RevLeft
Go Back   RevLeft > Members List
Register FAQ Members List RevLeft Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

RevLeft Shortage Alert
RevLeft shortage alert! Current monthly donations are $20.00 below the monthly needed amount of $140. Help Revleft keep running - please subscribe for a monthly donation now!


AK is an unknown quantity at this point

AK AK is offline

Banned

Visitor Messages

Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 902
  1. ∞
    9th October 2010 02:14
    I agree, I want to make the government create cooperatives whom are independently by workers. I only suggest this idea in places where anarchism isn't popular, or where anarchists will be killed off by armymen of the existing government.
  2. ∞
    9th October 2010 00:44
    No the means of revolution change depending on the cricumstances
  3. ∞
    8th October 2010 23:32
    social conditions....
  4. ∞
    8th October 2010 19:37
    depends on the circumstances mate,
  5. Patchd
    8th October 2010 12:33
    Patchd
    BUT THATS EXACTLY HOW HE HAS A SUPERIOR ARGUMENT!!!!
  6. Patchd
    8th October 2010 12:15
    Patchd
    Hey mate, no problem. Lol at your convo below, I love how some people think the state will just, you know, disappear if we just wanted it to.
  7. ∞
    7th October 2010 22:32
    It would be seperationist movement my friend and the anarchist couldn't stand a chance against the state. Thats why in some movements we must use all the advantages we can steal from the bourgeoisie and use it to the proletariat's advantage. Thats why I'm an Anarchist and a Marxist. I believe both have their pros and cons and can't follow one calls analysis...
  8. ∞
    7th October 2010 05:27
    however if there was 50 anarchists and 50 marxists...I'd side with the anarchists
  9. ∞
    7th October 2010 05:20
    "3. I truly despise the idea that the state can whither away - it is all wrong. The state ceases to exist when there is no more centralised political authority. The state exists or does not exist as the conditions change - and I assume that a stable socialist society would not constantly be overthrowing modes of production and state apparatuses to the point where some state (which shouldn't even exist in a socialist society) whithers away.
    4. Marxism isn't that popular in Pakistan either."

    Thats why I'm kind of a Marxist. I believe that the state must emphasize it's 'withering away'.

    Marxism is mildly popular in Pakistan. Socialism is popular however.
  10. ∞
    7th October 2010 04:53
    By state I mean government. By control I stress Libertarian Syndicalism and cuts on the military infrastructure if we had revolution in a third world country. We'd also give nationalize industry into cooperatives. That is Marxism. Eventually the state will be useless and people would not live in a cycle of market production. They'd live in a pure-communist or Anarchist society. I only advocate this idea in places like Pakistan, where Anarchism isn't popular and social unrest causes the failure of Anarchist praxis to exist.
    I also consider myself a Marxist for my Marxian econmic outlook.

About Me

  • About AK
    Biography
    Generic Marxist → Leninist → Trotskyist → Council Communist → Anarchist
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Interests
    Bringing down the walls of society that the ruling class holds dear, doing whatever.
    Occupation
    High School Student (Year 10)
    Political Statement
    Autogestion & Autonomy
    Gender
    Male

Statistics

Total Posts
Visitor Messages
Blog
Total Thanks
General Information
  • Last Activity: 7th December 2010 04:00
  • Join Date: 5th September 2009
  • Referrals: 0

Friends

Showing Friends 31 to 40 of 65

Contact Info

Instant Messaging
Send an Instant Message to AK Using...
Home Page
http://libcom.org/user/alpha-kappa
This Page
http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=25728

Blog

View AK's BlogRecent Entries
Latest Blog Entry

Posted 22nd April 2010 at 12:46 by AK Comments 4
"Reform or revolution?" is one of the biggest and most controversial questions asked when it comes to creating a socialist society. One question that is rarely asked is that of the class rule that should come place after the revolution. Whilst all socialists agree it must be democratic, there are other questions that need to be asked - but rarely are. Questions such as "Will this democracy be representative or direct?" The answer lies in how minority classes come to rule society....

Posted 12th April 2010 at 10:50 by AK Comments 7
Posted in Uncategorized
[B][I]Bourgeoise [/I]- as well as other similar misspellings - are not words. It pisses me off when people misspell or incorrectly use these leftist terms. Learn how to correctly spell and use them. I can't stress this enough.[/B]

[B]Bourgeoisie (Noun): [/B]The upper ruling capitalist class of private property owners which do not work on the means of production that they own; instead, hiring workers to carry out the labour.
[B]Bourgeois (Adjective): [/B]Of or relating to the...

Posted 3rd April 2010 at 10:10 by AK Comments 0
All classes, past and present, have been and are defined by their relation to productive property. Under capitalism this can be shown by observing an individual's relation to the means of production (also known as private property; as opposed to personal property which includes tangible items as well as houses, cars, trucks and boats): the working class of Proletarians which own no means of production of their own have to sell their labour to the Bourgeoisie (or sometimes the Petit-Bourgeoisie)...

Posted 7th March 2010 at 11:49 by AK Comments 7
[COLOR=Black][B]UPDATE: This entry has been superseded by [URL="http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=891"][I]The Myth of the Middle Class: Blurring Class Lines and Dividing Labour[/I][/URL][/B]

All historical and current social classes are defined by property ownership or their relation to production. So where does this ambiguous "middle class" fit in with respect to property ownership or a relation to production? Nowhere, it is merely an attempt to disprove Marxist...

Posted 3rd March 2010 at 07:35 by AK Comments 0
[B][I]ALL [/I]war is for the purposes of economic dominance.

[/B]Even a Communist revolution (if violent - which will inevitably always be as the state has become too powerful) is for the purposes of economic dominance as it entails the working class of Proletarians taking over the economy and placing the means of production and distribution under democratic control - not the control of a privileged few.

Just as in any other war, the spoils will go to the victor in Iraq....
Recent Comments
You glued everything...
Posted 3rd June 2010 at 00:50 by Karl Marx AK47 Karl Marx AK47 is offline
[QUOTE=CartCollector;bt2558]I...
Posted 27th April 2010 at 07:45 by AK AK is offline
I agree. The problems...
Posted 27th April 2010 at 02:33 by CartCollector CartCollector is offline
You can avoid all the...
Posted 25th April 2010 at 11:33 by AK AK is offline
What are your thoughts...
Posted 25th April 2010 at 02:47 by CartCollector CartCollector is offline

All times are GMT. The time now is 21:58.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.