Dialogue Of Anti-Marxist & And Anarchist

I do not reject the anarchist ethos, and I think it's personally something I live by. I've always been vehement of my dispassion for money, and my dislike for greedy cocksucker's abuse of capitalism, and my dislike for the system and government.

Plain and simple. It's just that, I think it's unrealistic for society. I hold it as a PERSONAL ethos, and always have. It's why I do not participate in societal affairs, on the whole.

Does that not sound like a fair reaction?

>Capitalism though does not have "harm" WRITTEN into it's theory. THAT is a simply hyperbole. Isn't it?

If not, prove your claim.

>Have I not sufficiently proven my claim?

Sure. But it's not "the theory" at all you've expounded on. It's just rhetoric you've used that allows you to stipulate that "capitalism has a hierarchy, and thus is bad" but it's method is to PREVENT HARM, not have some notion of a concept that, like a badly laid plan, does more harm than good, and is too idealistic to sustain in the culture without A: falling into the same traps of "hierarchy" (which is claimed humans wont to escape), and B: without being unsustainable and untenable and unrealistic.

So thus, I still find your argument specious, and I use that word for a reason. There is no "out" of hierarchy.

And as for communism: neither the pure communism that communists desire and say they want, nor the communism they decry as fake, will ever work, because it will destabilize whether or not a state exists to administer it- and every attempt at it will fail because the statements of Marx is wrong- there is no "pure communism"- it has shown that primitive man had private possessions, thus Marx's imposition against capitalism is wrong in it's premise, and thus, it's conclusion. Critique of capitalism is another story.

But the argument is thus; communism, in theory, states that the "outcome" is "pure" and righteous, when based on a falsity- Marx then envisages that his ideal communist purity, which doesn't exist in man, will out-rank Capitalism as a "good for humanity", and thus he proclaims that all strive to weaken it, whether through anarchist means (propaganda of the deed, acceleration, non-participation) or socialist means. The 'critique socialisme' would be a different story, but it defaults that it is used to destabilize Capitalism, within communist theory.

For the sake of a presupposition; that is a falsity. That is why it is written in theory and that is why it is found within the ideology, within every proclaimed communist.

>How does Stalin reflect communist ideology?

Texts only seem to indicate opinions based on a gradient of stances and viewpoints that seem to struggle for control, both ends of which, as the issues go, equally demarcated and equally valid; these texts are based on the academic study of "political science", which isn't really a "science", seeing as it is not "statistics", which deals in empirical fact; nor any other kind of like science that deals in empirical fact- your logic being based on "texts", which are based on pure opinion, based on equal and valid points of view and legitimate grievances.

>There is no "out" of hierarchy.

People will always dominate for control: war will begin at any level of full consequence to a 'kind' or group's stability undue by way of what will be perceived as warfare, due to the action's destabilizing nature- you know this of Communism and Socialism. Anarchism is no different because of the same ratiocination. It is paranoia, but it is human.