean chaos, no matter how the mass media chooses to apply the term, comrade. It is simply an alternative approach to communism and anarchy which includes in its' analysis exactly those concerns of yours which you've brought to light here.
Enjoying the correspondence, message me back!
Yours in struggle,
-David
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Very well placed, you have proven a good argument, and I take back what I have said, and apologize.
"There will be members of the proletariat will assume that power they just dethroned and the cycle will start again." What I meant by the sentence was if given the chance one member of the worker class that just dethroned those in power will assume his position if given the chance. It is the will of man.
"the proletariat empowers themselves, there is no "one person". Furthermore, no "one person's" "will is law"".- This sentence is false. It is madness to think otherwise. One man can indeed hold all the cards. It comes with human free will, we have the will to take charge and the will to have a fear of one man. This may be a bad example but look at: Stalin, Sudam, Hitler even, these men of power held fear in the hearts of many even though it is one man. They had armies because they were held higher in the social caste system therefore would not give up their cushioned seats for liberation of their own people from these Tyrants.
As for Anarchism, the definition for anarchist is:
1 : a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
With the will of people focusing themselves towards self advancement they will be no better then common terrorists. Only once we shed the need to be better then others can Anarchism work, then Communism will follow quickly.
In short I now understand your theory of Anarcho-Communism, it would be beautiful. Absolute nirvana, but until we can get over that we have to stick to socialism and hope people shed this oppression. Comrade we will live free once we are free. Although I fear in the state we are in Anarchy is not the best way.
Live Long
Live Free
Live Red
And Peace Shall Be Yours.
Long Live Marx the father
Long Live Lenin the son.
Long Live Communism the perfect life.
P.S How the Hell have you been David, haven't seen you since Journalism.
-Comrade Chris Eggebrecht
๐: 0 โฉ: 2
About the links provided: simply drop the period at the end of each one. DA included the period which ended the sentences as part of the HTTP address. My bad.
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
"...if given the chance one member of the worker class that just dethroned those in power will assume his position if given the chance. It is the will of man." Agreed.
" "the proletariat empowers themselves, there is no "one person". Furthermore, no "one person's" "will is law"".- This sentence is false. It is madness to think otherwise. One man can indeed hold all the cards. It comes with human free will, we have the will to take charge and the will to have a fear of one man. This may be a bad example but look at: Stalin, Sudam, Hitler even, these men of power held fear in the hearts of many even though it is one man. They had armies because they were held higher in the social caste system therefore would not give up their cushioned seats for liberation of their own people from these Tyrants. " - In that sentence, I was referring specifically to an anarchic context, sorry for the misunderstanding. Also, no argument with your response there.
"As for Anarchism, the definition for anarchist is:
1 : a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order" You'll find that the definition of anarchist (as well as communist, maid, potato, etc.) varies from source to source, and while dictionaries et. al. are useful as a thumb reference (as they were of course intended), they are absolutely not useful (nor intended) for a precise, exhaustive exploration. As such, "textbook" definitions are inherently vague; a rule with many, many exceptions. You may note that in Infoshop's "An Anarchist FAQ" they explore the problem with the reliance on dictionaries for "explorations" of anarchism, and the criticism may well be extended to those who unthinkingly damage their conception of radicals (and maids, and potatoes!) by the use of a "textbook" definition as a crutch rather than a foot-stool.
"With the will of people focusing themselves towards self advancement they will be no better then common terrorists." Though I understand what you're saying - that individualism is ultimately ineffectual at best and very damaging to society at worst (and more commonly!) - I have to note that this statement begs the question, what is a common terrorist? That's a rhetorical question but it serves to do damage to the (admittedly bourgeoisie) prejudice towards "terrorists", among whose ranks are included (and oft-repeated in the liberal [and nothing more!] media) radicals, indeed many of our own.
"Only once we shed the need to be better then others can Anarchism work, then Communism will follow quickly." I apologize again, but the question is ever-present here - what is anarchy, and what is communism? There is generally little difference from our vantage point, so far from either of these, but I generally adopt most communists' definition of communism (including Marx's himself, of course) as a "classless, stateless society". Anarchy, as defined by anarchists, is a wholly non-hierarchical society, precluding class and state and including as well race, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Following from this (defintions adopted by the broad mass of those who self-identify as such, and would thus presumably know best about their own beliefs - the communism of communists and the anarchy of anarchists [excluding, again, the "anarcho"-capitalists, which appears to all other anarchists as an absurd oxymoron; at least to anyone with even a semblance of class analysis]), communism would "come first" as being economically non-hierarchical but still socially hierarchical; while anarchism precludes communism in addition to a slew of social hierarchies.
"...we have to stick to socialism and hope people shed this oppression." Who's hoping!? I'm not hoping! I'm struggling!
"Although I fear in the state we are in Anarchy is not the best way." Anarchy of course is a goal, not necessarily a way! It's clear to me of course that our goals are the same, though our conceptions of what is possible, what is doable, what is practical differs at this time. Nonetheless, I'm sure through continued correspondence (and through the ultimate political consciousness-raiser itself, struggle!) we will meet at the end of the road, or else sooner than later reconcile our different conceptions of the road to a free world in a mutually empowering, collaborative strategy.
P.S.
I've been alright. Dropped out, went traveling for the summer (zanturaeon.blogspot.com), came back, worked for the newspaper, for Kohl's, and now for Walgreens. When I'm not helping my mom pay bills, my predominant activity has been attempting to organize a group here. We had a couple nice meetings, started to get things going, and some unexpected dynamics arose (one comrade decided the anarchist meetings to get into gear and start making shit happen felt too forced!) and right now we're unfortunately dead in the water. So I've been trying to work through that, keeping up correspondence with Workers' Solidarity Alliance (WSA) (Platformist anarchists; propaganda group) and thinking about establishing correspondence with the International Communist Current (ICC) (Left-Communist; Party), and generally just trying to develop my analysis and jump-start struggle here in Arlington.
What about you? If you'd like, go ahead and send me an e-mail if you don't mind, as I'd prefer e-mail correspondence to DA. (More secure, easier to work without losing stuff, etc.)
BTW. I REALLY appreciate the honest criticism and correspondence. It's too bad that there's so many comrades (of all stripes!) that will ignore what one says and just repeat themselves. Aside from being personally frustrating, it's hopelessly inimical to the unity (or even functioning solidarity!) of the movement.
Comrades,
-David.
P.S.S. - You might like to check out my shite website at [link] In addition to being what will amount to a set of (evolving, asynchronous) position papers, news articles, and various other nothings, it's also my primary testing space as I teach myself more and more XHTML/CSS as well as Java (which I've just begun and haven't even tried to implement, heh).
Also, the other site which I've already mentioned several times here and elsewhere, An Anarchist FAQ, can be found here: [link]
Deuces.
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
Hey, this is really cool.
and DANGEROUS!
haha.
๐: 0 โฉ: 0