Why anarcho-communism, and not keep the state?

[Muzk]

Gentlemen,

Some time ago I have read, on a communist website, a text why they do not want anarchism.
I could not find the source again, but it only had a small text, starting with something like "Anarchists decline all kind of leadership, without even questioning who is leading them"

Can I think of this as some kind of belief that any leadership will be corrupt and not represent the masses?

Please, enlighten me, as the only other leftist I have ever talked to at my school told me that anarchism/autonomy is shit (his words).
I did not get an opportunity to talk to him about these kind of things, will get back to that when I get the chance.



In short: Why abandon the state(leadership)?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Well. Ideally, Communism is a society of Anarchy.

The only difference between Marxist's and Anarcho-Communists is the idea of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" otherwise known as the Socialist phase.

As you can see from the Spanish Civil War, Anarcho-Communism worked out quite well until the Fascist scourge defeated the Republicans.

The idea of abandoning the state is the idea of all Marxists and Anarchists.

Why though? Why have a social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (Without the implication of disorder)?

The reason is just that common sense would allow people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour.

When you have a leader (more precisely a hierarchy) you will always have the idea of power that can change into totalitarianism. That can change to what we do not want/need.

[Muzk]

Well, don't you need some kind of organization to plan the economy? Would that be part of the 'soviets' work?
And, for something like 'diplomacy' ?

How about the 'elite' of communists? The ones who devote their lives to learning for a better future? Not only by "intelligence", but rather by morale and devotion for our case, they could be the representants for 'us', and of course be voted by soviet-councils, of course dictatorship should never be given a chance, because a single person can not really represent the needs of the masses, but rather the needs of himself, of course, not everyone thinks like this, but who knows what a single person would do with such power

And, I don't think a farmer knows as much about economy as someone who chose to devote his life to it, after all, isn't that where communists come into play?

That wouldn't be totalitarian, but rather, people who do something in the names of everyone



And, after all wouldn't councils represent the 'state' then?


(more precisely a hierarchy)

but I don't think any proletarian state is going to elect a king or dictator, if there isn't a big deal of fascism involved

I think power should be shared evenly among everyone,
and I don't really think EVERY single human wants to play such a big role in politics (that's how it is now), so why not give the power to others who represent their beliefs?

[Jack]

Well, don't you need some kind of organization to plan the economy? Would that be part of the 'soviets' work?
And, for something like 'diplomacy' ?

Communist organization of the economy. The Conquest of Bread lays it out, it's free online and an easy read.


How about the 'elite' of communists? The ones who devote their lives to learning for a better future? Not only by "intelligence", but rather by morale and devotion for our case, they could be the representants for 'us', and of course be voted by soviet-councils, of course dictatorship should never be given a chance, because a single person can not really represent the needs of the masses, but rather the needs of himself, of course, not everyone thinks like this, but who knows what a single person would do with such power

You just answered your own question.


And, I don't think a farmer knows as much about economy as someone who chose to devote his life to it, after all, isn't that where communists come into play?

As revolutionary socialists we are (mostly, with the exception of the marketeers and other such scum we've been getting recently) working class. Our knowledge of the economy comes from our experience working as productive forces and actually keeping the thing running. Bourgeois economists are experts on things they aren't a part of, you could be an expert on India, but you don't know shit until you've lived there.

I'll reply to the rest later.

[Muzk]

You just answered your own question.

actually I meant a 'democratic' way of electing representants without real power in their hands




Our knowledge of the economy comes from our experience working as productive forces and actually keeping the thing running. Bourgeois economists are experts on things they aren't a part of


Workers might be able to keep their 'machine' running, but I don't think anyone can, without proper knowledge, plan a whole nation-wide economy,nor other complex things where an expert is neccessary - isn't that the 'technology' capitalism has brought us too? The chances to make a perfect society using past experiences?

[revolution inaction]

Well, don't you need some kind of organization to plan the economy?

anarchism isn't against organisation, we are against rulers.



Would that be part of the 'soviets' work?


if by soviets you mean workers councils



And, for something like 'diplomacy' ?

diplomacy with who?



How about the 'elite' of communists? The ones who devote their lives to learning for a better future? Not only by "intelligence", but rather by morale and devotion for our case, they could be the representants for 'us', and of course be voted by soviet-councils, of course dictatorship should never be given a chance, because a single person can not really represent the needs of the masses, but rather the needs of himself, of course, not everyone thinks like this, but who knows what a single person would do with such power

i am not sure what you are saying here?



And, I don't think a farmer knows as much about economy as someone who chose to devote his life to it, after all, isn't that where communists come into play?

there's no reason that the better informed can't argue for there ideas of what should be do inside the councils, if they really know so much then people will be able to recognise this, but in reality communist economics are not so complicated that an ordinary person couldn't understand them.
What do you mean "where communists come into play"?



That wouldn't be totalitarian, but rather, people who do something in the names of everyone
what wouldn't be totalitarian?

[quote]
And, after all wouldn't councils represent the 'state' then?

in what circumstances do you think that councils would represent the state? a state is not just any organisation, it is a specific form of organisation for the protection of the ruling class, and it is top down.



but I don't think any proletarian state is going to elect a king or dictator, if there isn't a big deal of fascism involved.

I think power should be shared evenly among everyone,

if you have power shared evenly among everyone then you don't have a state, a state concentrates power into the hands of a few.



and I don't really think EVERY single human wants to play such a big role in politics (that's how it is now), so why not give the power to others who represent their beliefs?
not everyone wants to be involved in ever decision made in society, but who doesn't what to make choices for themself?
It isn't not the case at the current time that people don't get involved in politics because they cant be bothered but rather that politics at the current time excludes the overwhelming majority from having any real say. and most people don't get involved in radical politics because they have no idea what it is or why they would want to.
Electing someone who represents your views is just not possible, you can't tell what someone really thinks or how they will change there mind in the future and even if they try there best to work for the people you elected them and never become corrupt the cant tell what we really want or need. and in reality virtually every single person will become corrupted by power.

[Muzk]

anarchism isn't against organisation, we are against rulers.

What if the councils elected a head-council where the ideas of the councils come together and economy/future is planned? Would that count as a state?
... the article on wikipedia about the word state is way too large to read now... and has lots of unneccesary things at the first look.
That wouldn't actually be leadership, because people could still get involved by filling a complaint, showing up at a council or talking to a council member... right?


if by soviets you mean workers councils

Yes


diplomacy with who?

World-wide communism won't happen at once. Hint: USA as the main one
With diplomacy I mean planning together with other countries. You know, if I had a country with 100 bananas but only 10 are eaten, why not give the 90 to someone who needs it?



i am not sure what you are saying here?

Electing 'representants' for our case. Still, not needed if the whole world was communist, but, that's very unlikely to happen at first



there's no reason that the better informed can't argue for there ideas of what should be do inside the councils, if they really know so much then people will be able to recognise this, but in reality communist economics are not so complicated that an ordinary person couldn't understand them.
What do you mean "where communists come into play"?

By communists I mean the 'head' of the communists, the ones planning for the sake of everyone, about education etc. Expert commies!



what wouldn't be totalitarian?
Having representants for the case of communism. Like, a president without real power. Still not needed if the world was changed. But change doesn't come instantly



in what circumstances do you think that councils would represent the state? a state is not just any organisation, it is a specific form of organisation for the protection of the ruling class, and it is top down.
What if the ruling class was the worker? Wouldn't that change everything?
Of course the state can't be full of right wingers then
I don't like if someones doing my decisions for me either.

I think the state is not only a protection of the ruling class... part of it does laws etc. Laws for themselves too, yes, but that's where 'shared power' comes into place, councils discussing about decisions about the 'head-council', whereas, whatever the state decided, would have to get a thumbs up from all the councils, therefore, the people, the worker.


if you have power shared evenly among everyone then you don't have a state, a state concentrates power into the hands of a few.
How do we call it then? And, what if the state doesn't concentrate the power but rather split up into oppositions? How it is now it is still a concentration, but with councils it would be perfect.

[revolution inaction]

What if the councils elected a head-council where the ideas of the councils come together and economy/future is planned? Would that count as a state?
... the article on wikipedia about the word state is way too large to read now... and has lots of unneccesary things at the first look.
That wouldn't actually be leadership, because people could still get involved by filling a complaint, showing up at a council or talking to a council member... right?

Filling a complaint is your idea of people getting involved?! and you think that this, or "talking to a council member" (which implies that the most the people are outside the councils) means theres no leaders?
I wouldn't bother to much about wikipedia its often really inaccurate, if you search this site there are several threads about what anarchists mean by the state, which is different to the way maxists use the word, and different to the way liberals use it to.
The way you are talking about counciles sound a lot more like city/town councils that exist now, rather than workers councils which are what i was talking about.
In a workers council (and also community councils) all the workers in a particular workplace (or the people of an area for community councils) come together an discuss what ever issues there are like how to run the work place, what changes need to be made etc, and decide on what they want to do. then for things that are bigger than one workplace or community a delegate is chosen to convey the decision reached to the other councils. then the delegates will meet and discuss things, the delegates are strictly mandated, so they don't make the decision them self, but if the decisions of the councils are sufficiently similar then things are decided, if not then the results of the discussion are taken back to the councils, and they can try again.
Delegates are also elected to do jobs where it is not practical for everyone to be take part in, and again given a strict mandate and recalled if necessary, there are usually rotated on a regular basis to, to stop them accumulating power, or a situation developing where only one person can do the job.




World-wide communism won't happen at once. Hint: USA as the main one
With diplomacy I mean planning together with other countries. You know, if I had a country with 100 bananas but only 10 are eaten, why not give the 90 to someone who needs it?

you cant have communism in one country, if one area has a revolution and becomes communist then it must quickly be joined by another and another or else it will either be crushed by outside forces, or it will fall apart or experience counter revolution due to its inability to meet its own needs from within its territory.



Electing 'representants' for our case. Still, not needed if the whole world was communist, but, that's very unlikely to happen at first


do you mean ambasidors? this doesn't make sense




By communists I mean the 'head' of the communists, the ones planning for the sake of everyone, about education etc. Expert commies!

how could there be a head communist/s? communism isn't about a group of experts making decisions for every one, its about everyone taking control of there own lives.



Having representants for the case of communism. Like, a president without real power. Still not needed if the world was changed. But change doesn't come instantly

if the president has no power then they are just a figure head, and we have no need of them, electing a figurehead would just be a game, and have nothing to do with running society.



What if the ruling class was the worker? Wouldn't that change everything?
Of course the state can't be full of right wingers then
I don't like if someones doing my decisions for me either.

the working class can't be the ruling class, they are defined by the fact that they have nothing to sell but there labour, the revolution is the process by which the workers seize control of the means of production and abolish class, after the revolution there is no other class for the workers to rule over



I think the state is not only a protection of the ruling class... part of it does laws etc. Laws for themselves too, yes, but that's where 'shared power' comes into place, councils discussing about decisions about the 'head-council', whereas, whatever the state decided, would have to get a thumbs up from all the councils, therefore, the people, the worker.

every thing that the state does is for the befit of the ruling class, when they provide education it is because capitle needs educated workers, when they put in place laws that protect us it is only so we don't strike or riot.



How do we call it then? And, what if the state doesn't concentrate the power but rather split up into oppositions? How it is now it is still a concentration, but with councils it would be perfect.
what if a capitalist doesn't keep the profits for themself , but instead gives them back to there workers and gives them control of the busines to?

it just doesn't happen, it is the nature of states to take as much power for themselves as they can.

If things are run by a network or federation of workers councils then its not a state, it has non of the cacitoristics of a state, i would just call it a network or a federation until we come up with a new name.


here is the conquest of bread that jack mentioned http://libcom.org/library/the-conquest-of-bread-peter-kropotkin

[Muzk]

you cant have communism in one country, if one area has a revolution and becomes communist then it must quickly be joined by another and another or else it will either be crushed by outside forces, or it will fall apart or experience counter revolution due to its inability to meet its own needs from within its territory.Yes, see below



do you mean ambasidors? this doesn't make senseIn the case of a communist country it is needed to get more involved, but you can't hope for some liberal propaganda ridden country to 'simply join'




how could there be a head communist/s? communism isn't about a group of experts making decisions for every one, its about everyone taking control of there own lives.That's right but you need people which are able to do things you can't. Not everyone can build a house. Solidarity - big word
With 'head' I mean the ones planning the economy, de-privatize poverty, plan nationwide things
so, yes you could call it the 'discussion round' of council delegates you mentioned earlier.



if the president has no power then they are just a figure head, and we have no need of them, electing a figurehead would just be a game, and have nothing to do with running society.As in 1., you need EVERYONE to join communism, so, in the phase of socialism you need to get countries involved.
Delegates could get one person to represent communism to the 'other' countries - like a person to talk to. Presidents without power are good for one thing - presenting the people behind them, simply as a 'medium'



the working class can't be the ruling class, they are defined by the fact that they have nothing to sell but there labour, the revolution is the process by which the workers seize control of the means of production and abolish class, after the revolution there is no other class for the workers to rule overThey rule over themselves, that's what was intended in the first place, right?



every thing that the state does is for the befit of the ruling class, when they provide education it is because capitle needs educated workers, when they put in place laws that protect us it is only so we don't strike or riot.....You're way too extreme. Stone thrower? Hehe...
Laws are to protect people in the first place. Not every law might be that neccessary - but laws are needed as long as there's criminality and humiliation. Yes, even when one of 'us commies' does it.
And, hasn't the education brought us to what we are now? It did it for me at least, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Why stay stupid? Use the education against the rulers.



what if a capitalist doesn't keep the profits for themself , but instead gives them back to there workers and gives them control of the busines to?Not possible in a big business, and small middle-class capitalists are different from the big ones
Also they wouldn't be capitalist anymore, because they share their capital with others. (And die over time... competition.)


it just doesn't happen, it is the nature of states to take as much power for themselves as they can.Which is needed to change a thing. You just need the right people, and laws, an opposition...



Might read that book later on, got 3 others to learn from now

And I feel we are slightly off-topic now. It's kind of just you anarchists arguing with me - not stating why you chose anarchism rather than 'pure' communism

[Havet]

In a simple reason: Statism is irrational.

If it is wrong for a person to do X, then it is wrong for all people to do X.
If it is wrong for all people to do X, it is wrong for groups of people to do X.
The State is a group of people. It is wrong for the State to do X.

This means, no war, no forced law, no forced taxes. This is not compatible with the state (at least its final oppressive form).

There is nothing inherent in any one group of people that makes them superior to all others by the very title which they give themselves (feudal kings thought they were divine because of Gods, for example..).

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy

There's nothing wrong with representatives and delegates as long as they have no power. With the right to recall they're simply administrators performing whatever tasks are delegated to them.

[revolution inaction]

In the case of a communist country it is needed to get more involved, but you can't hope for some liberal propaganda ridden country to 'simply join'

There can't be a communist country at all, and countries won't join, but people in those countries can join in the revolution where they are, leading to the revolution spreading.



That's right but you need people which are able to do things you can't. Not everyone can build a house.

so there will be some specialisation.



Solidarity - big word

what?



With 'head' I mean the ones planning the economy, de-privatize poverty, plan nationwide things
so, yes you could call it the 'discussion round' of council delegates you mentioned earlier.

so the workers, which is near everyone, will do this. to refer to a head suggests that you mean a small group deciding thing on behalf of others. if you instead mean everyone then that is incredibly misleading.




As in 1., you need EVERYONE to join communism, so, in the phase of socialism you need to get countries involved.

the idea of a "phase" of "socialism" is some thing only talked about by lenininsts, to me it looks like a justification for state capitalism. The revolution is not complete until we have communism, there is no stage inbetween capitalism and communism where there are markets and wages and a government, the revolution is, amongst other things, the process of destroying these things.



Delegates could get one person to represent communism to the 'other' countries - like a person to talk to. Presidents without power are good for one thing - presenting the people behind them, simply as a 'medium'

delegates don't have any power, they are there only for the purpose of adding communication.
If the councils want to select someone to tell the rest of the world what they think then they can do that, but the the name for such a person is a spokes person not a president. I doubt anyway that the councils would be able to come up with one view anyway and i doubt even more that they would chose for it to be presented by one person.
And why do you talk of "representing communism to the 'other' countries" we will of cause talk to the workers in places that are not yet communist, but not to countries, we don't try and get the governments to join use, a government can't make communism even if it wants to, teh best they could do is step aside for the revolutions in there country, which will be made by the workers of there country not by the "communist" president meeting there leaders.



They rule over themselves, that's what was intended in the first place, right?

states allow one class to rule over another, when there are no classes there is no state.



....You're way too extreme. Stone thrower? Hehe...

i guess if a leftist is calling me extreme i must be doing something right.. whats this about stones though?



Laws are to protect people in the first place. Not every law might be that neccessary - but laws are needed as long as there's criminality and humiliation. Yes, even when one of 'us commies' does it.

the purpose of the law is mostly to help the ruling class maintain there position, thats why so much of it is about property, its not for our benefit even if it somethimes works out that way.



And, hasn't the education brought us to what we are now? It did it for me at least, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Why stay stupid? Use the education against the rulers.

you don't need to tell me to get educated, i have a degree in physics, being educated is obviously a good thing, just because the bourgesos do some thing for there own selfish reasons doesn't mean we should hurt our selves by trying to boycott it, you can't boycott capitalism.



Not possible in a big business, and small middle-class capitalists are different from the big ones
Also they wouldn't be capitalist anymore, because they share their capital with others. (And die over time... competition.)

that was my point



Which is needed to change a thing. You just need the right people, and laws, an opposition...

what does this mean?



Might read that book later on, got 3 others to learn from now

And I feel we are slightly off-topic now. It's kind of just you anarchists arguing with me - not stating why you chose anarchism rather than 'pure' communism

what is "pure communism" i'v only seen it before from pro-capitalists who are trying to say the ussr was a kind of communism, when we tell them what communism really is thay say thats just pure communism and in reality you get the ussr.
If you mean why are we anarchist communist rather than just communist, its because its more processes, communism can mean almost anything depending on who is using the word, and also i find most of my political theory in the anarchist tradition. Anarchist-communism is not communism mixed with anarchism, it is a political theory first developed by an anarchist called Peter Kropotkin. Anarchist-communists often use the communist part to refer only to the economic system and the anarchist part for the method of organisation, although what we mean by anarchist communism is almost identical to what some people (council communists and maybe left communists) just call communism.
I'm happy to use anarchism and communism almost interchangeably because i don't see how anarchism could work if it was not communist or how communism could work if it was not anarchist, so for me one implies the other.

[Muzk]

So both are actually the same?

Don't know why some people dont like anarchists then... probably because the stone throwers call themselves anarchists

[revolution inaction]

So both are actually the same?



Anarchist communism and certain types of marxism are almost identical, except for the use of language, but the different leninism have almost nothing in common with us and many of us wouldn't consider them communist.


Don't know why some people dont like anarchists then... probably because the stone throwers call themselves anarchists

some people dislike anarchism because they are misinformed about what it is, either because they get there idea of anarchism only from marxist sources or stupid anarchist. others dislike us because we offer a radical alternative the their left politics.

"stone throwers"? what do you mean, some times throwing stones is a good tactic, it depends on the circumstances.

[Forward Union]

why anarcho-communism, and not keep the sate?"


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Poster36.jpg

[Conquer or Die]

Anarchy is an irrational platform that allows for anybody to achieve power under any circumstance as legitimate. The very idea of the state emboldens the idea of a ruling people - Anarchy, even red anarchy, emboldens ideas and power structures as those above the people.

Socialism is the highest, logical form of the ruling state. A dictatorship of proletariat is essential to maintain humanity's highest scientific accomplishment.

[F9]

Anarchy is an irrational platform that allows for anybody to achieve power under any circumstance as legitimate. The very idea of the state emboldens the idea of a ruling people - Anarchy, even red anarchy, emboldens ideas and power structures as those above the people.

:confused::blink::confused::blink:


Socialism is the highest, logical form of the ruling state. A dictatorship of proletariat is essential to maintain humanity's highest scientific accomplishment.

:lol::laugh:

No words needed...There are really no words that can answer those "things".Keep trying though, you may achieve a criticism based on facts and not on lies.Practice makes perfect ;)

[Rosa Provokateur]

Gentlemen,

Some time ago I have read, on a communist website, a text why they do not want anarchism.
I could not find the source again, but it only had a small text, starting with something like "Anarchists decline all kind of leadership, without even questioning who is leading them"

Can I think of this as some kind of belief that any leadership will be corrupt and not represent the masses?

Please, enlighten me, as the only other leftist I have ever talked to at my school told me that anarchism/autonomy is shit (his words).
I did not get an opportunity to talk to him about these kind of things, will get back to that when I get the chance.



In short: Why abandon the state(leadership)?



The site is basically right, we believe that nobody is more qualified than you are to rule yourself.

Nobody can represent the masses, not even the masses. What I mean is this; you as an individual are complex, layered, and nothing can fully represent you and your aspirations better than you can. That being so, it would be impossible to do so for an entire populous. I personally think it's better that way. People need to and should be their own representatives, who else can one trust if not themself.

Sounds like he's a Marxist-Leninist and he's probably given you a huge rap about vanguard and Party, etc. Marxist-Leninists are naturally hostile to the idea of anarchy because it implies a world without a vanguard/without a Party/without a vehicle for them to run things. They have it in their heads that people cant do things for themselves and need others, the Marxist-Leninists, to do it for them. This kind of mind-set combined with State power can only lead to authoritarianism and to anarchists, an authoritarian State is the ultimate evil.

I'd suggest you read the sections on communism here:
http://poisonedcandy.com/RAAN/princ&dir.html

[RGacky3]

"Anarchists decline all kind of leadership, without even questioning who is leading them"


Depends what you mean by leadership, if you mean we arn't going to let people be charismatic, and give responsibility to people with experience and expertise, then of coarse not, but do decline any authority that is'nt 100 percent accountable to its constituents.




In short: Why abandon the state(leadership)?



THe state(leadership), first of all, there is ALWAYS "leadership", but that does'nt mean any formal authority.