Anarchist or Communist?

[The Vegan Marxist]

This is just to get a better understanding on who exactly is who, & what they represent. Either way, we are all comrades, & are all out for the same goal, & out to eliminate the same people. So let us represent who we really are!

[Q]

Out of the two I'd say communist, but like you said we're all comrades and if we're willing to look passed the sectarian divides, the differences are really based on nuances.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Also, if there are any ProThink! fascist supporters, please post & speak your mind. I'm not in support of your beliefs, but we should be out in the open on what we believe in.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

Anarchist-Communist! The choice should really be between anarchist or marxist.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Anarchist-Communist! The choice should really be between anarchist or marxist.

Maybe so, but there are different forms of Communism that isn't Marxist. For me, I'm an Anarcho-Communist with Marxist leanings.

:star::blackA: :hammersickle::star:

[whore]

there are anarchists taht are influenced by marxists. there are marxists that are influenced by anarchists.

there are anarchists that are communists. and communists that are anarchists. not all anarchists are communists. not all communists are anarchists.

in the end, i think that this entire poll is invalid.


(what are ProThink fascists?)

[The Vegan Marxist]

there are anarchists taht are influenced by marxists. there are marxists that are influenced by anarchists.

there are anarchists that are communists. and communists that are anarchists. not all anarchists are communists. not all communists are anarchists.

in the end, i think that this entire poll is invalid.


(what are ProThink fascists?)

These guys: http://www.prothink.org/

And because people want a more specific poll, then I'll post a better one. So I'm moving it to here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/your-political-ideologyi-t129327/index.html?t=129327

[ZeroNowhere]

Anarchist-Communist! The choice should really be between anarchist or marxist.
And that would also be a false dichotomy. Anyway, I generally identify myself as a 'libertarian communist', as 'communist' is a fair bit more specific than 'anarchist'. That is, for communism, it can be summed up quite well like this:

If co-operative production is not to remain a sham and a snare; if it is to supersede the capitalist system; if united co-operative societies are to regulate national production upon common plan, thus taking it under their own control, and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical convulsions which are the fatality of capitalist production – what else, gentlemen, would it be but communism, “possible” communism? For anarchism, you would probably have to mention people who support capitalism (economies of co-ops under capitalism, etc), and so on. Also, it's not quite as interesting to see the reaction of people to as with 'libertarian communism'.

[The Vegan Marxist]

These are all the basic elements of political ideologies. If there is a specific mix that you are of, then you can explain it through a post on the thread. If there's anything I didn't mention, then it would be under neither, & like it says, you'd explain what it is. You're making it complicated when it really isn't.

[The Douche]

Maybe so, but there are different forms of Communism that isn't Marxist. For me, I'm an Anarcho-Communist with Marxist leanings.

:star::blackA: :hammersickle::star:

Dude, I don't know how it can be more clear, you're not an anarchist if you support the formation of a state/believe in the concept of a workers' state.

[ZeroNowhere]

Dude, I don't know how it can be more clear, you're not an anarchist if you support the formation of a state/believe in the concept of a workers' state.
Not really, that depends on what you mean by 'workers' state'. If you mean it in the sense Marx used 'dictatorship of the proletariat', then it is compatible, if you mean it in the sense most Marxists have used it, it is not. Though yes, the person you were responding to was not an anarchist. Unless you're asserting that there is some 'anarchist definition of the state', though as far as I recall, anarchists have used it in various ways themselves, and would generally disagree with the notion that whether one is or is not an anarchist could be determined by use of the word 'state'.

[The Douche]

Not really, that depends on what you mean by 'workers' state'. If you mean it in the sense Marx used 'dictatorship of the proletariat', then it is compatible, if you mean it in the sense most Marxists have used it, it is not. Though yes, the person you were responding to was not an anarchist. Unless you're asserting that there is some 'anarchist definition of the state', though as far as I recall, anarchists have used it in various ways themselves, and would generally disagree with the notion that whether one is or is not an anarchist could be determined by use of the word 'state'.

State is a governing body capable of making deciscisons not ratified by those they effect (i.e. every state that has existed in history thus far). Such an institution is incompatible with anarchism.

I do not believe there can be such a thing as a "workers' state" because I am an anarchist. I think that states are natually at odds with individuals because they exist to usurp freedom.

I do not think that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" has to take the form of a "state".

[Die Rote Fahne]

I believe in the transition phase and blueprint (if you will) laid out by Marx.

However, I am sympathetic and supportive of Anarchist movements as well.

[Tablo]

I put Anarchist, but normally I identify myself as a Communist to people so they can be shocked and I can explain to them that Communists don't want an evil dictatorship.

[ZeroNowhere]

State is a governing body capable of making deciscisons not ratified by those they effect (i.e. every state that has existed in history thus far). Such an institution is incompatible with anarchism.Fair enough, though I don't think all anarchists use that definition either.

[DecDoom]

I'm a communist, but I'm sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalist/anarcho-communist movements.

[x359594]

Anarchist-Communist! The choice should really be between anarchist or marxist.

I think the choice should be between anarchist or Leninist.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I do not think that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" has to take the form of a "state".

Not to attack you or anything, but how do you feel the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' can work without any form of state, when the process is of the state, itself, withering away as the workers gradually gain power, & create a stateless, classless society?

[The Douche]

Not to attack you or anything, but how do you feel the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' can work without any form of state, when the process is of the state, itself, withering away as the workers gradually gain power, & create a stateless, classless society?

Because the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (not a term I prefer, but one which is accurate as long as we don't confuse it with a "dictatorship of the party" or "of ideals") is simply the oppressed classes carrying out the revolution. The siezure of the means of production, the dismantling of the state in favor of forms of organization which are organic to the working class (like workplace comittees, neighborhood comittees, councils for people of color/gender/sexual orietation) is the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

When the oppressed people put into action a system in their favor it is the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, states are not in the favor of the oppressed because they create classes, and provide for an eneven distribution of power (which ultimately leads to uneven distribution of wealth, and is therefor inherently anti-communist).

You ask me how we can attain communism without a state, I am asking you, how can we ever have communism through the use of a state. I am an anarchist and am holding the most basic of anarchist positions, if you claim to be an anarchist while disputing the foundation of anarchism, I think you're the one who needs to deliver some answers.

[Zanthorus]

Not to attack you or anything, but how do you feel the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' can work without any form of state, when the process is of the state, itself, withering away as the workers gradually gain power, & create a stateless, classless society?

Why does the workers taking power have to involve creating a new state instead of building systems of decentralised, federating workers councils? Surely the masses can't hope to control a state, a centralised institution built for the purpose of minority rule, without a new ruling class emerging?

Hint: Metaphysical gibberish about the state being any instrument of class struggle and the workers taking arms against the bourgeoisie being a form of "state" doesn't do anything to answer the question besides introducing meaningless semantics.

[ZeroNowhere]

Surely the masses can't hope to control a state, a centralised institution built for the purpose of minority rule, without a new ruling class emerging?Meaningless semantics, you say?

[The Douche]

Meaningless semantics, you say?

I don't think that bolded part is wholly meaningless semantics, I think its just a little flawed.

The state is not necessarily (at least at its inception when referring to so called "workers' states) a tool for minority rule. But it is a "centralized institution" (and also an authoritarian one). And all states do become tools for minority rule. (even "workers' states)

[Zanthorus]

Meaningless semantics, you say?

Good point. Actually I retract my statement that some of these semantics are "meaningless", it's only meaningless between anarchists and the more anti-authoritarian strands of Marxism. A lot of Leninists will hide behind the "state as an instrument of class rule" thing to justify the existence of a state in the anarchist sense of the word as well.


The state is not necessarily (at least at its inception when referring to so called "workers' states) a tool for minority rule. But it is a "centralized institution" (and also an authoritarian one). And all states do become tools for minority rule. (even "workers' states)

What I meant was that the state was originally designed as an instrument for a minority class to rule over the majority. Obviously it can be used to further the interests of a majority, but that's not what it was designed for, and its design usually leads back to minority rule.

[The Douche]

What I meant was that the state was originally designed as an instrument for a minority class to rule over the majority. Obviously it can be used to further the interests of a majority, but that's not what it was designed for, and its design usually leads back to minority rule.

Agreed, and even when it is used to "further the interests of the majority" it is only to secure the rule of the minority by granting concessions. (and I'm sure you know that)

[The Vegan Marxist]

Because the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (not a term I prefer, but one which is accurate as long as we don't confuse it with a "dictatorship of the party" or "of ideals") is simply the oppressed classes carrying out the revolution. The siezure of the means of production, the dismantling of the state in favor of forms of organization which are organic to the working class (like workplace comittees, neighborhood comittees, councils for people of color/gender/sexual orietation) is the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

When the oppressed people put into action a system in their favor it is the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, states are not in the favor of the oppressed because they create classes, and provide for an eneven distribution of power (which ultimately leads to uneven distribution of wealth, and is therefor inherently anti-communist).

You ask me how we can attain communism without a state, I am asking you, how can we ever have communism through the use of a state. I am an anarchist and am holding the most basic of anarchist positions, if you claim to be an anarchist while disputing the foundation of anarchism, I think you're the one who needs to deliver some answers.

See, that's what exactly I believe in. I never meant it to sound like I wanted to keep the state operational when Communism is achieved, but rather use the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to dismantle to state, & allow the workers, the oppressed, the entire struggle to rise up over it through the revolution. A lot of people like to call it a 'workers state', though I never saw this as the idea of a state at all, at least not based on the term we see it right now, but just the ruling of the oppressed working class forming an organizational system by their own means.

[The Douche]

See, that's what exactly I believe in. I never meant it to sound like I wanted to keep the state operational when Communism is achieved, but rather use the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to dismantle to state, & allow the workers, the oppressed, the entire struggle to rise up over it through the revolution. A lot of people like to call it a 'workers state', though I never saw this as the idea of a state at all, at least not based on the term we see it right now, but just the ruling of the oppressed working class forming an organizational system by their own means.

You support Chavez/PSUV, the shining path, and the CPN (maoist). These organizations are inherently anti-anarchist. They are forming/seek to form traditional states, which are incompatible with anarchism.

If you think that the Venzuelan state represents the dictatorship of the proletariat, then you do not view the dictatorship of the proletariat in an anarchist sense, and you do not "believe in" what I have described.

There is no state in communism, that is not our point of contention. I take issue with the fact that you think a state aparatus can be used to create communism, and you think that is an idea compattable with anarchism.

[The Vegan Marxist]

You support Chavez/PSUV, the shining path, and the CPN (maoist). These organizations are inherently anti-anarchist. They are forming/seek to form traditional states, which are incompatible with anarchism.

If you think that the Venzuelan state represents the dictatorship of the proletariat, then you do not view the dictatorship of the proletariat in an anarchist sense, and you do not "believe in" what I have described.

There is no state in communism, that is not our point of contention. I take issue with the fact that you think a state aparatus can be used to create communism, and you think that is an idea compattable with anarchism.

I support these people because they represent the struggle against capitalism. We're all comrades against the capitalist during the Class War. And I never said I wanted to use the state to gain communism, I want the workers to achieve communism, as the state is gradually eliminated through the production of workers communes. This is actually taking place in Venezuela as well, in which Chavez is supporting. I believe we must, from now to the achievement of Communism, start eliminating state power over the industries, & any corporation run through the state. For example, the prison systems.

[The Douche]

I support these people because they represent the struggle against capitalism.

I will agree, but their struggle against capitalism is fundamentally flawed, and will not result in socialism. Therefor I can tacitly support their anti-imperialist struggle, but thats it.


And I never said I wanted to use the state to gain communism, I want the workers to achieve communism, as the state is gradually eliminated through the production of workers communes. This is actually taking place in Venezuela as well, in which Chavez is supporting. I believe we must, from now to the achievement of Communism, start eliminating state power over the industries, & any corporation run through the state. For example, the prison systems.

You want to eliminate the state through the use of the state? You keep saying you don't see the state as a revolutionary tool, but your politics demonstrate otherwise. You do in fact support a variety of groups using the state. The commune system in Venezuela, while interesting, is nothing new, there were workers councils running the revolution in Russia as well, they were crushed by the Bolsheviks when they began to represent legitimate working class power instead of party power. The same will happen in Venezuela.

I encourage you to check this out (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/bolivanarchism.html) it is a relatively short document written by a dude from my organization after he went to Venezuela and hung out with some anarchists down there, talked about their struggle, and learned about it in relation to Chavez.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I will agree, but their struggle against capitalism is fundamentally flawed, and will not result in socialism. Therefor I can tacitly support their anti-imperialist struggle, but thats it.



You want to eliminate the state through the use of the state? You keep saying you don't see the state as a revolutionary tool, but your politics demonstrate otherwise. You do in fact support a variety of groups using the state. The commune system in Venezuela, while interesting, is nothing new, there were workers councils running the revolution in Russia as well, they were crushed by the Bolsheviks when they began to represent legitimate working class power instead of party power. The same will happen in Venezuela.

I encourage you to check this out (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/bolivanarchism.html) it is a relatively short document written by a dude from my organization after he went to Venezuela and hung out with some anarchists down there, talked about their struggle, and learned about it in relation to Chavez.

When did I say use the state? I want to end state-run corporations, ending anything the state operates under, this would weaken the state tremendously, & when we go about the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', we'd be able to eliminate the state then.

And I'll take a look at it, but I'm not going to jump into conclusions on what Chavez is going to do. Right now he's supporting the communes taking form in Venezuela, & that's a pretty good start. Besides, Chavez has like 2 more years through his term, so I'm hoping his support of the communes is him trying to establish as much power towards the workers as possible before he leaves. Because god knows who will come next after Chavez leaves.

[The Red Next Door]

I am a libertarian socialist. I think that communism will work better without the state.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I am a libertarian socialist. I think that communism will work better without the state.

Well you can't have communism without their being no state. I've never really seen any argument that's clarified a state-run communist system.

[ElectricSheep1203]

i saw an image once that said "Libertarian is just Anarchism for the rich."

i thought it was pretty funny :P

[The Douche]

When did I say use the state? I want to end state-run corporations, ending anything the state operates under, this would weaken the state tremendously, & when we go about the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', we'd be able to eliminate the state then.

And I'll take a look at it, but I'm not going to jump into conclusions on what Chavez is going to do. Right now he's supporting the communes taking form in Venezuela, & that's a pretty good start. Besides, Chavez has like 2 more years through his term, so I'm hoping his support of the communes is him trying to establish as much power towards the workers as possible before he leaves. Because god knows who will come next after Chavez leaves.

Dude, you literally are supportting existing states in this post. Your signature demands support for Leninist organizations, I think its pretty damned obvious where you are advocating use of the state in the revolutionary process.

You want to "end state run corporations", that is funny, because the basis of Chavez's economic plan is nationalizing corporations, which you apparently support as a revolutionary tactic.

If the revolution depends on Chavez for success then its not a revolution of any value, and certainly not one which an anarchist ought to be endorsing.

Seems to me you would be much more at home with the Trotskyists than the anarchists, since you are not an anarchist in any practical sense. (as demonstrated by your support for the state and for Leninist organizations)

[The Vegan Marxist]

Dude, you literally are supportting existing states in this post. Your signature demands support for Leninist organizations, I think its pretty damned obvious where you are advocating use of the state in the revolutionary process.

You want to "end state run corporations", that is funny, because the basis of Chavez's economic plan is nationalizing corporations, which you apparently support as a revolutionary tactic.

If the revolution depends on Chavez for success then its not a revolution of any value, and certainly not one which an anarchist ought to be endorsing.

Seems to me you would be much more at home with the Trotskyists than the anarchists, since you are not an anarchist in any practical sense. (as demonstrated by your support for the state and for Leninist organizations)

Well, then I guess we differ there when it comes to the nationalization of certain industries to allow the workers to gain control over.

[ls]

Well, then I guess we differ there when it comes to the nationalization of certain industries to allow the workers to gain control over.

But you aren't an anarchist in any meaningful way, you can say you're "sympathetic" to anarchism but that you aren't one, that's fine, it's just strange when you keep insisting you are one.

I'm not an anarchist, I'm a socialist and a communist because I support a worker's state.

[The Douche]

Well, then I guess we differ there when it comes to the nationalization of certain industries to allow the workers to gain control over.

Dude, if an industry is nationalized it is placed in the hands of the state (you support this as a revolutionary tactic).

I can't believe you think you can reconcile support of that tactic with anarchism! You still haven't explained how exactly it is that you can be an anarchist and 1) support a state and 2) believe in the existence of a "workers' state". Either of those things, straight up, disqualify you from being an anarchist.

[The Vegan Marxist]

But you aren't an anarchist in any meaningful way, you can say you're "sympathetic" to anarchism but that you aren't one, that's fine, it's just strange when you keep insisting you are one.

I'm not an anarchist, I'm a socialist and a communist because I support a worker's state.

I've never called myself an anarchist, but a communist. At most, I've considered myself as an anarcho-communist with marxist leanings. The only reason my name is The Vegan Anarchist because it's the name that got me started in politics to begin with. It's what opened my eyes up.

[The Douche]

I've never called myself an anarchist, but a communist. At most, I've considered myself as an anarcho-communist with marxist leanings. The only reason my name is The Vegan Anarchist because it's the name that got me started in politics to begin with. It's what opened my eyes up.


For me, I'm an Anarcho-Communist with Marxist leanings.


Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh?

Your title has anarchist, and your sig has a circle a in it. Most importantly you have actually called yourself an anarchist in this very thread.

Realistically, you are a marxist with some anarchist sympathies...

[The Vegan Marxist]

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh?

Your title has anarchist, and your sig has a circle a in it. Most importantly you have actually called yourself an anarchist in this very thread.

Realistically, you are a marxist with some anarchist sympathies...

Nice to know that you're not paying attention. You put out the quote where I said earlier that at most I consider myself as anarcho-communist with marxist leanings, & yet I said that again right on the section that you quoted as well. And I never said that I'm an anarchist anywhere on this thread. If anything, I have anarchist leanings within me, along with marxist leanings in me, which is why, at most, I consider myself as a Anarcho-Communist, because it wouldn't be truthful if I said I was strictly a marxist.

[The Ben G]

Im a libertarian socialist.

[The Douche]

Nice to know that you're not paying attention. You put out the quote where I said earlier that at most I consider myself as anarcho-communist with marxist leanings, & yet I said that again right on the section that you quoted as well. And I never said that I'm an anarchist anywhere on this thread. If anything, I have anarchist leanings within me, along with marxist leanings in me, which is why, at most, I consider myself as a Anarcho-Communist, because it wouldn't be truthful if I said I was strictly a marxist.



What...the...fuck...

Holy fucking shit, I am seriously raging so hard right now.

Are you kidding me?

You really just said "I never said I'm an anarchist" and then you said "I'm an anarchist".

ffffffuuuuuuuuucccccckkkkkkkkk

[professorchaos]

Put anarchist, as although I'm an anarchist communism, I'd say I have more in common with most anarchism than most communism.

[The Vegan Marxist]

What...the...fuck...

Holy fucking shit, I am seriously raging so hard right now.

Are you kidding me?

You really just said "I never said I'm an anarchist" and then you said "I'm an anarchist".

ffffffuuuuuuuuucccccckkkkkkkkk

I consider anarcho-communism to be little different from just straight-up anarchism. It may not be the 'correct' term, but it's to represent that I'm not of one single ideology, but rather have leanings of two.

[ls]

What...the...fuck...

Holy fucking shit, I am seriously raging so hard right now.

Are you kidding me?

You really just said "I never said I'm an anarchist" and then you said "I'm an anarchist".

ffffffuuuuuuuuucccccckkkkkkkkk

But if I recall correctly, don't you sympathise with maoism? I don't think you can be an anarchist and a maoist, at least there are very few examples of this and most anarchists I thought, would probably not consider you to be one.

[The Douche]

But if I recall correctly, don't you sympathise with maoism? I don't think you can be an anarchist and a maoist, at least there are very few examples of this and most anarchists I thought, would probably not consider you to be one.

No I made a thread seeking to discuss the cultural revolution in an anarchist context, but nobody wanted to, they wanted to say "lawl you can't be anarcho-maoist". (which is a given)

I am far from a Maoist, most anarchists on here critiscize me because I oppose formal organization.


I consider anarcho-communism to be little different from just straight-up anarchism. It may not be the 'correct' term, but it's to represent that I'm not of one single ideology, but rather have leanings of two.

To be an anarcho-communist you have to be an anarchist. Which you are not, you are a Marxist, "influenced" by anarchism. (I use quotes because I'm not sure what it is about anarchism you agree with or take influence from)

[The Vegan Marxist]

"...houses, field, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or nation and money, wages, and trade would be abolished." ~Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread

Technically, a lot of pure anarchists would go against this, yet it's of anarcho-communist ideology. I could be wrong though, & will gladly allow anyone to point out any error I might've made with this.

[The Douche]

"...houses, field, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or nation and money, wages, and trade would be abolished." ~Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread

Technically, a lot of pure anarchists would go against this, yet it's of anarcho-communist ideology. I could be wrong though, & will gladly allow anyone to point out any error I might've made with this.

Kropotkin is using the term "nation" in refrence to a common group of people. (i.e. the Basque nation, they have a common ancestry/language/culture etc, but no government)

This ought to be obvious to you since anarchism is inherently opposed to a state.

Honestly, is that one line from Kropotkin your basis for believing that anarchists can support a state?

[The Vegan Marxist]

No, but it seemed similar, & thought I'd bring it out, & I willingly said for anyone to prove any error, in which you did. So don't start ranting.

But let me ask you, given that you're an anarchist, how do you feel health care should be brought, major industries, & corporations? Given that we both, anarchists & communists, want the workers to control it, but in which way will this process take form?

[The Douche]

No, but it seemed similar, & thought I'd bring it out, & I willingly said for anyone to prove any error, in which you did. So don't start ranting.

But let me ask you, given that you're an anarchist, how do you feel health care should be brought, major industries, & corporations? Given that we both, anarchists & communists, want the workers to control it, but in which how will this process take form?

All facets of life should be run by those directly involved in them.

How should we run health care? I don't know, its not my trade, but I would imagine that the individuals involved would run their workplace collectively through the use of a rotating, elected, and recallable comittee. Healthcare would be provided free to individuals in need. Just like all workplaces would.

How do you think workers should organize?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Within a community based organization. I believe all decisions should be run through a democratic process between the workers & not have the state, directly, have any hand in it, if any at all.

[The Vegan Marxist]

But, when it comes to health care, I believe we should first nationalize it to get it started & then eventually allow it to be run by the workers completely without any state involvement.

[The Douche]

But, when it comes to health care, I believe we should first nationalize it to get it started & then eventually allow it to be run by the workers completely without any state involvement.

So you do believe in using the state as a vehicle of revolution?


I believe all decisions should be run through a democratic process between the workers & not have the state, directly, have any hand in it, if any at all.

But you do think there should be a state for some other purpose?

[The Vegan Marxist]

So you do believe in using the state as a vehicle of revolution?



But you do think there should be a state for some other purpose?

I think that should be a democratically operated decision by the workers on whether a state should be used for certain areas at first or not, & if so, how much control or what help is needed. I don't want the state to be in complete power if decided for a state to be under some kind of operational status. Me personally, I'd vote for the state to help at first when it comes to health care, but in the long run, I'd want it to be decided by the majority vote of the workers.

[The Douche]

I think that should be a democratically operated decision by the workers on whether a state should be used for certain areas at first or not, & if so, how much control or what help is needed. I don't want the state to be in complete power.

Thats not what I asked, the questions were:


So you do believe in using the state as a vehicle of revolution?



But you do think there should be a state for some other purpose?

Saying, "we should vote on if the state should be destroyed", is a little absurd.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Thats not what I asked, the questions were:



Saying, "we should vote on if the state should be destroyed", is a little absurd.

Well, if there was any state at all, I don't believe it would be of what we think of a state now. I don't believe in a one powered state of an entire country, but rather a communal workers-state, if that makes sense, that makes its decisions through a democratically led process.

[Klaatu]

Why wasn't "socialist" an option?

[The Vegan Marxist]

If it was neither of any of the categories that I've given out then I asked to explain it. Mainly, just in case if I was to forget any other ideology while making the poll.

[The Douche]

Well, if there was any state at all, I don't believe it would be of what we think of a state now. I don't believe in a one powered state of an entire country, but rather a communal workers-state, if that makes sense, that makes its decisions through a democratically led process.

Do you think the state that exists in Venezuela is revolutionary? Is that your idea of revolution? How about the state in Nepal?

[Tablo]

Do you think the state that exists in Venezuela is revolutionary? Is that your idea of revolution? How about the state in Nepal?
Not really revolutionary, but certainly major improvements for workers in Venezuela and an improvement for workers and peasants in Nepal. ;)
Are we not Anarchists if we have sympathies for the Maoists in Nepal?

[The Douche]

Not really revolutionary, but certainly major improvements for workers in Venezuela and an improvement for workers and peasants in Nepal. ;)
Are we not Anarchists if we have sympathies for the Maoists in Nepal?

Youre not an anarchist if either of those examples are revolutionary to you.

Can we recognize that those governments make the lives of workers and peasants better? Yes. But if you begin to advocate the theory that those states are revolutionary, that they have the theory for the liberation of the working class, then you cease to be an anarchist.

[Tablo]

Youre not an anarchist if either of those examples are revolutionary to you.

Can we recognize that those governments make the lives of workers and peasants better? Yes. But if you begin to advocate the theory that those states are revolutionary, that they have the theory for the liberation of the working class, then you cease to be an anarchist.
I do not think they are Revolutionary and will result, at the very best, state-capitalist regimes that improve the workers lives. I wish them success, but only as a measure to help the workers in the short run. I do not think Communism will come from Chavez or the Maoists.

[Streetlight]

Excuse my ignorance, but what would you then consider someone who believes the "state" (as a group of councils throughout the land) is a neccessary transitional period of the revolution, before an official stateless society can occur. The "state" would eventually wither away after the workers are would be able to organize the means of production themselves and rebuild society.

[The Vegan Marxist]

From what I've understood, he's calling for the immediate elimination of the state, instead of the gradual process. Although I give my support to him & the rest that are wanting this to happen, I just don't see how that's possible without higher capitalist powers taking over once they gain power.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I do not think they are Revolutionary and will result, at the very best, state-capitalist regimes that improve the workers lives. I wish them success, but only as a measure to help the workers in the short run. I do not think Communism will come from Chavez or the Maoists.

I don't think anyone here thinks that Chavez will still be president when Communism is achieved in Venezuela. Right now, Chavez is opening the doors for workers control, especially with the formation of communes in the area now. And when it comes to Nepal, we'll see where it leads. The Maoists are doing a pretty good job leading the revolution over there, so my support is out to them, but what they implement once they gain power is another question, & only the future awaits for what will be decided.

[ls]

Are we not Anarchists if we have sympathies for the Maoists in Nepal?

I really doubt most anarchists would consider you to be one basically.

[The Douche]

From what I've understood, he's calling for the immediate elimination of the state, instead of the gradual process. Although I give my support to him & the rest that are wanting this to happen, I just don't see how that's possible without higher capitalist powers taking over once they gain power.

From what you understand? Gee, what gave you that idea...maybe the fact that I am an anarchist?

Change you're damn username and stop using anarchist symbols.


Excuse my ignorance, but what would you then consider someone who believes the "state" (as a group of councils throughout the land) is a neccessary transitional period of the revolution, before an official stateless society can occur. The "state" would eventually wither away after the workers are would be able to organize the means of production themselves and rebuild society.

You should look in to both, left communism, council communism, and trotskyism, the social system you describe could be at home in any of those tendencies. Of course, there is more to a political theory than how society will be organized post-revolution.

[Zanthorus]

"...houses, field, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or nation and money, wages, and trade would be abolished." ~Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread

Technically, a lot of pure anarchists would go against this, yet it's of anarcho-communist ideology. I could be wrong though, & will gladly allow anyone to point out any error I might've made with this.

Well done for basing your position off of one line in CoB and ignoring the vast amount of evidence to the contrary. Here's Kropotkin saying explicitly that the key difference between anarchists like himself and state socialists is the belief in the transitional workers state:


But it still remained to discover what should be the component parts of this vast association.

To this question two answers were given, each the expression of a distinct current of thought. One said the popular state; the other said anarchy.

The German socialists advocated that the state should take possession of all accumulated wealth and give it over to associations of workers and, further, should organize production and exchange, and generally watch over the life and activities of society.

To them the socialists of the Latin race, strong in revolutionary experience, replied that it would be a miracle if such a state could ever exist; but if it could, it would surely be the worst of tyrannies. This ideal of the all powerful and beneficent state is merely a copy from the past, they said; and they confronted it with a new ideal: anarchy, that is, the total abolition of the state, and social organization from the simple to the complex by means of the free federation of popular groups of producers and consumers.

It was soon admitted, even by the more liberal minded state socialists, that anarchy certainly represented a much better sort of organization than that aimed at by the popular state. But, they said, the anarchist ideal is so far off that just now we cannot trouble about it.

- http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/kropotkin/pcommune.html

And what is this ridiculous distinction being drawn between "pure anarchism" and "anarcho-communism"? I'm pretty sure that apart from the trolls in OI most anarchists on this board are communists, and in real life most of the activists are communists. Anarcho-communism is a type of anarchism like every other and it exists as a logical progression from the ideas of Bakunin who positioned himself against the idea of a "workers state".

[Tablo]

I really doubt most anarchists would consider you to be one basically.
I'm an Anarchist in all my theories, I just sympathize with a Maoist movement that could, potentially, make improvements upon the lives of workers and peasants in Nepal. I do not see it as Revolutionary and think it will, at best, create a state-capitalist regime. If having a few sympathies suddenly makes me not Anarchist enough for all the "hardcore" Revolutionaries out there then then fuck them. I want revolution, but that isn't going to make me reject short term gains for the working class.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't have to change the symbols because I'm for either type of revolution. If the anarchists start a revolution that could potentially start the process of communism, then I'll be by their side fighting for it. Same goes with the Marxists, or any other revolution.

[The Douche]

I don't have to change the symbols because I'm for either type of revolution. If the anarchists start a revolution that could potentially start the process of communism, then I'll be by their side fighting for it. Same goes with the Marxists, or any other revolution.

But the reality is you don't believe anarchists can have a successful revolution, because you think it is necessary to form a workers' state, which anarchists will fight against.

You're not an anarchist, so you shouldn't call yourself "the vegan anarchist" this shouldnt be hard to understand...

[The Vegan Marxist]

I never said it's impossible for them to have a successful revolution. Hell, look at the Catalonia during the Spanish Revolution. I just have problems with the idea that if one was to successfully win the revolution & end the state, like Catalonia, there'd be another super power ready to end what you fought for. Which is why I'm for the Marxist transition towards Communism. Though, like I said, if an anarchist revolution took place, it doesn't matter if I'm a communist or not, I'd fight with them because we're all comrades here during this Class War.

[Robocommie]

I'm not an anarchist because I believe in the need for a worker's state. But I'm not exactly a Communist because I don't necessarily believe in a transitional period because I don't necessarily believe there's anything to transition to - the whole withering away of the state is a bit of a hard thing for me to get behind, and I've yet to hear a convincing explanation for how "the state" does not necessarily refer to "government."

I feel there will always be a need for government, that it's a required tool to have a cooperative society, but that said government must be run directly by the people (the workers), not merely claim to be run by the people and represent only the interests of the wealthy, and said government also needs to be there primarily to facilitate cooperation and the development of all human beings.

So I call myself a Marxist, because I believe in class struggle, and I call myself a Socialist, because I believe in Socialism.

[Tablo]

Let me know if you're interested in purging "anarcho" capitalists from a few anarchist forums. I need some help- I've been in a 'debate' with about 20 of them for a month and it's beginning to take up too much of my time because I have to respond, in great detail, to 10 posts a day.

They've been advocating racism, sexism, property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury under the banner of anarchism. You know the drill...I'm sure you've run into these "anarcho" capitalists online.
Which forums? I have seen them trolling Flag Blackened and infoshop.

[Wolf Larson]

I'm not an anarchist because I believe in the need for a worker's state. But I'm not exactly a Communist because I don't necessarily believe in a transitional period because I don't necessarily believe there's anything to transition to - the whole withering away of the state is a bit of a hard thing for me to get behind, and I've yet to hear a convincing explanation for how "the state" does not necessarily refer to "government."

I feel there will always be a need for government, that it's a required tool to have a cooperative society, but that said government must be run directly by the people (the workers), not merely claim to be run by the people and represent only the interests of the wealthy, and said government also needs to be there primarily to facilitate cooperation and the development of all human beings.

So I call myself a Marxist, because I believe in class struggle, and I call myself a Socialist, because I believe in Socialism.

You have some reading to do.

[Wolf Larson]

Which forums? I have seen them trolling Flag Blackened and infoshop.

All over the place. I have then pinned down on myspace right now. I cant post the link on this forum until i have 27 posts? :confused:

[Tablo]

All over the place. I have then pinned down on myspace right now. I cant post the link on this forum until i have 27 posts? :confused:
I associated a bit with their kind before achieving class consciousness about 3-4 years ago. I think I could knock them down a notch pretty easily. ;)

[Zanthorus]

I've yet to hear a convincing explanation for how "the state" does not necessarily refer to "government."

I call upon thee might Kropotkin:


On the other hand the State has also been confused with Government. Since there can be no State without government, it has sometimes been said that what one must aim at is the absence of government and not the abolition of the State.

However, it seems to me that State and government are two concepts of a different order. The State idea means something quite different from the idea of government. It not only includes the existence of a power situated above society, but also of a territorial concentration as well as the concentration in the hands of a few of many functions in the life of societies. It implies some new relationships between members of society which did not exist before the formation of the State. A whole mechanism of legislation and of policing has to be developed in order to subject some classes to the domination of others.

This distinction, which at first sight might not be obvious, emerges especially when one studies the origins of the State.

- http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/state/state_1.html

Basically what distuinguishes the two is that "government" is just any body in society that governs things and lays down the rules. This can be in the form of a state or the people themselves (ala communism). A state is a pretty specific form of government which is territorially centralised and led by a minority class (Or any class, depending on wether your a Marxist or Anarchist).

You should read the rest of Kropotkin's book as well. Once you understand the purpose and historic role of the state it's easy to see why people advocate it's overthrow (Or "whithering away").

[The Douche]

I never said it's impossible for them to have a successful revolution. Hell, look at the Catalonia during the Spanish Revolution. I just have problems with the idea that if one was to successfully win the revolution & end the state, like Catalonia, there'd be another super power ready to end what you fought for. Which is why I'm for the Marxist transition towards Communism. Though, like I said, if an anarchist revolution took place, it doesn't matter if I'm a communist or not, I'd fight with them because we're all comrades here during this Class War.

Right, you support anarchist actions/social organization during the SCW, but you ultimately think it lead to failure because they lacked the state which could've been used to defend the revolution?

If you're for a transitional state (a workers' state) then you are not an anarchist, and you shouldn't claim to be one, which is what you're doing. You can try and say you're not, but through out this thread you have said you are an anarchist, your username says you are an anarchist, and you have a circle a in your signature...but you believe in the state. Seriously man, come on!

[The Vegan Marxist]

Right, you support anarchist actions/social organization during the SCW, but you ultimately think it lead to failure because they lacked the state which could've been used to defend the revolution?

If you're for a transitional state (a workers' state) then you are not an anarchist, and you shouldn't claim to be one, which is what you're doing. You can try and say you're not, but through out this thread you have said you are an anarchist, your username says you are an anarchist, and you have a circle a in your signature...but you believe in the state. Seriously man, come on!

You take things way too out of context. I specifically explained why I've kept the name 'The Vegan Anarchist'. Merely because it represents the beginning of when I got into politics. I just never had a reason to get rid of it. I'm tired of hearing people getting all caught up in a name, & rather not listen to what the person has to say. I've specifically stated that I'm NOT an anarchist, though I've LEANED towards it. Just like I lean towards marxism as well. So get out of this habit of trying to 'prove' I'm not an anarchist when I've already stated that I'm not one. And that I've stated the support in a 'workers state', so get off my back & start talking about real shit instead of pointless names.

[ZeroNowhere]

If you're not actually an anarchist, you should probably request a name change, because bollocks does not make a good first impression. Also, you may well be preventing real vegan anarchists from signing up with their desired name. Though given that you summarized your position as:

For me, I'm an Anarcho-Communist with Marxist leanings.
It is quite understandable that somebody may well find it worthwhile to point out that you're not an anarchist.

[revolution inaction]

I feel there will always be a need for government, that it's a required tool to have a cooperative society, but that said government must be run directly by the people (the workers), not merely claim to be run by the people and represent only the interests of the wealthy, and said government also needs to be there primarily to facilitate cooperation and the development of all human beings.


I think that a government is something that rules over people, not just any system for organizing society.
i'm not sure if your advocating and organization to rule over the people. but with some kind of democratic control or if you just advocate that society should be run by the people, which obliviously requires some kind of organising structures, which is supported by anarchists.

[The Vegan Marxist]

If you're not actually an anarchist, you should probably request a name change, because bollocks does not make a good first impression. Also, you may well be preventing real vegan anarchists from signing up with their desired name. Though given that you summarized your position as:

It is quite understandable that somebody may well find it worthwhile to point out that you're not an anarchist.

Alright, despite the misunderstanding on what the name was to represent, not towards the idea that I'm saying I'm an anarchist, I'll humor you & ask how exactly do get the name changed?

[Nosotros]

there are anarchists taht are influenced by marxists. there are marxists that are influenced by anarchists.

there are anarchists that are communists. and communists that are anarchists. not all anarchists are communists. not all communists are anarchists.

in the end, i think that this entire poll is invalid.


(what are ProThink fascists?)And there are Autonomous Marxists in Anarchist organisations. Ofcourse, we are all Communists, the ultimate goal of the Class Struggle Anarchist/Libertarian Communist movement is Communism.

[Wolf Larson]

I'm not an anarchist because I believe in the need for a worker's state. But I'm not exactly a Communist because I don't necessarily believe in a transitional period because I don't necessarily believe there's anything to transition to - the whole withering away of the state is a bit of a hard thing for me to get behind, and I've yet to hear a convincing explanation for how "the state" does not necessarily refer to "government."

I feel there will always be a need for government, that it's a required tool to have a cooperative society, but that said government must be run directly by the people (the workers), not merely claim to be run by the people and represent only the interests of the wealthy, and said government also needs to be there primarily to facilitate cooperation and the development of all human beings.

So I call myself a Marxist, because I believe in class struggle, and I call myself a Socialist, because I believe in Socialism.

Marx wanted to transition to anarchism.

[Wolf Larson]

I associated a bit with their kind before achieving class consciousness about 3-4 years ago. I think I could knock them down a notch pretty easily. ;)
http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupprofile&groupID=100001698

Have at it. The posters "kRud" "Pillz" are actual anarchists. "Smash Heaven" is a Maoist and the rest are capitalists trying to claim anarchism. It's gotten pretty heavy in there as far as animosity goes. No moderator.