Anarco-Communism

[Comrade Corwin]

What is Anarco-Communism or Anarchist-Communism? I've heard many people call themselves an anarco-communist and I have yet to truly understand the ideology. I have, as of yet, considered myself to be a Leninist-Marxist, but I may have to reconsider if this theory of Anarco-Communism if it is what some have said it is.

[Vahanian]

Anarcho-communists believe that the community should be the basis of society and is the communal ownership of means of production and of consumption. They also consider the abolition of money to be essential in an anarchist society. They also agree that, in the end, society would be run along the lines suggested by the maxim, "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."

this should probbly help you too http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secAcon.html

[LeninBalls]

Basically, communism in theory, anarchism in practise.

[Comrade Corwin]

I suppose what I'd really like to know is what make "regular" communism and anarcho-communism different?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I am an Anarchist Communist. We differ from the state communist perspective of course as we are Anarchist. We see not only class but the state as an important aspect to ensure social hierarchy therefore we disagree with the Leninist view of centralisation. We want a gift economy instead of state imposed distribution of wealth. A gift economy means each person participates in production as they wish without immediate renumeration instead each person can take what they need from a community store when they need it.

To sum up your previous question. What makes the two different is hard to answer. Of course the ultimate aim of Marxism was Anarchism. So no difference in that case but maybe you mean State communism. Of course the difference one is the abscence of the state in my philosophy. So Anarchist Communism would mean horizontal structures of organisation put in place instead of hierarchial ones ala state communism.

[Tjis]

anarcho-communism means that we want a communist society, but we don't want to use the state to get it. Instead of focusing on creating a socialist state as some kind of transition between capitalism and communism, as leninist do, we focus on creating a communist society right away.
From day one of the revolution we would get rid of all authority. All organisations which are created during the revolution reflect this. There would be no central party telling others what to do, but there would be hierarchyless federations in which everyone is truely equal.

Leninists (and Trotskyists and Maoists, etc) also want communism in the end obviously, but before that they want to establish a socialist state. In this state a minority of the working class become the new leaders, which pretty much means a new class of bureaucrats is created. To anarchists, this seems totally counterproductive. It makes no sense to create a new class if you want a classless society.

EDIT: if you mean communism as the end goal of marxism, then anarcho-communism is exactly that. The difference is completely in the means to achieve that goal.

[Idealism]

Going off of what others said its the communalization of production and product based off of "to each according to their own need" mixed with the libertarian ideas of free agreement and volunteerism
We also belive that the community is the basis of society
I suggest you read the book "the conquest of bread" by peter kropotkin

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I suppose what I'd really like to know is what make "regular" communism and anarcho-communism different?

The main difference concerns whether the society created after the revolution will be based on "to each according to their contribution" or "to each according to their need." Ignore all the talk about the state.

[Vincent P.]

I suggest you read the book "the conquest of bread" by peter kropotkin
God bless him. I started reading it a few days ago, and I'm happily surprised.

[LOLseph Stalin]

My understanding is: Anarcho-communism opposes all hierarchies, including political, economic and social hierarchy. Any hierarchy needs to be justified, if not, needs to be dismantled. The burden of justification of hierarchy rests on those in power.


You might want to read this: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

Being against all forms of authority is actually quite contradictory. There will always be some kind of authority in everything although you're talking in the literal sense of the absense of state authority. :)

[Tjis]

The main difference concerns whether the society created after the revolution will be based on "to each according to their contribution" or "to each according to their need." Ignore all the talk about the state.
No, both Marx and anarchists say that communism is "to each according to their need".
Which is why Soviet Russia and such still claimed to be within the revolution, as in, "to each according to their need" would come in the future.

The talk about the state should not be ignored for this reason. For leninists, the state is the tool they want to use to achieve communism (to each according to their need), while anarchists see the state as something that will prevent us from doing so.

[nuisance]

You might want to read this: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

Being against all forms of authority is actually quite contradictory. There will always be some kind of authority in everything although you're talking in the literal sense of the absense of state authority. :)
Ah, that poor commonly used strawman argument! Anarchist aren't 'against all authority', only illegitimate authority and the institutionalisation of it in society. We are for, as Bakunin put it, 'rational authority', the sort that is natural and consentful. Opposed to the authority thrust upon the masses to protect capitalist interests, creating hierarchical institutions and mentalities.

[Blackscare]

For me the main difference between anarchists and marxists of all stripes is the concept of the transitional period, where, the marxists insist, the state should be used to facilitate the move towards communism and eventually wither away when it has outlived it's usefulness to society. Anarchists disagree on this point because in our oppinion, it's obvious that states have never shown a tendancy to wither away of their own accord and that the state is not an effective way of organising a revolutionary society with an eye towards fast and effective creation of a communist society.


I'm working on a rather large essay right now in which I try to demonstrate the possible form/practices a modern anarchist revolution may follow, and illustrate in detail (for once lol) a model of what a stable, post revolution society might look like as far as social relations within cities, towns, agricultural areas, and how these spheres would interact with eachother. Then I'm going to try to address issues such as crime, currency, international trade, and insuring that everyone who is able must contribute through non-authoritarian means. This is all hypothetical stuff I've been thinking on for quite a while now, a few things I may even venture to say might well be totally new. In general though, it is supposed to provide a blueprint of the particulars of anarchist society in modern terms that we lack, or at least demonstrate that it's possible and anarchist revolution isn't some blind wild bet that things will work out according to plan without a clear idea of what is to be done. For that reason some might say it's authoritarian, because it's going to try to define a very complex and exact system, but it's only as an example of what could arise.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

No, both Marx and anarchists say that communism is "to each according to their need".
Which is why Soviet Russia and such still claimed to be within the revolution, as in, "to each according to their need" would come in the future.

The talk about the state should not be ignored for this reason. For leninists, the state is the tool they want to use to achieve communism (to each according to their need), while anarchists see the state as something that will prevent us from doing so.

Marxists call for a society based on "to each according to their contribution" after the revolution, with "to each according to their needs" reserved for a future where "work has become lifes prime want." Either one would be considered communist from a Marxist view.

The talk about the state should be ignored because it's usually rubbish based on misunderstanding the Marxist definition of the state.


For me the main difference between anarchists and marxists of all stripes is the concept of the transitional period, where, the marxists insist, the state should be used to facilitate the move towards communism and eventually wither away when it has outlived it's usefulness to society. Anarchists disagree on this point because in our oppinion, it's obvious that states have never shown a tendancy to wither away of their own accord and that the state is not an effective way of organising a revolutionary society with an eye towards fast and effective creation of a communist society.

I wouldn't expect you to be posting things like that after you'd admitted that differences concerning the state were just a result of Bakunin twisting Marx's words... Either way, you totally fail to understand what the idea of the state withering away means.


I would say that to expect a person of absolute power to step down by themselves and allow for abolition of power is inherently utopian.

And which "authoritarian communists" around here are advocating giving a single person absolute power?

[Tjis]

The talk about the state should be ignored because it's usually rubbish based on misunderstanding the Marxist definition of the state.
I'm not saying that the marxist definition of a state is incompatible with anarchism. I don't know enough about marxism for that.
I'm saying that the leninist implementation of this worker's state is incompatible with anarchism. So even though anarchists might not differ that much (or maybe even not at all) from some marxists, we're still a world away from leninists.

[Blackscare]

First of all, SoB, I was just explaining the anarchist view of that issue, I wasn't attacking anyone. So get over yourself and your stupid anti-Bakuninist bullshit. As if all of anarchist thought started and ended with Bakunin :rolleyes:

The differences concerning the state are indeed valid, like I said in the thread you're resurrecting from the grave, Bakunin simply went about making his points in the wrong way. I'm not going to rehash all of that ancient Marx vs Bakunin childish back and forth nonsense here though. So if there's no difference like you claim, or whatever you claim since you don't seem to be articulating anything clearly besides how bad Bakunin was, is Marxism then just anarchism or vice versa? And if so why would you show such hatred for your comrades? The state is the defining feature of Anarchism vs Marxism, we disagree on the necesity of the state.

You seem to be so brainwashed that you think that anyone who objects to the state simply didn't understand Marx well enough (or else we'd all certainly be convinced! :rolleyes:), you can't comprehend that despite all the happy horse shit you like to dress your ideology up in, there might be some people who are still unconvinced that it will work out as you plan it to. No alternate ideas are acceptable to you, and while that's a common enough feature of leftists, the problem with you is that you don't shut up about it. I don't give a fuck if Bakunin made too big a deal about the DotP or not, or created the term himself, because the problems I have with coercive state institutions can't be fixed with the formulation of some better type of state. Marx advocated a STATE, that is my problem with Marxism. My problem with states is that they all are inherently oppressive, prone to degeneration, and against the interests of the working class (to put it very basically, of course there are reasons for this belief, but that's for another thread). It doesn't matter to what degree you envision this state having power, or how you structure that power, every state in recorded history is proof that they will inevitably stray from whatever good ideals and become corrupt.

Most anarchist thought does not focus on the DotP specifically, but seeks to point out that no state can be formulated that will defy what we see as the state's basic nature, the imposition of will and the tendancy to nurture within it a caste of ruling elite, a tendancy that is present no matter what form of government is used, and is only hastened by the creation of parties.

I don't know what your fucking problem is with anarchists making the point of where they differ from Marxists clear, you annoying control freak. I know you disagree with my position because you believe Marx's "true" teachings (as opposed to Bakunin's accurate predictions that none the less did not represent Marx's intentions, granted) are beyond question, but that doesn't give you the right to jump down my throat any time I try to explain my point of view to someone. You can state simple features of a school of thought without getting into a big debate about it every goddamn time.

Maybe I don't have the sage wisdom on the withering of the state, as you do SoB, but lets not forget that neither has anybody that's ever tried a "marxist" revolution, either.

[Blackscare]

The Leninist distinction is a good one, I certainly have more of an issue with that than pure Marxism, but to assume that every objection to Marxism is just the dirty anarchists being too stupid to understand Marx is arrogant and foolish.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

First of all, SoB, I was just explaining the anarchist view of that issue, I wasn't attacking anyone. So get over yourself and your stupid anti-Bakuninist bullshit. As if all of anarchist thought started and ended with Bakunin :rolleyes:

You were explaining the anarchist view as different from the Marxist view because of the state. I pointed out that this difference does not exist, but is based on a misunderstanding of the Marxist definition of the state. We've went over this enough in various threads for you to understand it, yet you continue to propagate this sectarian argument based on a non-existent difference. This split was caused by Bakunin.


The differences concerning the state are indeed valid, like I said in the thread you're resurrecting from the grave, Bakunin simply went about making his points in the wrong way. I'm not going to rehash all of that ancient Marx vs Bakunin childish back and forth nonsense here though. So if there's no difference like you claim, or whatever you claim since you don't seem to be articulating anything clearly besides how bad Bakunin was, is Marxism then just anarchism or vice versa? And if so why would you show such hatred for your comrades? The state is the defining feature of Anarchism vs Marxism, we disagree on the necesity of the state. No, they are not valid, because they are based on a misunderstanding of the Marxist definition of the state. As I said in should leftists unite thread, unless anarchists don't plan on putting the workers in power and organizing them for the suppression of the capitalists, then they will indeed establish a state in the Marxist sense of the word, so your talk about disagreeing on the necessity of the state is incorrect. You act like every time someone criticizes what you're saying they hate you and are attacking you. I'm trying to show that the split over the issue of the state is just based on Marxists attributing a different meaning to the word state than anarchists do. You are apparently too heard headed to understand this.


You seem to be so brainwashed that you think that anyone who objects to the state simply didn't understand Marx well enough (or else we'd all certainly be convinced! :rolleyes:), you can't comprehend that despite all the happy horse shit you like to dress your ideology up in, there might be some people who are still unconvinced that it will work out as you plan it to.I'm not trying to convince people to be Marxists, I'm showing that it's not the issue of the state that is the dividing line between Marxists and Anarchists.


No alternate ideas are acceptable to you, and while that's a common enough feature of leftists, the problem with you is that you don't shut up about it. I don't give a fuck if Bakunin made too big a deal about the DotP or not, or created the term himself, because the problems I have with coercive state institutions can't be fixed with the formulation of some better type of state. Marx advocated a STATE, that is my problem with Marxism. My problem with states is that they all are inherently oppressive, prone to degeneration, and against the interests of the working class (to put it very basically, of course there are reasons for this belief, but that's for another thread). It doesn't matter to what degree you envision this state having power, or how you structure that power, every state in recorded history is proof that they will inevitably stray from whatever good ideals and become corrupt.
The problem with you is that when someone points out your mistakes you are too stubborn and arrogant to not repeat them again and must go on a long childish rant about me being some authoritarian that hates anarchists and attacks their views because I can't accept them. Anarchists would establish a STATE, in the Marxist sense, whether you recognize it as such or not.


I don't know what your fucking problem is with anarchists making the point of where they differ from Marxists clear, you annoying control freak.I don't have a problem with anarchists differing from Marxists. You seem to think I'm trying to turn people into Marxists or statists. I'm simply trying to show that the split over the issue of the state was based on false pretenses. Why you would want to maintain that with sectarian arguments is beyond me.


I know you disagree with my position because you believe Marx's "true" teachings (as opposed to Bakunin's accurate predictions that none the less did not represent Marx's intentions, granted) are beyond question, but that doesn't give you the right to jump down my throat any time I try to explain my point of view to someone. You can state simple features of a school of thought without getting into a big debate about it every goddamn time.I'm not attacking your views at all. I'm pointing out the inaccuracy of the idea that Marx used the word state in the same way that you did. That is not an attack on your views. Do you see me attacking decentralization or the anarchist views on authority? No.


Maybe I don't have the sage wisdom on the withering of the state, as you do SoB, but lets not forget that neither has anybody that's ever tried a "marxist" revolution, either.That doesn't even make sense.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The Leninist distinction is a good one, I certainly have more of an issue with that than pure Marxism, but to assume that every objection to Marxism is just the dirty anarchists being too stupid to understand Marx is arrogant and foolish.

I didn't say anyone was stupid, I just said they don't realize that Marx used the word state in a different way than Anarchists due. That has nothing to do with stupidity, nor "every objection to Marxism," just objections concerning the workers state.

Honestly, is there something wrong with me trying to show that one of the reasons that Anarchists are against Marxists is based on false pretenses?!


That was just a way of speaking. I was suggesting that giving absolute power to a party in the hope that they will dissolve that power themselves is utopian.

Of course it is. That has nothing to do with Marxism.

[Tjis]

SoB, sure, maybe an anarcho-communist society could be called a state according to marxism, but that doesn't mean all states that could (and have been) implemented according to marxism will be (and have been) anarcho-communist. And that's the main issue here.

Even if anarcho-communist societies are really just Marxist states, that doesn't suddenly make all of us Marxists. The difference lies in our analysis.
Marxists divide classes based on their relation to the means of production. Anarchists divide classes based on their power over others.
So to anarcho-communists, creating a leninist state in which a vanguard party has seized control of the state in order to coordinate production and various other things is unacceptable, while this is still a valid worker's state according to marxism, though not a worker's state all marxists would agree with of course.

So even if the end result might be the same, we're still anarchists and not marxists.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

SoB, sure, maybe an anarcho-communist society could be called a state according to marxism, but that doesn't mean all states that could (and have been) implemented according to marxism will be (and have been) anarcho-communist. And that's the main issue here.

Anarcho-communist society wouldn't be a state in the Marxist sense. The period between the smashing of the capitalist state and the establishment of a anarcho-communist society would be a state.

I never said Anarchist would somehow magically be Marxists if not for this. I pointed out in previous posts that other views, for example views on renumeration after the revolution, seperate Marxists from anarchists. I was only trying to show that the view on the state is not one of these views.

Anyway, for anyone interested, these couple of lines demonstrate the extent of the difference between Bakunin and Marx on the idea of the state:


Bakunin: If there is a state, then there is unavoidably domination, and consequently slavery. Domination without slavery, open or veiled, is unthinkable -- this is why we are enemies of the state.
What does it mean, the proletariat organized as ruling class? (the workers state)

Marx: It means that the proletariat, instead of struggling sectionally against the economically privileged class, has attained a sufficient strength and organization to employ general means of coercion in this struggle. It can however only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat, hence as class. With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared.
From these lines we see that Marx understood a state to be one class organized as the ruling class. As the proletariat attacks the power of private property, it also attacks the basis for the existence of classes. Once private property is abolished, so are classes, and since a state is defined as one class organized as the ruling class, then obviously a state cannot exist in a classless society, and so the state ceases to exist. That is the withering away of the state.




Bakunin: The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?
Marx: Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.
Bakunin: The whole people will govern, and there will be no governed. Marx: If a man rules himself, he does not do so on this principle, for he is after all himself and no other.
Bakunin: Then there will be no government and no state, but if there is a state, there will be both governors and slaves.
Marx: i.e. only if class rule has disappeared, and there is no state in the present political sense.These lines show that in Marx's conception we have democratic rule and to Bakunin democratic rule means the state does not exist.

here's the whole text: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

[Tjis]

From these lines we see that Marx understood a state to be one class organized as the ruling class. As the proletariat attacks the power of private property, it also attack basis for the existence of classes. Once private property is abolished, so are classes, and since a state is defined as one class organized as the ruling class, then obviously a state cannot exist in a classless society, and so the state ceases to exist. That is the withering away of the state.
I must disagree.
Imagine that the leninists are victorious all over the world. Even though private property would be abolished everywhere, there would still be a class society. The upper class being the party government, the lower class everyone else. How would this upper class wither away?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I must disagree.
Imagine that the leninists are victorious all over the world. Even though private property would be abolished everywhere, there would still be a class society. The upper class being the party government, the lower class everyone else. How would this upper class wither away?

Why do you always bring up Leninists when we're talking about Marx's ideas? It's almost as bad as Hal Draper bringing up how Proudhon despised democracy as a way to attack anarchism. Obviously if you have an upper class that controls the property and a lower class that doesn't..then you have private property.

[Tjis]

Why do you always bring up Leninists when we're talking about Marx's ideas? It's almost as bad as Hal Draper bringing up how Proudhon despised democracy as a way to attack anarchism. Obviously if you have an upper class that controls the property and a lower class that doesn't..then you have private property.
Leninism in various forms is the most prominent kind marxism around today. I'm not aware of any anarcho-mutualists still in existence though.

That aside, my argument was against marxism, using leninism as an example. Marxism focuses on relation to the means of production, not how much power a class posesses. So a state in which some workers rule all other workers would still be a valid worker's state. I'm not saying this is a model all Marxists would agree with, but I'm saying that marxism does include these kinds of states as well. And these kinds of states are clearly not compatible with anarcho-communism.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Marxism focuses on relation to the means of production, not how much power a class posesses. So a state in which some workers rule all other workers would still be a valid worker's state. I'm not saying this is a model all Marxists would agree with, but I'm saying that marxism does include these kinds of states as well. And these kinds of states are clearly not compatible with anarcho-communism.And how do some workers rule all other workers without having a different relation to the means of production?

[Tjis]

And how do some workers rule all other workers without having a different relation to the means of production?
Well this would be leninism. So leninism is not marxism according to you?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Well this would be leninism. So leninism is not marxism according to you?

That's not an answer, and I'm sure there are quite a few Leninists who would disagree with the views you are attributing to them. Your example of a system where the party constitutes a new upper class that controls the means of production while the workers themselves have no input would obviously not be a DotP as Marx described.

[Tjis]

That's not an answer, and I'm sure there are quite a few Leninists who would disagree with the views you are attributing to them. Your example of a system where the party constitutes a new upper class that controls the means of production while the workers themselves have no input would obviously not be a DotP as Marx described.
Fact is that in soviet russia there was a party that ruled, and a (part of the) working class that didn't. Even if a leninist manages to explain this in a way so that it's compatible with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat idea, it would still be incompatible with anarcho-communism.
So either leninists aren't marxists, or marxism isn't entirely compatible with anarcho-communism.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Fact is that in soviet russia there was a party that ruled, and a (part of the) working class that didn't. Even if a leninist manages to explain this in a way so that it's compatible with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat idea, it would still be incompatible with anarcho-communism.
So either leninists aren't marxists, or marxism isn't entirely compatible with anarcho-communism.

Then party that ruled had ownership of the means of production, while the working class didn't, meaning your argument that one part of the working class ruled another without having different relations to the means of production is incorrect. A Leninist doesn't have to explain it in a way that shows that this situation wouldn't be a workers state because Marx has already told us so in the quotes I posted. You're also forgetting an option: the situations you're posting have nothing to do with Leninism either.

In On Authority, Engels said "Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction." I think it is fairly obvious that you fall into that first category. Your posts are becoming inconsistent and confused.

[Tjis]

Oh come on. Are you saying now that soviet russia wasn't lead by a vanguard party? that the bolsheviks didn't take control of the state during the october revolution?
You're saying there wasn't a planned economy with a hierarchy where people at the top told people below them what should be produced in what timespan? The 5 year plans were all just capitalist propaganda?

So either leninists aren't marxists, or perhaps the dictatorship of the proletariat can mean lots of things, many of which totally incompatible with anarcho-communism.

You can quote Marx and Engels all you like, it doesn't matter. Even if their ideas were 100% compatible with anarcho-communism, those calling themselves Marxists right now usually have ideas that aren't. Again, either those people aren't marxists, or your definition of marxism is wrong.

[Blackscare]

Here, I'll try to lay down exactly why I believe we really do have different ideas about the state.

My problem with the Marxist conception of the state is that it couldn't serve a practical purpose that wouldn't already inherently be achieved with a principled revolt against the capitalist state, as I'll argue below. It is precisely because of this that I believe the Marxist state must inevitably turn to illegitimate uses of it's power.


The Marxist belief is that after the capitalist classes have been defeated militarily, and their state is crushed, there remains the need for active suppression of the capitalists. This suppression then, rather than some Leninist party-state, is what to Marx constituted the "state". This need to suppress implies that after the state of the capitalists has been abolished there remains the threat of private property, thus the worker's "hacking at the roots" of capitalism. I think this is a pretty accurate description, yes?

Here I'm going to list the major ways in which capitalists oppress and explain why I believe the negation of the state is sufficient at neutralizing them.

Force:
The distinction that I draw is that while Marx seems to imply that the workers will need to wield some sort of authority for a time after the fighting is over in order to dismantle private property, anarchists claim that the only thing needed is the negation of the state and expropriation will follow. The moment the state and it's military ceases to be, there is no more method for former capitalists to enforce property. This is because the state is a tool of domination used by small elite classes to subordinate the masses with intermediary strata of police, military, and various functionaries. Capitalists could not exercise power over the masses without a state because as a class they are small in numbers and weak, they are nothing without their supporting state. So with the abolishment of their state, their ability to impose their will is broken without the creation of another.

Wealth:
It is important also to mention that wealth in terms of currency or gold is useless to the capitalists as leverage in a revolutionary society that does not use money or gold for transactions. It's impossible to hire people to tend your estate or guard your property and fight for you if the currency you intend to pay them with is useless, and who would work in the fields of a capitalist for a wage when on the principle of usufruct (in the sense that you have a right to occupy land as long as you directly put it to use) any unused land is open for taking? States regulate and render valid currency so of course that isn't even an option, and gold is of no value in an economy based on free exchange without a market. There simply isn't anything that you could use it to buy that you wouldn't have access to anyway. Even in the confusion of the early days of revolutionary society when there are bound to be some levels of shortage, gold will not be able to even buy extra rations of basic provisions that "fell off the back of the truck" so to speak because black markets exist on the basis of converting illicit goods into wealth that can be used in the every day world, so when the "normal" market is gone, so is the black market. I didn't want to leave any holes I could think of in my wealth argument, so I included gold, but honestly speaking gold hasn't been used like a direct currency in quite a long time, so it's unlikely that the wealthy would even physically posses much precious metal of any kind, leaving nothing to the former capitalists but totally useless paper. So even here, in the case of accumulated capitalist wealth, there is no effective advantage enjoyed by former capitalists because their "wealth" has no concrete value, it is not in the form of items that would render them better able to produce or wield power over the workers. Again we see that the nature of events, not state power, is what will uproot capitalism.


Barter, the final alternate option to communist exchange, is itself much less efficient than simply entering into an agreement with a town, city, or other entity to give them your crops in exchange for open access to goods, services, and utilities. To choose to barter in that circumstance can only serve to sell oneself short because it is the exchange of one commodity for another, finite commodity rather than guaranteed access to whatever you may need. It couldn't serve a modern person's myriad needs and is thus not a viable threat to pure communist exchange.



Land inequality:
Considering that capitalist land owners of course "own" more land than they could work themselves, and there is no state to keep people off of this unused land like there previously was, expropriation of land and thus the end of private property is the natural next step. The capitalist's large amount of land, probably the best suited to growing crops and in any case ready for use without any conversion, will obviously be the first land occupied by independent or collective farmers, thus naturally ending material inequality without the need of a state because the former capitalist is reduced to a reasonable amount of land that he can work himself.

Corporations owning factories are far less complex enemies than even this, since it's a matter of workers occupying the factory after revolt and running it themselves, there isn't even in this case the dividing up of land as in the case of agriculture.



Conclusion:

Here we see that the abolishment of the state and the implementation of a gift economy effectively destroy the capitalist class. It renders accumulated wealth useless, it eliminates the ability to use force effectively, and it breaks the monopoly on land. In other words, everything that makes a capitalist a capitalist is stripped away through nothing more than a positive change in the social structure (and revolt), without the need for active class suppression.


Following this logic, anarchists can see no use in establishing any sort of state, even in the Marxist sense of the dismantlement of private property, because this is inherently accomplished when the previous state is destroyed. For this reason, even the comparably benign Marxist state is viewed with suspicion, because if it's not really needed to suppress capitalists as is believed, and a state certainly isn't the best method for the positive restructuring of production, it's existence is unjustified. Seeing that it is not needed, it can only lead to the abuse of power to create any state at all.




I hope that made it clear why I oppose the state in even the Marxist sense of the word. Because I believe that the former capitalist class does not pose a significant threat to the social fabric of a revolutionary society, even the Marxist idea of the state is to me a bad idea. Of course I didn't have time to include an entire picture of what society would look like, so if you see a problem or want to know why I think x would happen rather than y, just ask.

[Rise Against]

I think people should stop referring to society after the revolution as "The State". Both anarchists and communists both believe in the abolition of the state.
Sorry, but i find it quite annoying. Patriotic Nationalism is the tool of the capitalists. :lol:

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think people should stop referring to society after the revolution as "The State". Both anarchists and communists both believe in the abolition of the state.
Sorry, but i find it quite annoying. Patriotic Nationalism is the tool of the capitalists. :lol:

Yeah I don't like that. I never use it. I always say in the Anarchist society.

In response to BlackScare's post. I think that is a fair way to evaluate the state. I agree with you I think main difference between us and the Marxists is that they advocate this 'transition' where the state will act to suppress Capitalists. This is one of the main flaws in Marxist theory in my opinion. Any workers state which originally had good intentions (although most have been frighteningly authoritarian and suppressive regimes) has mutated into something that reconstitutes class and recreates bourgeois society that we both want to crush.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

No idea why you are stuck with Bakunin, who did not advocate Anarcho-communism. Read Kropotkin, if you want anarcho-communism. Bakunin's was collectivist anarchism.

Bakunin caused the split over the issue of the state. Kropotkin perpetuated it.


If you are saying that Lenin, who was the one who truly developed the idea of an enlightened minority to rule over the proletariat, had deviated to the right from Marxism, then I would agree with you. I have not read up on Marx enough to know if he advocated a vanguard or not.:)Marx did not advocate an enlightened minority ruling over the proletariat.



My problem with the Marxist conception of the state is that it couldn't serve a practical purpose that wouldn't already inherently be achieved with a principled revolt against the capitalist state, as I'll argue below. It is precisely because of this that I believe the Marxist state must inevitably turn to illegitimate uses of it's power.We already established that Marx's idea of how the state should be structured was consistent with what Bakunin called statelessness, so I don't think It's necessary to respond to all of this, but I'll look more later.


The Marxist belief is that after the capitalist classes have been defeated militarily, and their state is crushed, there remains the need for active suppression of the capitalists. This suppression then, rather than some Leninist party-state, is what to Marx constituted the "state". This need to suppress implies that after the state of the capitalists has been abolished there remains the threat of private property, thus the worker's "hacking at the roots" of capitalism. I think this is a pretty accurate description, yes?

Marx and Engels believe all of the economy couldn't be taken from the capitalists at once.


I think people should stop referring to society after the revolution as "The State". Both anarchists and communists both believe in the abolition of the state.
Sorry, but i find it quite annoying. Patriotic Nationalism is the tool of the capitalists. :lol:

If a state exists, the revolution isn't complete.

[Pogue]

The anarcho-communist approach could be seen as that the 'socialist' stage where there is not pure communism is part of the revolution, whereas most Leninist forms of communism ar emore inclined to consolidate workers power in a workers state and consider thus the revolution complete and a new stage beginning, in which the state withers away as it hands power over to communal councils. With anarchism, the immediate revolutionary and post-revolutionary form of organisation will not be a state, but organised on a more decentralised, federalised basis.

They would thus immediately post-revolution organise the workers into a decentralised form without a state whereas as Leninists favour a state, either a solid, centralised one or a workers state which as more centralisation than anarchism but still gains its authority from below, i.e. local assemblies, which is I believe the position of Trotskyists such as the SWP although I may be mistaken.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Here, I'll try to lay down exactly why I believe we really do have different ideas about the state.

My problem with the Marxist conception of the state is that it couldn't serve a practical purpose that wouldn't already inherently be achieved with a principled revolt against the capitalist state, as I'll argue below. It is precisely because of this that I believe the Marxist state must inevitably turn to illegitimate uses of it's power.


The Marxist belief is that after the capitalist classes have been defeated militarily, and their state is crushed, there remains the need for active suppression of the capitalists. This suppression then, rather than some Leninist party-state, is what to Marx constituted the "state". This need to suppress implies that after the state of the capitalists has been abolished there remains the threat of private property, thus the worker's "hacking at the roots" of capitalism. I think this is a pretty accurate description, yes?

Here I'm going to list the major ways in which capitalists oppress and explain why I believe the negation of the state is sufficient at neutralizing them.

Force:
The distinction that I draw is that while Marx seems to imply that the workers will need to wield some sort of authority for a time after the fighting is over in order to dismantle private property, anarchists claim that the only thing needed is the negation of the state and expropriation will follow. The moment the state and it's military ceases to be, there is no more method for former capitalists to enforce property. This is because the state is a tool of domination used by small elite classes to subordinate the masses with intermediary strata of police, military, and various functionaries. Capitalists could not exercise power over the masses without a state because as a class they are small in numbers and weak, they are nothing without their supporting state. So with the abolishment of their state, their ability to impose their will is broken without the creation of another.

Wealth:
It is important also to mention that wealth in terms of currency or gold is useless to the capitalists as leverage in a revolutionary society that does not use money or gold for transactions. It's impossible to hire people to tend your estate or guard your property and fight for you if the currency you intend to pay them with is useless, and who would work in the fields of a capitalist for a wage when on the principle of usufruct (in the sense that you have a right to occupy land as long as you directly put it to use) any unused land is open for taking? States regulate and render valid currency so of course that isn't even an option, and gold is of no value in an economy based on free exchange without a market. There simply isn't anything that you could use it to buy that you wouldn't have access to anyway. Even in the confusion of the early days of revolutionary society when there are bound to be some levels of shortage, gold will not be able to even buy extra rations of basic provisions that "fell off the back of the truck" so to speak because black markets exist on the basis of converting illicit goods into wealth that can be used in the every day world, so when the "normal" market is gone, so is the black market. I didn't want to leave any holes I could think of in my wealth argument, so I included gold, but honestly speaking gold hasn't been used like a direct currency in quite a long time, so it's unlikely that the wealthy would even physically posses much precious metal of any kind, leaving nothing to the former capitalists but totally useless paper. So even here, in the case of accumulated capitalist wealth, there is no effective advantage enjoyed by former capitalists because their "wealth" has no concrete value, it is not in the form of items that would render them better able to produce or wield power over the workers. Again we see that the nature of events, not state power, is what will uproot capitalism.


Barter, the final alternate option to communist exchange, is itself much less efficient than simply entering into an agreement with a town, city, or other entity to give them your crops in exchange for open access to goods, services, and utilities. To choose to barter in that circumstance can only serve to sell oneself short because it is the exchange of one commodity for another, finite commodity rather than guaranteed access to whatever you may need. It couldn't serve a modern person's myriad needs and is thus not a viable threat to pure communist exchange.



Land inequality:
Considering that capitalist land owners of course "own" more land than they could work themselves, and there is no state to keep people off of this unused land like there previously was, expropriation of land and thus the end of private property is the natural next step. The capitalist's large amount of land, probably the best suited to growing crops and in any case ready for use without any conversion, will obviously be the first land occupied by independent or collective farmers, thus naturally ending material inequality without the need of a state because the former capitalist is reduced to a reasonable amount of land that he can work himself.

Corporations owning factories are far less complex enemies than even this, since it's a matter of workers occupying the factory after revolt and running it themselves, there isn't even in this case the dividing up of land as in the case of agriculture.



Conclusion:

Here we see that the abolishment of the state and the implementation of a gift economy effectively destroy the capitalist class. It renders accumulated wealth useless, it eliminates the ability to use force effectively, and it breaks the monopoly on land. In other words, everything that makes a capitalist a capitalist is stripped away through nothing more than a positive change in the social structure (and revolt), without the need for active class suppression.


Following this logic, anarchists can see no use in establishing any sort of state, even in the Marxist sense of the dismantlement of private property, because this is inherently accomplished when the previous state is destroyed. For this reason, even the comparably benign Marxist state is viewed with suspicion, because if it's not really needed to suppress capitalists as is believed, and a state certainly isn't the best method for the positive restructuring of production, it's existence is unjustified. Seeing that it is not needed, it can only lead to the abuse of power to create any state at all.




I hope that made it clear why I oppose the state in even the Marxist sense of the word. Because I believe that the former capitalist class does not pose a significant threat to the social fabric of a revolutionary society, even the Marxist idea of the state is to me a bad idea. Of course I didn't have time to include an entire picture of what society would look like, so if you see a problem or want to know why I think x would happen rather than y, just ask.

Because revolutions are always this easy, and control of the economy by workers can be established overnight, right? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_civil_war) And capitalists are the only class that controls property, right? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak#Dekulakization)

Your arguments all back up the idea that the state "is not needed" and "it can only lead to the abuse of power to create any state at all." This shows that you have still not grasped what I've been saying about the workers state. As noted above, this state isn't even a state in the way that Bakunin defines state. By viewing the workers state with suspicion, you are viewing what Bakunin called statelessness with suspicion.

"Immediately after established governments have been overthrown, communes will have to reorganise themselves along revolutionary lines . . . In order to defend the revolution, their volunteers will at the same time form a communal militia. But no commune can defend itself in isolation. So it will be necessary to radiate revolution outward, to raise all of its neighbouring communes in revolt . . . and to federate with them for common defence."

"the Alliance of all labour associations . . . will constitute the Commune . . . there will be a standing federation of the barricades and a Revolutionary Communal Council . . . [made up of] delegates . . . invested with binding mandates and accountable and revocable at all times . . . all provinces, communes and associations . . . [will] delegate deputies to an agreed place of assembly (all . . . invested with binding mandated and accountable and subject to recall), in order to found the federation of insurgent associations, communes and provinces . . . and to organise a revolutionary force with the capacity of defeating the reaction . . . it is through the very act of extrapolation and organisation of the Revolution with an eye to the mutual defences of insurgent areas that the universality of the Revolution . . . will emerge triumphant."

Do you disagree with these conceptions of the DotP?

[Blackscare]

Because revolutions are always this easy, and control of the economy by workers can be established overnight, right? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_civil_war) And capitalists are the only class that controls property, right? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak#Dekulakization)



Where did I say it would be overnight? In fact I clearly stated that everything I was talking about is in reference to the time directly AFTER military struggle has ended. And capitalist may not be a specific reference to Kulaks, granted, but Kulaks still conform to what I mentioned above. If they hire workers or have more land than they themselves can use, what I said still stands. And if they don't, I don't have a problem with them.


Not to mention the vast majority of the dekulakization by the Bolshies was utter bullshit in the first place. Actual Kulaks were eliminated quite quickly, and in order to further divide the peasantry and gain a base of support they quickly created "middle peasants" and various other subkulak imaginary classes to continue their demagogic campaign for support in the countryside. Besides a small, easily crushed class of Kulaks, there was little class division in the countryside, so the reds had to invent it in order to gain a toehold. Of course the peasants smashed their implements and killed animals rather than submit to forced poverty, I would have too. I only care about those that hire workers, rent, or have too much land to use. I don't want to force people to collectivise or punish them if they have 2 cows, which is what the majority of the "kulak" resistance was reacting to. The vast majority of the Kulak conflict was the result of the bungling of the bolshies.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Where did I say it would be overnight? In fact I clearly stated that everything I was talking about is in reference to the time directly AFTER military struggle has ended. And capitalist may not be a specific reference to Kulaks, granted, but Kulaks still conform to what I mentioned above. If they hire workers or have more land than they themselves can use, what I said still stands. And if they don't, I don't have a problem with them.

Unless you think economic control will be established as soon as political control is, then you are arguing for a state in the Marxist sense.


Not to mention the vast majority of the dekulakization by the Bolshies was utter bullshit in the first place. Actual Kulaks were eliminated quite quickly, and in order to further divide the peasantry and gain a base of support they quickly created "middle peasants" and various other subkulak imaginary classes to continue their demagogic campaign for support in the countryside. Besides a small, easily crushed class of Kulaks, there was little class division in the countryside, so the reds had to invent it in order to gain a toehold. Of course the peasants smashed their implements and killed animals rather than submit to forced poverty, I would have too. I only care about those that hire workers, rent, or have too much land to use. I don't want to force people to collectivise or punish them if they have 2 cows, which is what the majority of the "kulak" resistance was reacting to. The vast majority of the Kulak conflict was the result of the bungling of the bolshies.I just linked it to point out that capitalists aren't the only class that can fight the abolition of private property.

I'm interested in your opinion on the quotes I posted above.

[Blackscare]

And in response to the rest of what you said, those descriptions are of course valid during the period of revolt, but no, organized militias should not exist one moment longer than the fighting persists. In case of a new threat, these militias could of course re-form quickly along the same lines as before, but they do not need to remain active. Militias and federal military organization are a tool to be used if the commune/whatever is under direct attack, but if they exist as a consistent force I would be opposed to them. Standing armies are no good.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

And in response to the rest of what you said, those descriptions are of course valid during the period of revolt, but no, organized militias should not exist one moment longer than the fighting persists. In case of a new threat, these militias could of course re-form quickly along the same lines as before, but they do not need to remain active. Militias and federal military organization are a tool to be used if the commune/whatever is under direct attack, but if they exist as a consistent force I would be opposed to them. Standing armies are no good.

The state doesn't exist if the period of revolution is over. I mainly wondered if you would disagree with these organizations existing as workers states in between the capture of political power and the capture of economic power.

[Blackscare]

Unless you think economic control will be established as soon as political control is, then you are arguing for a state in the Marxist sense.

edited*

I am arguing that as soon as political control is seized (or rather, dismantled), the working classes have de facto economic control because the capitalist classes *can't enforce their economic models/resist communism *without a state in tact. The resistance of the "Kulaks" is not an exception because it would not have happened had there not been a divisive and frankly stupid policy imposed upon them from above. Of course it's not that simple, I think the whole Bolshie "solution" to the agrarian problem was flawed to begin with, but that's another thread.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I am arguing that as soon as political control is seized (or rather, dismantled), the working classes have de facto economic control because the capitalist classes *can't enforce their economic models/resist communism *without a state in tact.

I might agree with this if not for the massive amount of historical precedents telling me that this is wrong. I posted the link to the Russian Civil War for a reason.

[Blackscare]

I might agree with this if not for the massive amount of historical precedents telling me that this is wrong. I posted the link to the Russian Civil War for a reason.

Now it is you who is misunderstanding me. The Russian civil war is NOT an example of what I am talking about because it is a WAR. I am talking about after the political and MILITARY control of the country has been removed from the capitalist class, in other words post revolt.

And the Bolshies didn't exactly give up control of anything after the fight was over, either.

[Blackscare]

So I guess I should say after the state and their military has been crushed.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Now it is you who is misunderstanding me. The Russian civil war is NOT an example of what I am talking about because it is a WAR. I am talking about after the political and MILITARY control of the country has been removed from the capitalist class, in other words post revolt.

And the Bolshies didn't exactly give up control of anything after the fight was over, either.

And..post revolution would mean there would be not state in both of our definitions of the state, so it's not really relevant to the discussion.

"Immediately after established governments have been overthrown, communes will have to reorganise themselves along revolutionary lines . . . In order to defend the revolution, their volunteers will at the same time form a communal militia. But no commune can defend itself in isolation. So it will be necessary to radiate revolution outward, to raise all of its neighbouring communes in revolt . . . and to federate with them for common defence."

"the Alliance of all labour associations . . . will constitute the Commune . . . there will be a standing federation of the barricades and a Revolutionary Communal Council . . . [made up of] delegates . . . invested with binding mandates and accountable and revocable at all times . . . all provinces, communes and associations . . . [will] delegate deputies to an agreed place of assembly (all . . . invested with binding mandated and accountable and subject to recall), in order to found the federation of insurgent associations, communes and provinces . . . and to organise a revolutionary force with the capacity of defeating the reaction . . . it is through the very act of extrapolation and organisation of the Revolution with an eye to the mutual defences of insurgent areas that the universality of the Revolution . . . will emerge triumphant."

So again, do you agree with these structures acting as workers states until the revolution is complete?

[Comrade Corwin]

I wish to know of how anarchist-communists intend to keep a functioning society that protects its people if there is no socialism after this economic, social and political stage? I'm speaking of the the stage within the United States of America, as this is where I am from. Do you honestly think that the people of this nation are mentally prepared to be completely released from all forms of authority at this time?

[Comrade Corwin]

Also, I founded this discussion and if you intend to have back and forth conversation like this make it a private conversation and then please post your findings from the conclusion of your discussion in this topic to be seen by those also discussing this subject. Otherwise you are taking up way too much space and alienate anyone else who wants to actively participate. I wish to avoid any two party discussions here if I can!

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I wish to know of how anarchist-communists intend to keep a functioning society that protects its people if there is no socialism after this economic, social and political stage? I'm speaking of the the stage within the United States of America, as this is where I am from. Do you honestly think that the people of this nation are mentally prepared to be completely released from all forms of authority at this time?

Obviously Anarcho-Communism could not come about unless the people wanted it.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Our role as Anarcho-Communists isn't to sit back and wait until people are ready for revolution, in a period of low class-consciousness and relative stability our mission is to agitate. Unlike most leftists we don't fetishise workplace agitation either, we give equal weight to both community and industrial agitation.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Our role as Anarcho-Communists isn't to sit back and wait until people are ready for revolution, in a period of low class-consciousness and relative stability our mission is to agitate. Unlike most leftists we don't fetishise workplace agitation either, we give equal weight to both community and industrial agitation.

Of course, the next few months and this year could be important to our movement.

[Blackscare]

Our role as Anarcho-Communists isn't to sit back and wait until people are ready for revolution, in a period of low class-consciousness and relative stability our mission is to agitate. Unlike most leftists we don't fetishise workplace agitation either, we give equal weight to both community and industrial agitation.


Yea, what he was saying though was that obviously at the point that revolution has been achieved the working class would have had to have attained class consciousness. And yes, as anarchists we need more than any other group to insure that the working class is prepared for revolution and what that entails before it is ever attempted, because there will be no one there to subordinate them and make them fall in line.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Bakunin and Kropotkin didn't drop from the air. They had historical predecessors like Proudhon. Proudhon and Bakunin did not advocate communism, but other forms of organization. It was Kropotkin who advocated communism, which to me doesn't seem much different from what statist communists advocate. He criticized the representative government and wages system that collectivists had advocated and instead advocated "from each according to his ability to each according to his need".

I think there are key differences. The state communists seem to want to assimilate the worker to a work ethic and they do not take into account the idea of individual freedom at all, this is sacrificed for 'the will of the people'. In Kropotkin's theory both collective equality and individual freedom are taken into account and Kropotkin's theory seeks to free the worker from the work ethic.

[Comrade Corwin]

Well, like the camp Wo-Chi-Ca, which admitted to have had Leninist-Marxist communist influence, they taught both individual freedoms as well as group freedoms. To focus on others as well as yourself. Some systems have focussed on one more and neglected the other, but I do not believe a real communist would.

Also, I'm sure if that nobody still believes that the communist stage is a centralized government of any type, except for the Stalinists maybe.

Also, one thing that I want clerified. How do anarcho-communists intend on "agitating" the working class into class-conciousness? Are we talking nihilist terrorism or something along the lines of lobbying (I doubt the latter).

[Poison]

In practice, authoritarian socialists have proven more than willing to unjustly strengthen their power, by giving various excuses, instead of stepping down from it. That is what anarchists had warned from long.

I would say that to expect a person of absolute power to step down by themselves and allow for abolition of power is inherently utopian.

You've hit the problem myself and the few anarchist communists I know personally have with Marxism. I can't possibly speak for others or for the "official" reasons (ugh) but we see under Marxism too many excuses just ready to be used to keep power from the masses and to exercise unneeded violence and force.

I think the other main difference is the anarchist communists I'm close to and myself is our attachment to individual freedom and all that. That's a must for us, and something only achieved through communism.

A few Marxist on the other hand (just a few--I am not sure if it's widespread) here and elsewhere have expressed disgust or intolerance of personal freedoms or the idea of freedom at all. They've also expressed a desire to be completely group-oriented, resorting to "a bullet in the head" for anyone who doesn't work or do what the group wants.

I realize I'm not versed on heavy theory as well as most here, but eh, I'm speaking for how myself and a few close friends with the same ideals feel.

[ZeroNowhere]

I wish to know of how anarchist-communists intend to keep a functioning society that protects its people if there is no socialism after this economic, social and political stage? I'm speaking of the the stage within the United States of America, as this is where I am from. Do you honestly think that the people of this nation are mentally prepared to be completely released from all forms of authority at this time?
Wait, what?
Of course they want socialism. What the hell.
Also, yes, the people of the US are 'mentally prepared' to be completely released from all forms of hierarchal authority (though this is the definition of anarchy rather than socialism, technically). If not, then they certainly would be when they became socialist.
Unless you think that anybody's proposing that we disguise ourselves as Democrats and sneakily randomly abolish the government. Perhaps you're a Blanquist? I dunno.


I can't possibly speak for others or for the "official" reasons (ugh) but we see under Marxism too many excuses just ready to be used to keep power from the masses and to exercise unneeded violence and force.
I'm not especially sure what you're referring to.


Also, one thing that I want clerified. How do anarcho-communists intend on "agitating" the working class into class-conciousness? Are we talking nihilist terrorism or something along the lines of lobbying (I doubt the latter).
I'm fairly sure that there's going to be as much variation in answers to this question for anarcho-commies as there are across the whole socialist spectrum.


The Marxist belief is that after the capitalist classes have been defeated militarily, and their state is crushed, there remains the need for active suppression of the capitalists. This suppression then, rather than some Leninist party-state, is what to Marx constituted the "state". This need to suppress implies that after the state of the capitalists has been abolished there remains the threat of private property, thus the worker's "hacking at the roots" of capitalism. I think this is a pretty accurate description, yes?
No.
Also, when the capitalist classes have been defeated militarily? I mean, come on, what are the capitalist class alone to do which is a threat, throw money at us?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

You've hit the problem myself and the few anarchist communists I know personally have with Marxism. I can't possibly speak for others or for the "official" reasons (ugh) but we see under Marxism too many excuses just ready to be used to keep power from the masses and to exercise unneeded violence and force.

How is a person/group that claims to be Marxist making excuses to justify un-Marxist things a problem with Marxism?