Communist needs a home

by woot • 10 Oct 2007, 13:25 • Forums › Recruitment
Hi all, i need a clan as you can see

i would define myself as an experienced med skiller who never went further than med skill just because i have no talent or maybe just because i never ever played that much,

got everything u need

avi from sun till thursday normally

motivated yezz i am!

ex-clans in my profile

just pm me here thx
Comments
69
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 14:27
Are u a Communist?
▼
woot 10 Oct 2007, 14:31
not really but i still believe it can work in the right society
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 14:34
Anarchism > Communism
Parent
▼
woot 10 Oct 2007, 14:35
sometimes it's pritty much the same

think about bakoenin
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 14:36
idd
nice to find some1 on cf knowing stuff bout this =)
Parent
▼
woot 10 Oct 2007, 14:38
idem ditto, now recruit me:)
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 14:39
dont have a clan atm neitehr ;D
Parent
▼
vaGgi 10 Oct 2007, 15:55
anarchism would just make no sense because it would end in even greater violence than now and completely chaos
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 16:36
anarchy != chaos
Go read some books and then u can talk with me about that.
I tbh dont have any motivation to explain something like this to some kiddy, who only has some [ger]fundiertes Halbwissen[/ger] about the subject.
Parent
▼
cryptz 10 Oct 2007, 16:42
anarchy =/= chaos,
if anarchy would work (it doesn't)
then anarchy = perfect harmony = utopia
but now idd anarchy = chaos
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 16:46
This all belongs to one Question: Is the Humanity in general good or is it in general bad? By saying anarchy wont work, you say, that the Humanity is bad in general. But you dont have the right to define that, neitehr i have. I just believe, that it could be possible (because there was working anarchy already yarly).
Parent
▼
cryptz 10 Oct 2007, 16:53
but in my opinion humanity in general is bad, but my political view is mostly influenced by Orwell's books (animal farm & 1984). but if you can find a society full with honest and straight people who live in a anarchy with only their conscience as a law: please show me.
anarchy could be something for in the future where all people are well educated and got a conscience :)
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 16:58
Well i cant help u, if u think mankind is bad in general because that equals to apply darwins lwas on humanity.
Well as i said there was Anarchy already in the Ukraine and in Spain (behind the front, during the civil war)
Parent
▼
cryptz 10 Oct 2007, 17:06
how come it didn't stayed that way. but imo it isn't total anarchy there were unspoken laws for sure, police, army etc...
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 17:09
In the Ukraine the red army basically killed em all, and installed a communist regime.
In Spain the anarchists and the communists fought each other so franco (fascist General of the old Army) won and installed a dictatorship which lastet till 1975.
About your second point: Google some definitions of Anarchy (HINT: Dont trust wikipedia) and u will understand
Parent
▼
cryptz 10 Oct 2007, 17:12
http://www.anarchy.net/anarchy/anarchy_definition/

like that one?
Parent
▼
cryptz 10 Oct 2007, 17:13
QuoteAnarchism
Anarchism is an ideology that regards abolition of government as the necessary precondition for a free and just society. The term itself comes from the Greek words meaning "without a ruler." Anarchism rejects all forms of hierarchical authority, social and economic as well as political. What distinguishes it from other ideologies, however, is the central importance it attaches to the state. To anarchists, the state is a wholly artificial and illegitimate institution, the bastion of privilege and exploitation in the modern world.

i'm sure there was still some form a hierarchy
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 17:20
there actually was no hierarchy =)
Parent
▼
cryptz 10 Oct 2007, 17:23
we both got our different point of view so let's stop this now, it's making me crazy and you are ruining my view of the world
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 17:27
Quote by crypt0you are ruining my view of the world

Mission accomplished.
Parent
▼
vaGgi 11 Oct 2007, 19:32
anarchy does mean that there is no greater power that is controlling the humans, they define their own lifes without having to pay tax or having laws

no laws = chaos
Parent
▼
cryptz 10 Oct 2007, 14:57
imo wrong... socialism maybe but communisme never...
you just don't get a good system if you achieve it with violence
Parent
▼
woot 10 Oct 2007, 15:01
like democracy came in peace

and it is not because it was achieved with violence in the past it should be the way in the future
Parent
▼
cryptz 10 Oct 2007, 15:07
1.democracy has to come in peace, look at iraq it just doesn't work that way, old greeks got democracy peacefull (correct me if i'm wrong plz).
2.i thought that communism = achieve marxisme with violence (rebellion & stuff) and socialisme = achieve marxisme with by voting and democracy

but that's not my point.

i just want to say that a governement just can't control everything so real and pure communisme can't exist without thinking about corrupt politicians :/
Parent
▼
woot 10 Oct 2007, 15:14
1) dunno for sure

2) communism should be the same as marxism, they just fucked up in russia :) socialism has not that much to do with communism, atleast not the way you say it:)

further i totally agree !

we could discuss for hours but let's not do this

cheers
Parent
▼
sol 10 Oct 2007, 17:39
Communism came from socialism, it's called evolution of theory. They didn't 'fuck up', it's just a different type of government (Leninism, Stalinism, etc.).
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 16:37
democracy doesent exists as long as there is capitalism.
Parent
▼
cryptz 10 Oct 2007, 16:39
i know but you can't call the greek system communsism ;)
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 16:43
dude, the world isent dividet in black and white.
If iam Anti-capitalism that doesent means iam a communist.
And lol bout old greeks, there was no democracy at all.
The normal ppl had nothing to say, only the rich could vote, and there were slaves also.
And i dont want to list you all the wars they did, and all the poeples they opressed and exploitet.
Parent
▼
cryptz 10 Oct 2007, 16:44
wrong the members could vote = the real greeks
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 16:47
lol plz
You could only vote if u were NOT a Slave or NOT poor. So who is left?
Parent
▼
cryptz 10 Oct 2007, 16:49
i thougt u could vote even if you were poor =/, in that case you are right
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 16:49
iam quite sure the "scum" from the streets wasent allowed to vote.
=)
Parent
▼
cryptz 10 Oct 2007, 16:53
imo the scum of the streets shouldn't vote =D
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 16:58
u dident get my point.
Parent
▼
cryptz 10 Oct 2007, 17:00
sure i did, i made a 'lil joke :)
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 17:01
;D
i dident got the joke xD
Parent
▼
Frop 10 Oct 2007, 19:25
Stop stating some flawed opinion as fact, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 19:30
i maybe cant express my oppinion such as you maybe could, cause my english is not the best, but i have an idea what iam talking about.
Parent
▼
.Madness! 10 Oct 2007, 17:47
only option: a society that doesn't contain mankind
communism works in theory, but sucks in real life
Parent
▼
sol 10 Oct 2007, 18:15
I assume you didn't mean to say 'work', how can something work in theory? That makes no sense. Something either works well or not in practice, theory is just theory. That's like me devising a bulletproof plan for horses to rule society (akin to 'A Voyage to the Country of the Houyhnhnms', book IV of Gulliver's Travels) and claiming it works, in theory. See the problem?

On the other hand, perhaps you meant to say that it's a novel idea in theory (Communism) and sounds all well and good, yet never works when put into practice, in which case I agree.
Parent
▼
kiss 10 Oct 2007, 15:00
gl commu :)
nice guy , nice player as well :)
▼
woot 10 Oct 2007, 15:03
and this is said bye an EC-Player

so you better recruit me! :)
Parent
▼
cryptz 10 Oct 2007, 16:42
dude you got swastikas in your profile :O
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 16:59
hes a Latvia nazi.
kinda lol isent it?
Parent
▼
sol 10 Oct 2007, 17:34
That's not the Nazi swastika.
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 17:38
its inverted, i know, but he is a nazi infact.
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 17:39
republicans were Democrats, Communists, Anarchists,
Nationalists were Fascists (Franco, supported by the third reich.)
▼
sol 10 Oct 2007, 17:45
Quote by GaRgIn Spain the anarchists and the communists fought each other so franco (fascist General of the old Army) won and installed a dictatorship which lastet till 1975.
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 18:12
they did in the end!
Get knowledge pls.
Parent
▼
sol 10 Oct 2007, 18:22
You're very confused.

Can't really be bothered arguing with a peon so I'm just going to rape you with a series of your own quotes.

Quote by GaRgAnarchism > Communism


Quote by wootsometimes it's pritty much the same


Quote by GaRgidd
nice to find some1 on cf knowing stuff bout this =)


...


Quote by GaRgIn Spain the anarchists and the communists fought each other so franco (fascist General of the old Army) won and installed a dictatorship which lastet till 1975.


Quote by solThe Spanish civil war was republicans vs. nationalists, what are you smoking?


Quote by GaRgrepublicans were Democrats, Communists, Anarchists,
Nationalists were Fascists (Franco, supported by the third reich.)


Shall we leave it at that or do you want me to actually point out the contradiction? The bold is a hint.

I know that you're young and seemingly impressionable but please think a little for yourself instead of regurtitating shit you've heard from someone else and pawning it off as though it's your own thoughts. You're very confused indeed.
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 18:45
Seriously get knowledge about the subject the discussion is about, and dont just make my arguments riddiculous without having any real point.

About Communism and Anarchism being almost the same reffering to the philosopher Michal Bakunin (thats what me and crypt0 were talkin about, not that communism is the same as anarchism in general) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin#Political_Beliefs
Libertary Socialism is actually the same as libertary CouncilCommunism (See Kronstadt Riots, Ukraine etc.)

About the Republicans in the spanish cvil war:
Quote by wikipediaRepublicans (also known as Spanish loyalists) received weapons and volunteers from the Soviet Union, Mexico, the international Socialist movement and the International Brigades; there were even American volunteers, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. The Republicans ranged from centrists who supported a moderately capitalist liberal democracy to revolutionary anarchists and communists; their power base was primarily secular and urban, but also included landless peasants, and it was particularly strong in industrial regions like Asturias and Catalonia.


About Communists and Anarchists fighting each other:
They actually did, 1939 in Madrid, while franco was waiting outside the city. Fighting was not meant in the way of the republicans and nationalists were fighting, it was meant in the way of some little skirmishs.

And well you dont know anything about me or my political beleives, just some little things i wrote here on crossfire, so please stop juding people without even knowing them.
=)
Parent
▼
sol 10 Oct 2007, 19:04
Quote by GaRgGoogle some definitions of Anarchy (HINT: Dont trust wikipedia) and u will understand
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 19:08
What actually is your point?
That i once said not to trust wikipedia (related to a specific subject) , and then used it for my argumentation (on a whole diffrent subject, where i actually trust wikipedia)?
Parent
▼
sol 10 Oct 2007, 19:13
Seriously get knowledge please, I could explain to you why wikipedia is academically unverifiable in every aspect but I won't, go read a book or something (HINT: Don't trust wikipedia). Get knowledge of what the discussion is about.
Parent
▼
Frop 10 Oct 2007, 19:15
Nice to find someone on Crossfire knowing about this. :)
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 19:19
Stop making people arguments riddiculus, thats the easy way, the retards can laugh then, your opponent is emberrased, but you dident show up with any serious point yet.
btw i agree that wikipedia is unverifiable, but not in every aspect.
I wont scan any books here, i just used wikipedia for comfortable means.
Parent
▼
Frop 10 Oct 2007, 19:22
Are you calling me a retard?
Parent
▼
sol 10 Oct 2007, 19:22
Comfortable means? You mean you fap to the breast page? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Closeup_of_female_breast.jpg/800px-Closeup_of_female_breast.jpg

There's no point in discussing it seriously with you because not only are you inept but logic has the peculiar habit of deflecting off of you. My original post was perfectly valid yet you replied to it by ignoring what was said and bombarding me with more verbal diarrhea.

Also, in what way is it not academically unverifiable?
Parent
▼
OVER9000BPM 10 Oct 2007, 19:27
Your english skills are above mine. (well actually thats normal if its your mothertongue)
i failed.
Parent
Back to top