Anarchists and Statist Communists/Socialists

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Why are anarchists and statist communists allies? I mean, I know they both oppose capitalism, but really it seems to me that communists who support the state have as much in common with anarchists as libertarian capitalists who oppose the state. I guess statist communists and socialists are Anarchists political allies when it comes to unionizing, but then again in the Spanish Civil War weren't the CNT and the Communist/Socialist unions bitter rivals who only eventually united to fight Franco? I'm not trying to knock anybodies beliefs, it just seems like a strange combination because the ideologies seem very different.

[scarletghoul]

They're not very differant at all. Both want classless stateless society, its just the statists think the proletariat should use state power to achieve this rather than abolish it. But in practice the line can be kinda blurred between a proletarian state and an anarchist stateless zone. Paris Commune is the classic example, both anarchists and statist socialists uphold it as a great example of socialism. It can be viewed as anarchist or as a proletarian state. Other examples include Shinmin, EZLN territory etc.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Depends how you define the word ally. There isn't much co-ordination at all between Marxist groups and Anarchist groups in the UK. Essentially I think it will be a defining moment in the working class movement when Marxist Communists and Anarchists can settle their differences and unite. To answer your Spanish Civil War question the Stalinists were anti-CNT and fought against them, however the POUM were very sympathetic to the CNT.

[Ovi]

We are not allies. I've seen self-confessed stalinists and maoists on this forum, which means fascists are also allowed here.

[scarletghoul]

^ban for ignorance

[nuisance]

^ban for ignorance
Ban for ignorance.

I'll work with Trotskyists and the like in networks, however I shall always oppose them trying to further the message of their party within them because I know that when in comes to the crunch we are opposing sides, as a basic glance at history highlights.

[Hit The North]

Ban for ignorance.

I'll work with Trotskyists and the like in networks, however I shall always oppose them trying to further the message of their party within them because I know that when in comes to the crunch we are opposing sides, as a basic glance at history highlights.

This highlights another schism between Marxists and anarchists: Marxists tend to believe in the importance of a disciplined revolutionary party consisting of the most class conscious workers, whereas anarchists want to preserve their individualistic right to obey only their own consciences.

This isn't true of all anarchists. Only most.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

This highlights another schism between Marxists and anarchists: Marxists tend to believe in the importance of a disciplined revolutionary party consisting of the most class conscious workers, whereas anarchists want to preserve their individualistic right to obey only their own consciences.

This isn't true of all anarchists. Only most.

It is more in our critique of the organisation of these parties and their structure.

[nuisance]

This highlights another schism between Marxists and anarchists: Marxists tend to believe in the importance of a disciplined revolutionary party consisting of the most class conscious workers, whereas anarchists want to preserve their individualistic right to obey only their own consciences.

This isn't true of all anarchists. Only most.
:rolleyes:
Anarchists oppose centralised parties attempting to absorb working class dissent into the seizure of the state apparatus- preferring federations and the destruction of hierarchal organisation/s. This hasn't much to do with your strawman. The objection, which is somewhat obvious, is to your means and mid-ground. It would be ridiculous, on behalf of anarchists, not to take a position against such notions and intentions.

[Misanthrope]

A statist is no ally of mine. Statists are naive, all states turn corrupt and rely on a death threat to be fiscally funded. It doesn't matter if the flag is red white and blue or has a gold hammer and sickle on it, states are barbaric institutions.

[gorillafuck]

We are not allies. I've seen self-confessed stalinists and maoists on this forum, which means fascists are also allowed here.
I'm not a fan of Stalin either Mao either, but do you know what fascism is?

[robbo203]

Why are anarchists and statist communists allies? I mean, I know they both oppose capitalism, but really it seems to me that communists who support the state have as much in common with anarchists as libertarian capitalists who oppose the state. I guess statist communists and socialists are Anarchists political allies when it comes to unionizing, but then again in the Spanish Civil War weren't the CNT and the Communist/Socialist unions bitter rivals who only eventually united to fight Franco? I'm not trying to knock anybodies beliefs, it just seems like a strange combination because the ideologies seem very different.

It depends on what you mean by "anarchists" and "statist communists".

Individuals who advocate the state taking over the means of production and administering the capitalist system allegedly in the interests of workers may well pay lip serive to the idea of communism as an ultimate aim but in de facto terms, are opponents of communism. They are opponents because what they are proposing diverts class consciousness down what is effectively a dead end - state capitalism. So called statist communists must therefore uncompromising exposed as supporters of state capitalism.

The only communists or marxists who are the exception to this are those who advocating making use of the state simply in order to remove capitalist ownership of the means of production - to "enact" socialism without any kind of transition involved. In this case, the capture of state power by democratic means is, at the same time, the abolition of state power and capitalism at a stroke. You might call these people anti-statist marxists insofar as they dont envisage any role for the state at all, post revolution

My view is that there is a possibility of a fruitful colloboration if not convergence between these anti-statist or libertarian marxists and those anarchists favourably disposed towards a communist society (not all anarchists are)

[nuisance]

Here's a negative rep comment I just recieved from Bob the Builder for stating why I think anarchists and statists are not on the same page-

'If we're on different sides this must mean you're an agent of the bourgeoisie.'

:huh:

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Here's a negative rep comment I just recieve from Bob the Builder for stating why anarchists oppose the likes of his lovely party-

'If we're on different sides this must mean you're an agent of the bourgeoisie.'

What? That is complete bollocks. That was a perfectly correct post. Bob the Builder is being an infant. There is no reason to give negative rep there. Don't even get me started on his "agent of the bourgeoisie" comment.

[StalinFanboy]

I don't consider statists to be allies.

[robbo203]

Here's a negative rep comment I just recieved from Bob the Builder for stating why I think anarchists and statists are not on the same page-

'If we're on different sides this must mean you're an agent of the bourgeoisie.'

:huh:


Thats interesting, Edelweiss. Because, as these statists presumably know, the state is the "executive committee of a ruling class". So a state implies a class-based society and class-based society can only be run , not in the interests of the class which is exploited, but in the interests of the class which does the exploiting. Which is ...er... the bourgeoisie. Which is precisely why thre bourgeosie is able to exploit the working class - because its has the power of the state at its disposal

But then I guess we will be told that it will be all so very different when the working class will become the ruling class and the bourgeoisie will become the subject class. Thats when the exploited majority (by definition the workers) will really be able to lord it over the tiny minority that will nevertheless continue to exploit them (again by defintion, the bourgeoisie):laugh::laugh::laugh:

[ComradeOm]

Why are anarchists and statist communists allies? I mean, I know they both oppose capitalism, but really it seems to me that communists who support the state have as much in common with anarchists as libertarian capitalists who oppose the stateWell that's the theory. In reality (both in Spain and Russia) anarchist antagonism towards the state has played second fiddle to their opposition to capitalism. As long as that remains the case then of course there is common ground. Its when anarchists place their 'anti-statism' above working class solidarity (as they're all to prone to doing these days) that the possibility of a joint front breaks down

[bricolage]

Its when anarchists place their 'anti-statism' above working class solidarity (as they're all to prone to doing these days) that the possibility of a joint front breaks down

I don't really think that's true, if it were the case you'd see anarchists marching/organising etc with anarcho-capitalists, libertarians and other anti-statists, instead it is the exact opposite and anarchists work alongside statist anti-capitalists.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Well that's the theory. In reality (both in Spain and Russia) anarchist antagonism towards the state has played second fiddle to their opposition to capitalism. As long as that remains the case then of course there is common ground. Its when anarchists place their 'anti-statism' above working class solidarity (as they're all to prone to doing these days) that the possibility of a joint front breaks down

What are you talking about? That's just not true. It was the Bolsheviks and Lenin placed Statism above working class solidarity. Anti-statism and class struggle go hand in hand. And please, give me a modern day example whre Anarchists have done such things, as you say we are prone to doing so these days.

[Hit The North]

Here's a negative rep comment I just recieved from Bob the Builder for stating why I think anarchists and statists are not on the same page-

'If we're on different sides this must mean you're an agent of the bourgeoisie.'

:huh:

As you well know - you deceiver! - my neg rep of you was retaliation for you neg repping my assertion that most anarchists value their individual autonomy over party discipline.


Originally posted by Stranger Than Paradise
What? That is complete bollocks.

Really? So which party discipline do you subject yourself to?


That was a perfectly correct post.
Except Edelweiss Pirate was telling porkies. He didn't claim "statists" were his enemy, but "Trotskyists":


Originally Posted by Edelweiss Pirate http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1495756#post1495756)
I'll work with Trotskyists and the like in networks, however I shall always oppose them trying to further the message of their party within them because I know that when in comes to the crunch we are opposing sides, as a basic glance at history highlights.

I responded in kind.

[ComradeOm]

Anti-statism and class struggle go hand in handClearly that is not the case. If it were true then anarcho-capitalism would not exist. Indeed many strains of anarchist would not exist - you could plausibly argue that it was only in the 20th or late 19th C (with the emergence of anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism) that anarchism really managed to reconcile those competing poles of class struggle and 'anti-statism'


And please, give me a modern day example whre Anarchists have done such things, as you say we are prone to doing so these days.Granted I'm not in the best position to judge, so this is entirely anecdotal, but in my experience many anarchists have taken their eye off the ball, so to speak, of late. The proliferation of 'green anarchy', 'post-left anarchy', 'insurrectionary anarchism', etc etc, are all tendencies in which the importance of the working class is marginalised. These are anarchist movements but ones that can hardly be called socialist and that does tend to bleed over in relations with 'statists'

For a particular example, the vitriol displayed towards 'Leninists' by many anarchists is a fairly recent development. Obviously relations between the two have rarely been cordial (although the two did march together during 1917) but no anarchist I that know would have condoned the vandalisation of 'Leninist' bookshops or the elevation of such action into a major plank of an anarchist group's raison d'etre. Yet you'll find that there are many who support the RAAN actions against 'statists' and readily conflate 'statism' with 'anti-working class'. The more anarchists divorce themselves from the working class the more often such actions will occur

Of course it also goes without saying that there are many good anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists who have not succumbed to this tendency. I know a number of them from this site. Obviously I think they're wrong on a few points but I can still admire and respect their actions

[nuisance]

Except Edelweiss Pirate was telling porkies. He didn't claim "statists" were his enemy, but "Trotskyists":

I actually said 'Trotskyists and the like in networks', this was meaning statists, afterall Trotskyists are the most prominent statists on the revolutionary circuit and invovled in cross group networks, atleast in the UK at this moment in time.

[Hit The North]

I actually said 'Trotskyists and the like in networks', this was meaning statists, afterall Trotskyists are the most prominent statists on the revolutionary circuit and invovled in cross group networks, atleast in the UK at this moment in time.

That is absurd. Trotskyist don't stick to some rigid schema of imposing a state on the working class after the revolution. They merely argue the reasons for its necessity during the Russian revolution and allow for the fact that it may be necessary for this to happen again.

Trotskyists have not been state-builders in their history like Stalinists have. Admittedly, this is largely because they've not been in a position to. Nevertheless, they don't - or at least the best don't - make some kind of a-historical dogma out of the 'state'.

Calling them 'statists' only betrays your own dogma.

[nuisance]

That is absurd. Trotskyist don't stick to some rigid schema of imposing a state on the working class after the revolution. They merely argue the reasons for its necessity during the Russian revolution and allow for the fact that it may be necessary for this to happen again.

Trotskyists have not been state-builders in their history like Stalinists have. Admittedly, this is largely because they've not been in a position to. Nevertheless, they don't - or at least the best don't - make some kind of a-historical dogma out of the 'state'.

Calling them 'statists' only betrays your own dogma.
So, you do not advocate the installation of a centralised 'workers state' at some point of the struggle?

[The Feral Underclass]

Except Edelweiss Pirate was telling porkies. He didn't claim "statists" were his enemy, but "Trotskyists"

What does it take to be defined as a statist? I always thought it was when you advocated a state.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

As you well know - you deceiver! - my neg rep of you was retaliation for you neg repping my assertion that most anarchists value their individual autonomy over party discipline.

That is completely childish, Edelweiss' post was in retaliation of your stereotypical take on Anarchists which wasn't based on reality.



Really? So which party discipline do you subject yourself to?

I did not claim to be the subject of a parties discipline, I merely stated that it was bollocks to negative rep a completely valid post.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Clearly that is not the case. If it were true then anarcho-capitalism would not exist. Indeed many strains of anarchist would not exist - you could plausibly argue that it was only in the 20th or late 19th C (with the emergence of anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism) that anarchism really managed to reconcile those competing poles of class struggle and 'anti-statism'

But 'Anarcho'-Capitalism is not anti-statist, if there is private property being enforced by a ruling class then there is a state.



Granted I'm not in the best position to judge, so this is entirely anecdotal, but in my experience many anarchists have taken their eye off the ball, so to speak, of late. The proliferation of 'green anarchy', 'post-left anarchy', 'insurrectionary anarchism', etc etc, are all tendencies in which the importance of the working class is marginalised. These are anarchist movements but ones that can hardly be called socialist and that does tend to bleed over in relations with 'statists'

This seems to be cropping up a lot. The types of 'Anarchism' you have mention have nothing to do with the Anarchist tradition of co-operation with socialists. They are not class struggle Anarchists therefore cannot be classified as Anarchists.



For a particular example, the vitriol displayed towards 'Leninists' by many anarchists is a fairly recent development. Obviously relations between the two have rarely been cordial (although the two did march together during 1917)

Yes you are correct, Anarchists actually played a part in the Russian revolution, we were co-operating (and I seek co-operation today). Up until the point where Lenin chucked Anarchists out of the soviets and denounced them as bourgeois.



but no anarchist I that know would have condoned the vandalisation of 'Leninist' bookshops or the elevation of such action into a major plank of an anarchist group's raison d'etre. Yet you'll find that there are many who support the RAAN actions against 'statists' and readily conflate 'statism' with 'anti-working class'. The more anarchists divorce themselves from the working class the more often such actions will occur

Yes and I do not agree with that at all. I am not too aware of RAAN's activities but to me they themselves seem like they aren't Anarchists.



Of course it also goes without saying that there are many good anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists who have not succumbed to this tendency. I know a number of them from this site. Obviously I think they're wrong on a few points but I can still admire and respect their actions

Yes of course, but you must realise these are the true Anarchists. All others are not true Anarchists and we denounce them as much as you. You must come to see that this is not a valid critique because they are not part of out movement.

[robbo203]

That is absurd. Trotskyist don't stick to some rigid schema of imposing a state on the working class after the revolution. They merely argue the reasons for its necessity during the Russian revolution and allow for the fact that it may be necessary for this to happen again.
.

Are you saying here that Trotskyists are open to the suggestion that the whole notion of a so called "workers state" may, after all, not be neccessary? If so , this is a welcome development but I would be interested in seeing some evidence for this

[ComradeOm]

Bob raises an excellent point here - the whole concept of 'statism' or 'anti-statism' is an anarchist one. Marxists do not subscribe to it and we do not categorise ourselves according to it. We are not 'statist' in that we do not worship of fetishise state itself, and nor are we 'anti-statist' in the sense of rejecting such a state out of hand. Frankly we don't give a damn either way and simply believe that the workers state, in whatever form, is an inevitable outcome of proletarian revolution

In short, this is not our hang-up ;)


This seems to be cropping up a lot. The types of 'Anarchism' you have mention have nothing to do with the Anarchist tradition of co-operation with socialists. They are not class struggle Anarchists therefore cannot be classified as AnarchistsWhich is exactly my point - where anarchists and communists have cooperated it has been on the basis on their joint socialism. Where this is lacking (because 'anti-statist' or other flavours of the month have arisen) then there can be no such cooperation

As to whether they are anarchists or not... well this is a case of the True Scotsman. I'm sure they claim that they are anarchists and, judging by a quick overview of the movement's history, they are probably correct. Personally I have no time for any anarchists that reject class struggle but historically there have been quite a lot of them. Even today there are a number of post-left anarchists and their ilk on RevLeft and all this 'anti-statist' talk only encourages them


Yes you are correct, Anarchists actually played a part in the Russian revolution, we were co-operating (and I seek co-operation today). Up until the point where Lenin chucked Anarchists out of the soviets and denounced them as bourgeoisActually the picture is far more complex. The impression that I get is the the Bolsheviks tolerated the anarchists as a relatively insignificant and misguided sect until their excesses ("expropriations" and a reversion to terrorism in the wake of Brest-Litovsk) finally proved too much

[Pogue]

Actually the picture is far more complex. The impression that I get is the the Bolsheviks tolerated the anarchists as a relatively insignificant and misguided sect until their excesses ("expropriations" and a reversion to terrorism in the wake of Brest-Litovsk) finally proved too much


Actually, they always heavily weighted places in the various 'All Russia Congress of...' against the Anarcho-Syndcialists, who held quite a large sway over elements of the working class. The anarcho-syndicalists had 25 delegates at the All Russian Congress of Trade Unions and you needed 3000-3500 per delegate.

The Bolsheviks attacked alot of the anarchist centres in Russia which is when the fighting between them and the Black Guards occured. Later on, alot of anarcho-syndicalist pbulications were closed down by the State and the Bolsheviks actually feared the anarchists for a while, believing what we in fact spontaneous workers pushes for control against Bolshevik autocracy were anarchist plots to undermine state power through the Factory Committees.

And then of course, there was the whole defections to Makhno, the betrayals, and the suppresion of Kronstadt.

I'm covering alot of this in that thread I said I'd make for you.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I'm covering alot of this in that thread I said I'd make for you.

When are you gonna make it? Sounds tasty.

[Pogue]

I'll have probably finished it by the end of this week at latest

[Hit The North]

That is completely childish, Edelweiss' post was in retaliation of your stereotypical take on Anarchists which wasn't based on reality.


So you agree with his neg rep of me but not my neg rep of him calling me his enemy? Fine. But if we can't neg rep our self-declared enemies, who can we neg rep?


I did not claim to be the subject of a parties discipline

But wouldn't that be you falling into a "stereotypical take on Anarchists"?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Clearly that is not the case. If it were true then anarcho-capitalism would not exist.
But it doesn't exist. Who here has ever met an anarcho-cap IRL? How many of them? They're about as important as "national anarchists". A few 19th-century theorists with contradictory ideas and 5 people on the internet does not a tendency make.

For a particular example, the vitriol displayed towards 'Leninists' by many anarchists is a fairly recent development. Obviously relations between the two have rarely been cordial (although the two did march together during 1917) but no anarchist I that know would have condoned the vandalisation of 'Leninist' bookshops or the elevation of such action into a major plank of an anarchist group's raison d'etre.
Um, Makhno?

Bob raises an excellent point here - the whole concept of 'statism' or 'anti-statism' is an anarchist one. Marxists do not subscribe to it and we do not categorise ourselves according to it. We are not 'statist' in that we do not worship of fetishise state itself, and nor are we 'anti-statist' in the sense of rejecting such a state out of hand. Frankly we don't give a damn either way and simply believe that the workers state, in whatever form, is an inevitable outcome of proletarian revolution
So, basically, you're statists who don't like being called statists? I can't blame you, if I was a statist I'd be embarrassed about it as well.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

So you agree with his neg rep of me but not my neg rep of him calling me his enemy? Fine. But if we can't neg rep our self-declared enemies, who can we neg rep?

Well he gave negative rep for a piece of misinformation on your part. Edelweiss was stating a fact about certain parties.




But wouldn't that be you falling into a "stereotypical take on Anarchists"?

No that would be me not standing for bureaucratic measures.

[robbo203]

I'll have probably finished it by the end of this week at latest


Dont forget Julius Martov's excellent demolition jobs on the pretensions of the Bolsheviks in respect of the soviet movement ;) http://www.theoryandpractice.org.uk/index.php?q=node/19

[Hit The North]

Well he gave negative rep for a piece of misinformation on your part.

Except you are proof that it wasn't misinformation.


No that would be me not standing for bureaucratic measures.


Wtf does that even mean?

[Random Precision]

Yes you are correct, Anarchists actually played a part in the Russian revolution, we were co-operating (and I seek co-operation today). Up until the point where Lenin chucked Anarchists out of the soviets and denounced them as bourgeois.

The Russian anarchists were a very mixed bag. No doubt, perhaps even a majority of them were revolutionaries who supported Soviet power, and many of them went over to the Bolshevik Party in the aftermath of October. However the official anarchist circles (such as the Libertarian Clubs) ended up serving as havens for the worst sort of reactionaries. Victor Serge (an anarchist-turned-Bolshevik himself) talks in Year One of the Russian Revolution about a memo circulated among Tsarist military officers instructing them to join the anarchist clubs for cover and protection, since the anarchists were expected to hold the principles of decentralization and autonomy so high that they would refuse to expel even known reactionaries from their organizations. You can read Serge's version here (http://www.marx.org/archive/serge/1930/year-one/ch07.htm).

Also there were all sorts of plain criminal elements who joined anarchist organizations to provide cover to activities like robbery of Soviet property, laying whole city streets under tribute, occupying buildings, etc. Trotsky talks about this here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/ch34.htm#ii).

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Except you are proof that it wasn't misinformation.

Haha, I am a Platformist.


Wtf does that even mean?

I do not believe in the organisation of certain so-called Communist organisations. I am not accusing you of this just in general some Marxist organisations. I don't think it was right to single out Trotskyist organisations (I assume you are a Trotsykist yourself) but it is understandable after your comment.

[Ovi]

I'm not a fan of Stalin either Mao either, but do you know what fascism is?
Well, let's see
-fascists are imperialists
-fascists use ethnic cleansing and genocide to expand their national territory
-fascists want a single party state
-fascists say that they are against capitalism
Crap, isn't Stalin the biggest fascist or what? And don't start whining about how they have different ideologies or shit, they are the same: a minority ruling over a majority; that's why there is no such thing as a proletarian state, proletariat signifies the working majority, while the state is the ruling minority. You can believe if you want that these new masters care about the people, but they are not part of the proletariat (now that was a surprise). Thus proletarian state is grammatically incorrect :lol:

[Bright Banana Beard]

Well, let's see
-fascists are imperialists
-fascists use ethnic cleansing and genocide to expand their national territory
-fascists want a single party state
-fascists say that they are against capitalism
Crap, isn't Stalin the biggest fascist or what? And don't start whining about how they have different ideologies or shit, they are the same: a minority ruling over a majority; that's why there is no such thing as a proletarian state, proletariat signifies the working majority, while the state is the ruling minority. You can believe if you want that these new masters care about the people, but they are not part of the proletariat (now that was a surprise). Thus proletarian state is grammatically incorrect :lol:
Sorry to say it, but you are mostly wrong even on the definition of state.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

This highlights another schism between Marxists and anarchists: Marxists tend to believe in the importance of a disciplined revolutionary party consisting of the most class conscious workers, whereas anarchists want to preserve their individualistic right to obey only their own consciences.

This isn't true of all anarchists. Only most.

Can you explain to me the difference between "most class conscious workers" and "the lucky few that are more equal than the rest"?

Gonna give everyone class consciousness tests to find out how loyal they are to the state?

[Hit The North]

Can you explain to me the difference between "most class conscious workers" and "the lucky few that are more equal than the rest"?

Gonna give everyone class consciousness tests to find out how loyal they are to the state?


The most class conscious workers are those who understand they are in a class struggle with capital; that there cannot be any compromise with capital; that their class interests - and the interests of humanity - can only be secured with the the final abolition of capital; that the final abolition of capital can only be achieved through its revolutionary overthrow by the workers themselves.

This cannot be "tested for", only proved in practice. Moreover, the successful overthrow of capital can only be achieved when large swathes of the working class achieve such a level of consciousness.

Meanwhile, the comments I made, which you quote in your post, concerns organising the most conscious workers this side of the revolution, not after.

[Black Sheep]

A statist is no ally of mine. Statists are naive, all states turn corrupt and rely on a death threat to be fiscally funded. It doesn't matter if the flag is red white and blue or has a gold hammer and sickle on it, states are barbaric institutions.By the marxist definition, you are a statist as well you know.
Any formation/organization, means and actions taken to defend the revolution is a state.

[Pogue]

By the marxist definition, you are a statist as well you know.
Any formation/organization, means and actions taken to defend the revolution is a state.

Not really. But it is a matter of contention. The state the Bolsheviks implemented was very similar to the Tsarist state down to having alot of the same officials, whereas the state the SWP, modern day Bolsheviks, describe is closer to what anarchists advocate. The point is what we actually mean. Anarchists believe in defending the revolution through workers militias, the federation of worker's councils, etc, the Bolsheviks actually had a centralised state which was essentially the party and appointed beurecrats. I'm anti-Bolshevik state, the sort of state which would end pu happening if alot of concessions started being made to the statist idea, so I believe any centralisation has to be federal and delegatory. We need to get the balance between effective and tyrannical. I wouldn't call it a state because it wont be anything like what we know a state to be and I am anti-state, but pro-working class exercising its power. Its semantics and wordplay but I don't trust what the Leninists would implement.

[Misanthrope]

By the marxist definition, you are a statist as well you know.
Any formation/organization, means and actions taken to defend the revolution is a state.

I'm not really that strong an advocate of a violent revolution.

[Pogue]

I'm not really that strong an advocate of a violent revolution.

Why not?

[Misanthrope]

Why not?

I think for a revolution to be successful society must already by preparing (whether they know it or not) for after the revolution. Things like, the majority of businesses being self managed by workers and the like. I also think socialism can be achieved through market means, worker managed businesses putting capitalist owned businesses out of business, ect. Basically, I advocate a mutualist system to be the transitional period between capitalism and communism.

[n0thing]

Why are anarchists and statist communists allies? I mean, I know they both oppose capitalism, but really it seems to me that communists who support the state have as much in common with anarchists as libertarian capitalists who oppose the state. I guess statist communists and socialists are Anarchists political allies when it comes to unionizing, but then again in the Spanish Civil War weren't the CNT and the Communist/Socialist unions bitter rivals who only eventually united to fight Franco? I'm not trying to knock anybodies beliefs, it just seems like a strange combination because the ideologies seem very different.

Not really. The marxists and the anarchists were aligned pretty much throughout the revolution. Stalin repressed the anarchists and the marxists in equal measure.

The marxist and anarchist concepts of socialism are pretty much the same. Marxist-leninists on the other hand, have a very different attitude and thus, are not allies.

[zerozerozerominusone]

They're not very differant at all. Both want classless stateless society

So tell me, what would the material, day to day reality of such a state be? How would things get done without someone acting as a leader on some project?

[Ovi]

I think for a revolution to be successful society must already by preparing (whether they know it or not) for after the revolution. Things like, the majority of businesses being self managed by workers and the like. I also think socialism can be achieved through market means, worker managed businesses putting capitalist owned businesses out of business, ect. Basically, I advocate a mutualist system to be the transitional period between capitalism and communism.
Putting capitalist owned businesses out of business? You mean by advertising and promoting consumerism? Destroying the environment to be competitive since that's cheaper than protecting it? "No replastering, the structure is rotten" is a message from France, May 1968. And you'd think someone actually learned something from that...

^shot in the head for believing something we do not allow
There, fixed that for you.

[Pogue]

I think for a revolution to be successful society must already by preparing (whether they know it or not) for after the revolution. Things like, the majority of businesses being self managed by workers and the like. I also think socialism can be achieved through market means, worker managed businesses putting capitalist owned businesses out of business, ect. Basically, I advocate a mutualist system to be the transitional period between capitalism and communism.

oh so your a reformist then

[Coggeh]

I think for a revolution to be successful society must already by preparing (whether they know it or not) for after the revolution. Things like, the majority of businesses being self managed by workers and the like. I also think socialism can be achieved through market means, worker managed businesses putting capitalist owned businesses out of business, ect. Basically, I advocate a mutualist system to be the transitional period between capitalism and communism.
If you believe in socialism why do you have anarchist by your post count and stuff ...:confused:

[Pogue]

If you believe in socialism why do you have anarchist by your post count and stuff ...:confused:

I'm an anarcho-socialist, in my opinion all anarchists are socialists, we're just libertarian socialists.

[Coggeh]

So tell me, what would the material, day to day reality of such a state be? How would things get done without someone acting as a leader on some project?
Essentially it would be a democratic workers state . I.e factories industry hospitals etc would be run democratically by elected workers councils for the benefit of the workers and the community . Their would be a government but again it would be democratically elected on a mandate , every elected official must take the workers wage and if they turn from their mandate they would be subject to immediate recall.

Theirs always going to be someone acting as a leader on some, project as you put it .But in terms of the state their wouldn't be one leader.

[Coggeh]

I'm an anarcho-socialist, in my opinion all anarchists are socialists, we're just libertarian socialists.
I was refering to another post.

But i meant socialism in the meaning of a transitional workers state . Seems contradictory to anarchism .

[Pogue]

I was refering to another post.

But i meant socialism in the meaning of a transitional workers state . Seems contradictory to anarchism .

I don't care what you were refering to.

Thats not what socialism means.

[Coggeh]

I don't care what you were refering to.

Thats not what socialism means.
I'm a marxist , give me a break .Can't ya just call yourselves libertarian communists and make everybody happy ? :)

[Pogue]

I'm a marxist , give me a break .Can't ya just call yourselves libertarian communists and make everybody happy ? :)

It was Lenin who called it 'socialism', Marx never differentiated between socialism and communism.

[ArrowLance]

We are not allies. I've seen self-confessed stalinists and maoists on this forum, which means fascists are also allowed here.

You do know that fascism isn't just an insult, it has ideas attached to it, right? To say that a Maoist or Marxist-Leninist is fascist is to be completely ignorant of what fascism is.

Edit: If I would have read the rest of your posts I wouldn't have had to ask that question. Silly me.

[Coggeh]

It was Lenin who called it 'socialism', Marx never differentiated between socialism and communism.
Well i just so happen to be a leninist too . ;)

[Pogue]

Well i just so happen to be a leninist too . ;)

Well blame Lenin for the confusion then.

[Coggeh]

Well blame Lenin for the confusion then.
He's not around so im blaming you .