is it possible that perfect democracy is in fact marx idea of socialism ?
given his almost phsychic predictions about constant financial collapses being a part of capitalism comming true it does seem that marx's studies in social science are inevitable
and an unavoidable path that capitalism and the unforseen at marx time spin offs seem determined to hold off ,

we could be witness to capitalisms redoubt ,
its last stand a united front of all in opposition to natural progressive social order .

anarcho syndicalism isnt going to achieve anywhere like 60million self employed thats a tory wet dream ,
national socialism is a fart in a lift a confined terror that only escape will cure ,
and capitalism is simply greed politicised ,
so what but an equal system could come to the fore ?
switch on tvs people worldwide are pissed off
they are ditching symbolic wealth for decent lifes for themselves and as a legacy for their children .

i think things will run a course pretty close to what marx hinted at .

mushy wrote:
Its interesting that you think 60 million people not paying tax is a tory wet dream.
Do they have wet dreams about having no government left? Fascinating!

The rest of your post seems fine.

do protests achieve anything?

as a measure and as a catalyst for ideas yes they do ,
if the success of a protest is measured in direct actions as a result of it then its debatable but protests are initially about being heard getting a point across and as such they do seem to achieve their goal .

protest succes is not an exact science , i dont think you
can say protests in lybia were a failure or those in egypt couldve done better ir even that occupy didnt have some degree of success .

do you think theres a future for goverments
or commitees , it depends doesnt it lol

btw 60million or full employment camerons making a start for anarchy with workfare and making those on invalidity benifits work ,

would incomes be capped in an anarcho society and public housing healthcare transport ammenities be protected or is it earn or lose out , status quo ?

mushy wrote:
Lybia was armed rebellion (not exactly protestors and banners was it?) and I'm not so sure they actually got success so to speak. Out of the frying pan and into the fire IMHO.

andyh wrote: it ended up armed rebellion or an armed protest ,
it was a complete success whether you like it or not the outcome was achieved .
gaddafi was a dictator they wanted him gone
they succeeded protest worked theres no ifs or buts .

mushy wrote: Such a scenario is impossible as the elite would lose a shitload of money, not a good idea as far as they are concerned.

What sort of anarcho society?

worth remembering i think marx saw injustice
and an unfair system ,
he went out and studied it wrote a report it was called social science a phrase used for first time to describe alternative social systems to what was to all but those making profit an unjust system that thrived on suffering .

thats important actually ,
many copied his wprk or used it as a basis for other systems lke anarchy nazism etc
even labour party in uk used parts of it ,
it was perfect because it was neutral ,
it led to the writing of the communist manifesto
which was adopted by some and abused
but production for need not profit remains a
hard idea to knock it is in fact almost impossible to knock , state run by it people for its peoples needs does that really sound like hell ?
some say that is what it is ,hell, and they point at stalin or north korea to prove it .

you actually think its about money ?
they have more money than they could spend in twelve lifetimes , its about positions of power .

anarchy wouldnt /couldnt end that it would shift the goalposts perhaps but how could it stop the im allright jacks and keeping up with the jone's attitudes ?

mushy wrote:
It remains true that they achieved what they wanted with violence, not protest.
I would actually be more likely to back violence than protest.
Banners don't scare the elite.

andyh wrote:
it ended up violent because the lybian elites got scared at all those banners and people on the street andyh ,
the armed rebellion was more deffending as the protestors were fired on by people scared by banners .

i wouldnt advocate anykind of violence personally ,
id rather armies saw that they are the same as people the elites tell them to fire on but they eventually do allbeit to late to save the killed
and injured .

mushy wrote: Which comes from money in case you hadn't noticed...
Ooops! lol

What anarchy? Again?

mushy wrote:

yeah youre right actually lol .
private enterprise incarnate conservative ideal .
the poor or unfit now self employed eh lol

if power comes from wealth alone then its greed that drives it,
ask queenie to put her hand in her purse or get a tenner out the atm has she got it ?
but she commands an army she has power
she lives in luxury dependant on those on benifits or in jobs support for her
her wealth is tied up in shares stocks etc if she was pay armies wages out her bank account like private buisness she would be skint within
weeks ,
its tax from the people that pay their army so why doesnt the army swear alegiance to the people and not lizzie who pays them nowt ?

andyh wrote:
Get an English GCSE and come back again afterwards.

mushy wrote: Top post comrade

mushy wrote:
Taxes,benefits and wages are all money.

mushy wrote:
They got what they wanted with violence not banners, stop wriggling lol.
Protesting has nothing to do with all out street warfare ffs lol