what happen if...

[danyboy27]

you dont believe in any kind of state-related socialism and you dont believe in anarchism?

i feel like i am nowhere right now.

[Sprocket Hole]

What is your problem with anarchism?

Could you explain all of your views as well?

[PCommie]

It is impossible to not believe in one of those two systems, since no other is available. If you are a communist, then you either believe in the transitional socialist state, which whithers away into communism, or, the anarchist viewpoint, you believe in the destruction of the state immediately in the revolution. I don't see how any other belief that isn't a form of one of these is possible.

H&S forever,
-PC

[Sprocket Hole]

Also.. You should never feel bound to choosing a certain ideology. I see it as like walking into a big ideology supermarket and buying a pre-prescribed set of beliefs, therefore cheating yourself out of any self theory that would come from your own personal experiences and views. Shit, ironically even Karl Marx was against ideology.

I personally am whole heartedly against leninism of all kinds, and also have problems with parts of the anarchist movement.

[GracchusBabeuf]

you dont believe in any kind of state-related socialism and you dont believe in anarchism?there are plenty of commonalities between anarchism and state socialism. Both anarchists and socialists aim for worker organization and class struggle.

Start listing which parts you like about anarchism and state socialism and then proceed from there.

[danyboy27]

well, the only part i like about socialism is the way stuff are organized, but with time i realized that you cant trust a governement anyway.

i like the way technocracy arrange things, it does make sense to appoint competent people rather than old senile politicians.

anarchism is good beccause of the level of equality but i got serious doubt about people in good faith working together.

[Bud Struggle]

well, the only part i like about socialism is the way stuff are organized, but with time i realized that you cant trust a governement anyway.

i like the way technocracy arrange things, it does make sense to appoint competent people rather than old senile politicians.

anarchism is good beccause of the level of equality but i got serious doubt about people in good faith working together.

Well the problem with Communism in the past is like in the USSR--it started out with "the people" owning the means of production, but it soon devolved into the state owning the means of production. The state took the place of the Bourgeois.

Now as long as the workers had some "connection" with the state, if they felt they were the state, there was no problem. But as soon as the state became "other" than the workers had the same alienation from the means of production as they had with the Bourgeoise--as a matter of fact it was worse, you could always negotiate with the Bourgeois with unions--you couldn't negotiate with the state. In Soviet society there was little difference between factories "owned" by the workers than a Bourgeoise company giving a share of stock to a worker and calling a fellow "owner" of the factory.


Anarchism seems to get around the problem, but is faced with it's own set of internal problems. How does one set up a uniform set of behavior. etc.? It's a pretty complex set of problems that Communism has yet to solve.

[trivas7]

Well, I understand the Dutch royal family is looking for sympathy given their recent brush w/ death. Have you thought of monarchy? :)



Anarchism seems to get around the problem, but is faced with it's own set of internal problems. How does one set up a uniform set of behavior. etc.? It's a pretty complex set of problems that Communism has yet to solve.
Anarchism as an ideology is not so much a challenge to the existing order as it is one highly specialized form of accommodation to it.

[revolution inaction]

I personally am whole heartedly against leninism of all kinds, and also have problems with parts of the anarchist movement.
So do most anarchists.


Anarchism seems to get around the problem, but is faced with it's own set of internal problems. How does one set up a uniform set of behavior. etc.? It's a pretty complex set of problems that Communism has yet to solve.

Im not sure why you would want to? or do you mean something quite general by "uniform set of behaviour"?

[Bud Struggle]

Im not sure why you would want to? or do you mean something quite general by "uniform set of behaviour"?

Actually, it was pretty easy to come up with a critique of how Marxism can be easily corrupted. I am having a more difficult time with Anarchism. As far as I can see--it's not too bad on an idea.

But there is a problem of if some people want to take charge and other people let them. I could be wrong about this--but it has always been experience that some people seek to wield authority and some look to be subject to it.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

But there is a problem of if some people want to take charge and other people let them. I could be wrong about this--but it has always been experience that some people seek to wield authority and some look to be subject to it. If peoples lives improve under anarchism they will wish to prevent going back to the shit old days , so anyone who wants to take power "for your own good" will end up in a ditch riddled with bullets.

[RGacky3]

Well the problem with Communism in the past is like in the USSR--it started out with "the people" owning the means of production, but it soon devolved into the state owning the means of production.

It did'nt devolve into that, very early in the revolution the bolsheviks, with the trust of the people (some of them at least, the others were strong armed), took over the means of production and never gave it back.


How does one set up a uniform set of behavior. etc.? It's a pretty complex set of problems that Communism has yet to solve.

First you have to explain why a uniform set of behavior is neccessary? Also what are these other problems? And why in the few examples of anarchistic societies were they not a problem?


But there is a problem of if some people want to take charge and other people let them. I could be wrong about this--but it has always been experience that some people seek to wield authority and some look to be subject to it.

THe only time charismatic people can take over, is if there is some mechanism for control that they can take, (i.e. the state) In an Anarchist society they can be as charismatic as they want, but there is no mechanism of control, so thats all they will be, charismatic ... equals.