Communism & Anarchism

[PCommie]

I feel uninformed. :( Heh, seriously though, what's the difference between communism and anarchism? I hear all about them on here and know nothing of what differentiates them. :D

H&S forever,
-PC

[ZeroNowhere]

Nothing differentiates them.
Of course, different people tend to use the term 'communism' to mean completely different things even among us socialists, so that some would use it to refer exclusively in anarchism to the movement known as 'anarcho-communism', others, such as me, would use it as a synonym for socialism, therefore making anarchism a type of communism, others would count mutualists and other 'anarcho-individualists' as 'socialist, but not communist'. But certainly, there's no essential difference that separates the two.

[Coggeh]

Communism & anarchism as end products are virtually the same thing .

But when you use communist and anarchist as a description you usualy mean (but not always) if your a communist you support the creation of a workers state after the revolution i.e socialism .

If your an anarchist you don't for various reasons . But rather straight to anarchism/communism . basically classless & stateless society .

[ZeroNowhere]

Communism & anarchism as end products are virtually the same thing
Well, not quite. Anarchy as a stage is the absence of all hierarchal authority, communism only necessarily of certain forms of hierarchal authority.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Well, not quite. Anarchy as a stage is the absence of all hierarchal authority, communism only necessarily of certain forms of hierarchal authority.

So the ultimate goal of Marxist Communism is stateless, classless society. Whta hierarchial authority will remain?

[PCommie]

I would imagine military authority. It's all that will be necessary. I guess I'm a communist then, because jumping right to a stateless society might have... distasteful repercussions.

-PC

[ZeroNowhere]

I would imagine military authority. It's all that will be necessary. I guess I'm a communist then, because jumping right to a stateless society might have... distasteful repercussions.

-PC
You would be a communist even if you didn't think that. Also, what would you define as the 'state'?

[Poison]

So the ultimate goal of Marxist Communism is stateless, classless society. Whta hierarchial authority will remain?

Any remaining hierarchical authority will be superficial, most likely. Which I can't imagine many anarchists having serious problems with--after all, the biggest problem of capitalist hierarchy is that you have to follow orders, you are not considered equal to your leader and various other reasons that would be removed under communism. With everyone involved and equal the reasons for hierarchies fall away.

[Poison]

I would imagine military authority. It's all that will be necessary. I guess I'm a communist then, because jumping right to a stateless society might have... distasteful repercussions.

-PC

I agree with ZeroNowhere. You're probably thinking of Marxist, not communist.

[PCommie]

State? Anything that governs the people in general, other than the people in general. :)

Okay, Poison, define me the difference between Marxism and communism then? :D

-PC

[Tjis]

State? Anything that governs the people in general, other than the people in general. :)

Okay, Poison, define me the difference between Marxism and communism then? :D

-PC
It's not a difference. Marxism is a theory about how capitalism came to be, and that we'll eventually move into socialism and then communism.

Communism is a classless society, meaning there's no group that holds any authority over anyone else. So there would be no government and no capitalists.

[ZeroNowhere]

Communism is a classless society, meaning there's no group that holds any authority over anyone else. So there would be no government and no capitalists.
Not necessarily. For example, a classless society and, say, the schooling system would be compatible.

[Tjis]

Not necessarily. For example, a classless society and, say, the schooling system would be compatible.
You mean authority of teachers over their students? Marxists are fine with that, even in the final communist society? How about compulsory education?

[PCommie]

What about compulsory education? Speaking of which, I am opposed to homework, any takers? I will get a lot of flak, it will be said that I am opposed only because I have to do it, but that is wrong, look:

I go to school 7 hours a day.
I go to band practice until 5:30.
I drive 20 miles home, arriving around 7:00.
I am tired, I want to rest. I inevitably fall asleep.
I wake up. I eat. I am still tired. I go to bed. My grades suffer.

They are given 7 HOURS to drill into you what they drill into you. Homework is nothing but trouble, for grades and for life. We, as people, do have lives other than school. I don't know, I'm going to hear "Aww, you're a teenager, of course you don't like it." And I'm going to have to accept that. But whatever, it's just an afterthought and off-topic. *shrug*

-PC

[ZeroNowhere]

You mean authority of teachers over their students? Marxists are fine with that, even in the final communist society? How about compulsory education?
No, I'm saying that it would be possible. Bollocks, yes, but possible in a classless society. And teachers would take more of the role of cops, generally they have their tasks forced upon them by higher authorities, such as the curriculum, rules, the threat of being sacked, etc. So even the ones with good intentions (which there are probably more than with cops, fortunately, seeing as most people go through the schooling system, and many who disliked it would probably want to change it by being a teacher. Also, the difference in roles, that is, teaching, can mean some chance for this to make a larger difference by teaching better and making classes more fun, though even that is generally rather limited) will generally be under pressure to enforce homework and school rules strictly, etc.


What about compulsory education? Speaking of which, I am opposed to homework, any takers? I will get a lot of flak, it will be said that I am opposed only because I have to do it, but that is wrong, look:

I go to school 7 hours a day.
I go to band practice until 5:30.
I drive 20 miles home, arriving around 7:00.
I am tired, I want to rest. I inevitably fall asleep.
I wake up. I eat. I am still tired. I go to bed. My grades suffer.

They are given 7 HOURS to drill into you what they drill into you. Homework is nothing but trouble, for grades and for life. We, as people, do have lives other than school. I don't know, I'm going to hear "Aww, you're a teenager, of course you don't like it." And I'm going to have to accept that. But whatever, it's just an afterthought and off-topic. *shrug*
Eh, even the pro-schoolers here seem to generally be trying to make an argument that it's more practical to be schooled than unschooled under capitalism. There should certainly be enough people here who dislike compulsory homework to keep you company, even those who aren't anti-school.
Though really, the schooling system rose under capitalism, and in order to get collectivized production in order. As with the workplace, it collects students together, but hierarchal relations within it must be replaced with democracy and autonomy (that is, nobody can vote to force you to do homework). Which is what the free skooling movement today seeks to do, but education must be emancipated from capitalism if it is to flourish, and spreading democracy starts at home.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

State? Anything that governs the people in general, other than the people in general. :)

Okay, Poison, define me the difference between Marxism and communism then? :D

-PC

The the working class as a whole governs in the Marxist definition of the state.


What about compulsory education?

Sure, if the people decide to implement it.


There are many other threads with the same topic, so I think it would be smarter to just look those up. These tend to turn into Marxists arguing with Anarchists.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

You mean authority of teachers over their students? Marxists are fine with that, even in the final communist society? How about compulsory education?

I would want the abolition of current systems of schooling in Anarcho-Communist society. I would want schools to be based on principles similar to Francisco Ferrer. Libertarian schooling. I would also abolish compulsory schooling. Making schools compulsory in Anarchist society cannot be an option. Anarchism rejects authority and coercion, this would be authority and coercion. This may be a difference between Marxist Communism and Anarchist/Libertarian Communism.

[Tjis]

Sure, if the people decide to implement it.
"The people" would be able to force the youth to do something they hate?
How is that any better than the capitalists who force us to work for them?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

"The people" would be able to force the youth to do something they hate?
How is that any better than the capitalists who force us to work for them?

Is this a joke? Do you really thing the youth should be able to do whatever they want? Do you reject everything but consensus?

[Tjis]

Is this a joke? Do you really thing the youth should be able to do whatever they want? Do you reject everything but consensus?
I am against one group of people being able to tell another group of people what they must do yes. Even if one group is the majority and the other group is the minority. This is oppression. Why do you say that this is a bad thing in the case of capitalism, but that it's a good thing in the case of compulsory education?

I do not reject everything but consensus. Sometimes voting is the only way. But we should never vote about other people's lives.
Time for an analogy. What if in this society the majority would vote that all black people should be excluded from public facilities? Or that all disabled people should be exterminated? Everyone above the age of 70 euthanized? Should it happen because a majority says so? Of course not! What right do they have to decide about someone else's life?

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Contrary to the prevailing theory here, I'll argue that communism and anarchism are not synonymous at all.

Communism is about the emancipation of the proletariat, which entails the achievement of, as Mao described them, the Four Alls:

1. The elimination of all class distinctions.
2. The thorough transformation of all the production relations on which those class distinctions rest.
3. The thorough transformation of all the social relations that go along with those production relations.
4. The revolutionizing of all the old ideas that go along with those social relations.

The proletariat, you see, seeks to go out of existence. It seeks a way out of all systems of exploitation and oppression.

Anarchism is about the 'emancipation' of the petty bourgeoisie, whether its adherents would formally agree or not. Its unstated goal is for its adherents to become capitalists themselves, that is. It's for this reason that the vast majority of anarchists are expressly opposed to the abolition of private property. As for those who would claim to also be communists, one can hardly take their logic seriously. They would prefer to simply bypass the Four Alls, so they claim. But where can this objectively lead in the context of a society still characterized by the birthmarks of the proverbial womb it came out of (the traditions of the old order, the continued presence of the old, overthrown exploiters, and so on) and in the context of a world still characterized by capitalist imperialism (e.g. what can it mean to argue against the new society having a standing army in such a context)? It can only mean a one-way ticket right back to capitalism. They are not committed to the defeat of the old order.

The petty bourgeoisie, you see, seeks a way in, not a way out.

These two things should never be confused for one-another.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Is this a joke? Do you really thing the youth should be able to do whatever they want? Do you reject everything but consensus?

Why not? Better than to force them into school. I am sure kids would still go to school if they were allowed to learn whatever they pleased. If it was free for them to choose. I don't see why we should implement the same system used today in a post-revolution society.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It's for this reason that the vast majority of anarchists are expressly opposed to the abolition of private property.

I think you'll do well to find even one Anarchist on here that is opposed to the abolition of private property.

[Tjis]

Anarchism is about the 'emancipation' of the petty bourgeoisie, whether its adherents would formally agree or not. Its unstated goal is for its adherents to become capitalists themselves, that is. It's for this reason that the vast majority of anarchists are expressly opposed to the abolition of private property. As for those who would claim to also be communists, one can hardly take their logic seriously. They would prefer to simply bypass the Four Alls, so they claim. But where can this objectively lead in the context of a society still characterized by the birthmarks of the proverbial womb it came out of (the traditions of the old order, the continued presence of the old, overthrown exploiters, and so on) and in the context of a world still characterized by capitalist imperialism (e.g. what can it mean to argue against the new society having a standing army in such a context)? It can only mean a one-way ticket right back to capitalism.

These two things should never be confused for one-another.
How dare you say that we are not opposed to private property? That this is somehow the ideology of the vast majority? For your information, the vast majority of the anarchists here want a communist society.

I don't give a shit about what Mao has to say about the matter. We anarchists want to do away with all oppression, whether it's oppression coming from private property or from gender inequality, or because of a difference in age does not matter. Your claims are pure slander.

[ZeroNowhere]

Anarchism is about the 'emancipation' of the petty bourgeoisie, whether its adherents would formally agree or not. Its unstated goal is for its adherents to become capitalists themselves, that is. It's for this reason that the vast majority of anarchists are expressly opposed to the abolition of private property. As for those who would claim to also be communists, one can hardly take their logic seriously. They would prefer to simply bypass the Four Alls, so they claim. But where can this objectively lead in the context of a society still characterized by the birthmarks of the proverbial womb it came out of (the traditions of the old order, the continued presence of the old, overthrown exploiters, and so on) and in the context of a world still characterized by capitalist imperialism (e.g. what can it mean to argue against the new society having a standing army in such a context)? It can only mean a one-way ticket right back to capitalism. They are not committed to the defeat of the old order.
So basically, you're talking out of your ass.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Originally posted by Bakunin-Kropotkin:
I think you'll do well to find even one Anarchist on here that is opposed to the abolition of private property.I need not find a single example here for my statement to be correct. Sadly, I don't believe I yet have a large enough post count to post any links, but a simple Wiki search for "Anarchist schools of thought" readily reveals the existence of a whole host of wildly differing anarchist schools, ranging from anarcho-syndicalism to "market left-libertarianism" to "Christian anarchism" and far beyond, most of which are perfectly compatible with the ongoing presence of private property. (In fact, "anarchist communism" is debatably the sole exception.)

[Tjis]

I need not find a single example here for my statement to be correct. Sadly, I don't believe I yet have a large enough post count to post any links, but a simple Wiki search for "Anarchist schools of thought" readily reveals the existence of a whole host of wildly differing anarchist schools, ranging from anarcho-syndicalism to "market left-libertarianism" to "Christian anarchism" and far beyond, most of which are perfectly compatible with the ongoing presence of private property. (In fact, "anarchist communism" is debatably the sole exception.)
So, reading the wiki page on Maoism will give me a good understanding of Maoism then?

No. the free market "anarchism"'s aren't anarchism. I have no idea why their proponents like to call it that, but they're not. anarchism is the rejection of all authority. That includes the authority of capitalists.

Those "anarchists" however say that anarchism is only the rejection of the state. They are alone in this. Everyone but them says it is not so.

Also, anarcho-syndicalism is really just another way to reach communism eventually. Christian anarchism doesn't suggest an economic system if I recall correctly, but are anti-capitalist anyway.

In short, you just pulled some kind of shit story about anarchism out of the air based on a wiki page that is thoroughly vandalized by right-libertarians.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I need not find a single example here for my statement to be correct. Sadly, I don't believe I yet have a large enough post count to post any links, but a simple Wiki search for "Anarchist schools of thought" readily reveals the existence of a whole host of wildly differing anarchist schools, ranging from anarcho-syndicalism to "market left-libertarianism" to "Christian anarchism" and far beyond, most of which are perfectly compatible with the ongoing presence of private property. (In fact, "anarchist communism" is debatably the sole exception.)

What's debatable about it?

And the schools of Anarchism you speak of are not the one's the OP was referring to. Also you won't find one of them on here.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I am against one group of people being able to tell another group of people what they must do yes. Even if one group is the majority and the other group is the minority. This is oppression. Why do you say that this is a bad thing in the case of capitalism, but that it's a good thing in the case of compulsory education?

I didn't say it was a good thing, I agree with direct democracy, and if that means people decide that there will be compulsory education, then that's fine. In capitalism, power doesn't rest with the majority, so trying to compare capitalism with a directly democratic society without class or state doesn't really work. I thought most anarchists agreed with direct democracy. I really don't care if you think the majority forcing you to follow the speed limit or whatever is oppression. You either give power to the majority or power to a minority, and I prefer the former.


I do not reject everything but consensus. Sometimes voting is the only way. But we should never vote about other people's lives.
Time for an analogy. What if in this society the majority would vote that all black people should be excluded from public facilities? Or that all disabled people should be exterminated? Everyone above the age of 70 euthanized? Should it happen because a majority says so? Of course not! What right do they have to decide about someone else's life?Do you honestly think these are something that would happen in a classless and stateless society? You sound like a republican. That's the same kind of argument people like Alexander Hamilton were making 200 years ago against giving power to the people. As far as "rights," I don't believe in any "natural rights" crap.


Why not? Better than to force them into school. I am sure kids would still go to school if they were allowed to learn whatever they pleased. If it was free for them to choose. I don't see why we should implement the same system used today in a post-revolution society.

That's an opinion that you seek to impose on the majority of society, whether they agree or not.

[ZeroNowhere]

No. the free market "anarchism"'s aren't anarchism. I have no idea why their proponents like to call it that, but they're not. anarchism is the rejection of all authority. That includes the authority of capitalists.
Mutualism and such would be forms of anarchism, 'anarcho-capitalism' would not. Whether or not mutualism retains private property (it aims for a classless society, so I doubt it does in the sense that it is used to describe capitalism), it's still communism. And even if one differs in opinion on that, it's still a rather small minority of anarchists.
Though modern mutualists really need to work on getting the marginal utility out.


anarcho-syndicalism
What the fuck are you talking about? Unless you're misusing the word 'private property' to mean possessions, my syndie bros are most certainly for the abolition of private property as much as any other commies.


Christian anarchism
Not especially descriptive.

[Tjis]

Do you honestly think these are something that would happen in a classless and stateless society? You sound like a republican. That's the same kind of argument people like Alexander Hamilton were making 200 years ago against giving power to the people. As far as "rights," I don't believe in any "natural rights" crap.
I don't think it would happen. I'm asking you if you're fine with the general principle behind it: that a majority can force their will upon a minority.
Because I think nobody should have any right to force anyone to do anything. You say the idea of discrimination in post-revolutionary society is ridiculous, but still you think that people should be discriminated on age to go to school if the majority says so.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I don't think it would happen. I'm asking you if you're fine with the general principle behind it: that a majority can force their will upon a minority.
Because I think nobody should have any right to force anyone to do anything. You say the idea of discrimination in post-revolutionary society is ridiculous, but still you think that people should be discriminated on age to go to school if the majority says so.

Yes, I'm fine with direct democracy. Are you fine with the general principle of imposing your views of right and wrong on society whether they agree or not? That doesn't sound very anti-authoritarian.

I don't think society deciding that they want to make sure the youth are educated would be considered discrimination. You keep attributing this view to me, but all I ever said was that it would exist if the majority of society decided that it would. I never actually said I agree with it, I said I agreed with the idea of direct democracy. You seem to agree with the idea of transforming your views on what is ethical into eternal laws to be imposed on society, even if only a minority agree with your views. That is not compatibile with democracy.

[Tjis]

Yes, I'm fine with direct democracy. Are you fine with the general principle of imposing your views of right and wrong on society whether they agree or not? That doesn't sound very anti-authoritarian.
No I am NOT fine with that, that's the whole point. You are the one saying that if the majority thinks something should be done, the minority must comply. You are fine with the majority imposing their views of right and wrong on society.

I think that nobody should have that right. Not the majority, not the minority.
Everyone should have the freedom to do everything they want to do, as long as they don't limit someone else's freedom with that. No majority vote should ever be able to change that.


I don't think society deciding that they want to make sure the youth are educated would be considered discrimination. You keep attributing this view to me, but all I ever said was that it would exist if the majority of society decided that it would. I never actually said I agree with it, I said I agreed with the idea of direct democracy.
If this is direct democracy then I am against direct democracy.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

No I am NOT fine with that, that's the whole point. You are the one saying that if the majority thinks something should be done, the minority must comply. You are fine with the majority imposing their views of right and wrong on society.

And you are fine with a minority imposing their views of right and wrong on society. You think that's its okay to impose your view that compulsory education is wrong on the majority of society, even if no one else agrees. Your view on what rights people should and should not have is the only one that's acceptable, regardless of the opinion of society.


I think that nobody should have that right. Not the majority, not the minority.
Everyone should have the freedom to do everything they want to do, as long as they don't limit someone else's freedom with that. No majority vote should ever be able to change that.
And I guess it's you that decides what this freedom entails, correct?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

That's an opinion that you seek to impose on the majority of society, whether they agree or not.

No I want to give them the choice. Make schooling voluntary. It is not forcing it either way, and make schools libertarian not authoritarian. How can freedom be coercive?

[Tjis]

And you are fine with a minority imposing their views of right and wrong on society. You think that's its okay to impose your view that compulsory education is wrong on the majority of society, even if no one else agrees.
Obviously if everyone agrees, children would go to school. They agree right?
But if children don't agree with going to school, who are you to force them to go anyway?
Children that want to go to school go to school. People that don't want to go to school don't want to go to school. How is this in any way a minority imposing their views upon the majority?


And I guess it's you that decides what this freedom entails, correct?
Are you accusing me of authoritarianism? Cause if you do we're done here. I won't discuss anything with someone who accuses me of that.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

No I want to give them the choice. Make schooling voluntary. It is not forcing it either way, and make schools libertarian not authoritarian. How can freedom be coercive?

"Freedom" is coercive if you're imposing your idea of what freedom is on society regardless of majority opinion.


Obviously if everyone agrees, children would go to school. They agree right?
But if children don't agree with going to school, who are you to force them to go anyway?
Children that want to go to school go to school. People that don't want to go to school don't want to go to school. How is this in any way a minority imposing their views upon the majority?

If the majority of society agrees with this view, then it isn't a minority imposing their views upon the majority. If you think that this must be followed regardless of what the majority decides, then yes, it's obviously a minority imposing their will over the majority.


Are you accusing me of authoritarianism? Cause if you do we're done here. I won't discuss anything with someone who accuses me of that.

If you think your views on what rights people should and should not have must be followed by society regardless of what they decide, then yes, you are an authoritarian.

[Tjis]

We're done talking.
I'm not discussing this with someone who says I'm authoritarian for saying people should have more rights.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

We're done talking.
I'm not discussing this with someone who says I'm authoritarian for saying people should have more rights.

No, you're an authoritarian for saying that your idea of what rights people should have is the only one that's correct, even if 99.9% of the world disagrees.

[Invincible Summer]

No, you're an authoritarian for saying that your idea of what rights people should have is the only one that's correct, even if 99.9% of the world disagrees.


I don't understand your logic - since when is it authoritarian to have a minority differing in opinion from the majority and trying to convince the majority to adopt the minority position, even a reformed version (which, to my understanding, is what the kind of democracy anarchists suggest is)?

This isn't the greatest example but bear with me:

You're saying that the black people who protested against racist attitudes in the US were being "authoritarian" because most of the US hated black people and they didn't just go along with it?

That's pretty bizarre.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I do not understand how freedom can be imposed on someone.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I don't understand your logic - since when is it authoritarian to have a minority differing in opinion from the majority and trying to convince the majority to adopt the minority position, even a reformed version (which, to my understanding, is what the kind of democracy anarchists suggest is)?

I didn't say that was authoritarian. There's obviously nothing wrong with this.


This isn't the greatest example but bear with me:

You're saying that the black people who protested against racist attitudes in the US were being "authoritarian" because most of the US hated black people and they didn't just go along with it?No, that isn't at all what I'm saying.


I do not understand how freedom can be imposed on someone.

Because your opinion on what freedom entails isn't the only one. Some people think that freedom includes the right to own private property. Others think it includes the freedom to sell yourself into slavery.

[Invincible Summer]

I didn't say that was authoritarian. There's obviously nothing wrong with this.
No, that isn't at all what I'm saying


:lol: there's so much misunderstanding here. Why don't you make a single post detailing what you mean to say - it might clear things up

[StalinFanboy]

Contrary to the prevailing theory here, I'll argue that communism and anarchism are not synonymous at all.

Communism is about the emancipation of the proletariat, which entails the achievement of, as Mao described them, the Four Alls:

1. The elimination of all class distinctions.
2. The thorough transformation of all the production relations on which those class distinctions rest.
3. The thorough transformation of all the social relations that go along with those production relations.
4. The revolutionizing of all the old ideas that go along with those social relations.

The proletariat, you see, seeks to go out of existence. It seeks a way out of all systems of exploitation and oppression.

Anarchism is about the 'emancipation' of the petty bourgeoisie, whether its adherents would formally agree or not. Its unstated goal is for its adherents to become capitalists themselves, that is. It's for this reason that the vast majority of anarchists are expressly opposed to the abolition of private property. As for those who would claim to also be communists, one can hardly take their logic seriously. They would prefer to simply bypass the Four Alls, so they claim. But where can this objectively lead in the context of a society still characterized by the birthmarks of the proverbial womb it came out of (the traditions of the old order, the continued presence of the old, overthrown exploiters, and so on) and in the context of a world still characterized by capitalist imperialism (e.g. what can it mean to argue against the new society having a standing army in such a context)? It can only mean a one-way ticket right back to capitalism. They are not committed to the defeat of the old order.

The petty bourgeoisie, you see, seeks a way in, not a way out.

These two things should never be confused for one-another.

Oh Jesus. How can you accuse anarchists of basically being capitalists when you quote Mao? Are you aware that China is capitalist as fuck?

On top of that, you clearly have no understanding of anarchism at all.

[Invincible Summer]

Oh Jesus. How can you accuse anarchists of basically being capitalists when you quote Mao? Are you aware that China is capitalist as fuck?

To be fair, Mao didn't make China the way it is now, but...


On top of that, you clearly have no understanding of anarchism at all.

This is true.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

It's been a few days now since I've been online, so sorry if it seems like I'm pulling this quote out from way back there. Without re-opening excess controversy, I would like to correct the record on one thing that was said earlier:


Also, anarcho-syndicalism is really just another way to reach communism eventually.Syndicalism is compatible with private ownership. I hate to keep referencing Wiki, but their article on syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism) specifically points out a clear difference between syndicalism and communism, quote:


Syndicalism is one of the three most common ideologies of co-operative economics, together with socialism and communism. It holds, on an ethical basis, that all participants in an organized trade internally share equal ownership of its production and therefore deserve equal earnings and benefits within that trade, regardless of position or duty. By contrast, socialism emphasizes distributing output among trades as required by each trade, not necessarily considering how trades organize internally. Syndicalism is compatible with privatism, unlike communism. Communism rejects government-sanctioned private ownership and private earnings in favor of making all property legally public, and therefore directly and solely managed by the people themselves. In syndicalism, unions exist independent of the state rather than needing the state's micromanagement and central planning. As with business in capitalism, labor unions in syndicalism would likely share a complicated relationship of co-operation and opposition with the state.The anarchist version merely combines this with opposition to the formal existence of state institutions (e.g. military, police, courts, prisons, etc.). It is not the same as socialism or communism and it's not a way to get there either. In a profit system, the profit mechanism dictates the direction of economic (and ultimately political) life. That can only lead you back to the 'traditional' capitalist system.

[Bright Banana Beard]

It's been a few days now since I've been online, so sorry if it seems like I'm pulling this quote out from way back there. Without re-opening excess controversy, I would like to correct the record on one thing that was said earlier:Syndicalism is compatible with private ownership. I hate to keep referencing Wiki, but their article on syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism) specifically points out a clear difference between syndicalism and communism, quote:
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/

You really fail hard at finding the material we use, stop using Wikipedia as the source as socialist(the poster above) describes it is runs by uber-capitalists. Now read books of Alexander Berkman, Peter Kropotkin, Nestor Makhno,and Errico Malatesta. You are not worth a salt for debate.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

I selected Wiki as a more neutral source, as opposed to the sources that I might prefer to cite. (It's worth noting that this message board links itself to Wiki at the top of the page. How's that for justification?) Rather than criticizing my source selection and assaulting my personal character (e.g. "You are not worth a salt for debate"), it would be both appreciated and far more productive if someone actually replied to the content of my post. Just a thought.

[ZeroNowhere]

I selected Wiki as a more neutral source, as opposed to the sources that I might prefer to cite. (It's worth noting that this message board links itself to Wiki at the top of the page. How's that for justification?)
It's not a justification, because that link does not lead where you think it leads.


Rather than criticizing my source selection and assaulting my personal character (e.g. "You are not worth a salt for debate"), it would be both appreciated and far more productive if someone actually replied to the content of my post. Just a thought.
Though one would expect you to actually read the article on anarcho-syndicalism, which states that it is anti-capitalist... Anarcho-syndicalism involves self-management in the workplace, and the abolishing of the capitalist class. Rudolf Rocker is quite clear that it is a form of socialism, also stating that, "Within the socialist movement itself the Anarchists represent the viewpoint that the war against capitalism must be at the same time a war against all institutions of political power, for in history economic exploitation has always gone hand in hand with political and social oppression. The exploitation of man by man and the dominion of man over man are inseparable, and each is the condition of the other."

[Blackscare]

Anarchism is about the 'emancipation' of the petty bourgeoisie, whether its adherents would formally agree or not. Its unstated goal is for its adherents to become capitalists themselves, that is. It's for this reason that the vast majority of anarchists are expressly opposed to the abolition of private property. As for those who would claim to also be communists, one can hardly take their logic seriously. They would prefer to simply bypass the Four Alls, so they claim. But where can this objectively lead in the context of a society still characterized by the birthmarks of the proverbial womb it came out of (the traditions of the old order, the continued presence of the old, overthrown exploiters, and so on) and in the context of a world still characterized by capitalist imperialism (e.g. what can it mean to argue against the new society having a standing army in such a context)? It can only mean a one-way ticket right back to capitalism. They are not committed to the defeat of the old order.

The petty bourgeoisie, you see, seeks a way in, not a way out.

These two things should never be confused for one-another.


This is just vile. Quit making up sectarian slander. I don't care if a wiki search (people have already explained why wiki is no good, anyway) turns up a large number of contradicting schools that exist today, you'd have to be a dunce or totally ignorant of history to not realize that communism is the most influential and prevalent subsect of anarchism. And syndicalism is really a manifestation of communism, in a way, so there's the other major school of anarchist thought as well. Anarcho-capitalists are not anarchist at all, the name is just marketing to them (and that's what they're good at, after all). They're no more anarchist than the NAZI party was socialist.


This post was useless, content-free shit. You're new, so I'll give you a heads up; here on revleft there are a lot of varying views that are represented (and a LOT of anarchists), we try not to be blatantly dickish in our postings about one another's ideologies. And when we do, we at least make sure we have some sort of basis for our arguments besides assumptions and lies.


Welcome to revleft, hopefully you'll post higher quality thoughts in the future.

[Chicano Shamrock]

I would imagine military authority. It's all that will be necessary. I guess I'm a communist then, because jumping right to a stateless society might have... distasteful repercussions.

-PC
It has been proven that easing "towards" a stateless society does have dis-tasteful repercussions.Don't worry though I understand you are trying to learn about that.

The differences between Anarchism and communism are not that big. You must understand that when I say communism I mean the end product. A communist society would have no state, no classes and no market/currency. An anarchist society would have no state, no classes but a market and currency are not ruled out.

There are many different strands of anarchist thought and some people think that having some form of market would be good. Anarchism at it's base is a thought that says there should be no hierarchies within society. Everything else is up for debate pretty much.

With that said all communist societies would be without hierarchy so that means they would all be anarchistic. However, not all anarchist societies would be communistic because that certain anarchist society might have a market and currency.

A big divide between us is that in Marxist theory after(or during I guess) the revolution the old state will be dismantled and another would be put in it's place. A transition state called socialism where supposedly the workers rule. When the time comes this state will supposedly wither away of it's own will.

Anarchists do not agree with this tactic because it eventually gives someone power over everyone else creating the hierarchy we all wanted to destroy in the first place. The anarchist idea is to skip building another state. It seems to me illogical that if you seek to live in a state-less society you would make a new state to get to your utopia or whatever.

That's at least what I know.

[Chicano Shamrock]

I am against one group of people being able to tell another group of people what they must do yes. Even if one group is the majority and the other group is the minority. This is oppression. Why do you say that this is a bad thing in the case of capitalism, but that it's a good thing in the case of compulsory education?

I do not reject everything but consensus. Sometimes voting is the only way. But we should never vote about other people's lives.
Time for an analogy. What if in this society the majority would vote that all black people should be excluded from public facilities? Or that all disabled people should be exterminated? Everyone above the age of 70 euthanized? Should it happen because a majority says so? Of course not! What right do they have to decide about someone else's life?
That is completely nuts. We are not against authority for the sake of being against authority. We are against illegitimate authority. Kids are not yet smart enough to make big decisions about safety or how their life will turn out. Preventing a kid from doing something they want like... sticking their hand in a fire is not oppression it is use of legitimate authority.

[ZeroNowhere]

A transition state called socialism where supposedly the workers rule.
That's from Lenin, not Marx.


We are not against authority for the sake of being against authority. We are against illegitimate authority. Kids are not yet smart enough to make big decisions about safety or how their life will turn out.
Interesting, a pro-schooling 'anarchist'?


With that said all communist societies would be without hierarchy so that means they would all be anarchistic.
Not necessarily. See the Church, or school.


Preventing a kid from doing something they want like... sticking their hand in a fire is not oppression it is use of legitimate authority.
And it is also justified that one cannot shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theater where there is no fire, therefore we will lock you up for protesting and handing out leaflets against the Great War.

[Chicano Shamrock]

That's from Lenin, not Marx.


Interesting, a pro-schooling 'anarchist'?


Not necessarily. See the Church, or school.
.
The transition state is mentioned in the Communist Manifesto.

I don't understand what you mean by see the church or school. When I said hierarchy I again mean illegitimate hierarchies. I don't know what the church has to do with anything but I believe you are talking about the schooling discussion when you bring up schools.

Of course I am pro-schooling. In my opinion only a child without a proper view of the priorities of life would go against schooling. Maybe someone who isn't done with schooling would rally against schooling because they can't have a complete understanding of what schooling means. I don't mean this to be an age-ist remark it is just a fact.

I do not think that the current form of schooling really nurtures learning but I don't think it should be up to children to decide if they should have to go to school.

With that I am off to work... laters.