Revolution in Anarchist Communism

[SeaSpeck]

How would a Anarcho-Communist revolution play out?

[Raúl Duke]

The question is hypothetical but here's one scenario.

Workers, students, et.al after weeks of escalating protests, strikes, direct action at some point form assemblies and later on workers take over their workplaces. The feeling in the street is that the old way cannot go on. Depending on the reaction of the state, there will be street fighting, perhaps armed confrontations with the police, and people barging into government office buildings having them closed down. Perhaps politicians will be executed, perhaps executives put behind bars for the time being. Once the masses take over extensive areas (a city, many cities, etc) they'll begin to organize and co-ordinate even more between the worker's councils and the neighborhood/communal assemblies. Civil war might arise between the old state and the revolutionaries, etc. Over time, once the opposition has been defeated, surrendered, or a cease-fire/peace is called, the new society can than be said to have formed definately. Afterwards the focus would be in re-building, re-structuring, etc.

[dar8888]

The very definition of anarchism says that no such revolution could ever take place.

[Tablo]

The very definition of anarchism says that no such revolution could ever take place.
You obviously have no understanding of Anarchism then.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The very definition of anarchism says that no such revolution could ever take place.

and the very definition of anarchism is what?

[The Vegan Marxist]

The very definition of anarchism says that no such revolution could ever take place.

where does it say that at all?

[dar8888]

Anarchism is a political philosophy that states that a "state" is unnecessary at best, and harmful at worst. It is incompatible with Communism, and incompatible with any sort of functioning government.

[dar8888]

You obviously have no understanding of Anarchism then.

And you clearly have no understanding of Communism.

[Tablo]

Anarchism is a political philosophy that states that a "state" is unnecessary at best, and harmful at worst. It is incompatible with Communism, and incompatible with any sort of functioning government.
Communism is Anarchistic if you did not know. How does being Anarchist mean we can't have Revolution?

[dar8888]

Communism is Anarchistic if you did not know. How does being Anarchist mean we can't have Revolution?

Communism is not anarchistic in any way, shape, or form. This statement shows your lack of understanding of Communism.

[Kléber]

Communism is not anarchistic in any way, shape, or form.
Anarchism is an older version of socialism ("libertarian socialism/communism") that lacks a firm scientific or organizational basis but it is an important part of the revolutionary tradition in the workers' movement. Anarchism is very much a type of communism.


It is incompatible with Communism, and incompatible with any sort of functioning government.
There will be no more need for government when we reach communism.


We do not after all differ with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as the aim.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch04.htm

[Tablo]

Communism is not anarchistic in any way, shape, or form. This statement shows your lack of understanding of Communism.
You just proved you are an idiot. Go read some Marx before you make such ignorant comments.

[dar8888]

There will be no more need for government when we reach communism.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch04.htm


When we reach Communism is the key. We have not yet reached Communism, and will not do so through anarchistic "theoretical" revolutionary activity.

[dar8888]

You just proved you are an idiot. Go read some Marx before you make such ignorant comments.

Then why was there a Soviet Union in the first place. Lenin understood the need to have government, in order to phase it out...moron.

[Tablo]

Then why was there a Soviet Union in the first place. Lenin understood the need to have government, in order to phase it out...moron.
You fail to see that Anarchists are fighting Communism. Read some fucking Kropotkin or Berkman you nitwit.

[dar8888]

You fail to see that Anarchists are fighting Communism. Read some fucking Kropotkin or Berkman you nitwit.

I have no need to read second rate nonsense. Read Lenin...that is all you need.

[Kléber]

When we reach Communism is the key. We have not yet reached Communism, and will not do so through anarchistic "theoretical" revolutionary activity.
Funny, the anarchists in Lenin's time used to make fun of him for neglecting the real ongoing workers' struggle and just being a theorist, writing books and building his little party.. seems the "Leninists" today haven't read much of his stuff.

What Is To Be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/)

[The Vegan Marxist]

Then why was there a Soviet Union in the first place. Lenin understood the need to have government, in order to phase it out...moron.

And then the Soviet Union collapsed.
But either way, that doesn't mean that an anarcho-communist revolution is impossible.

[Tablo]

I have no need to read second rate nonsense. Read Lenin...that is all you need.
To have a deep understanding of the revolutionary politics of Communism then you can not restrict yourself to only reading Lenin. Branch the fuck out!

[Raúl Duke]

Communism is not anarchistic in any way, shape, or form. This statement shows your lack of understanding of Communism.

You do know that in Marxism, communism is the class-less state-less stage of history?
If you don't, than it's clearly you who don't know about Marx.
It's socialism which is the transitional stage with a state apparatus under the influence of the proletariat (or under the control of the vanguard of the proletariat, the self-described advanced section of the proletariat)


You could say that anarchism is incompatible with state socialism, and this is true.

Are you saying that anarchists can't do revolution or that anarcho-communism doesn't exist? Clearly, you know very little about anarchism to make such a statement. Have you heard of the theoretical founders of anarcho-communism? (Malatesta, Kropotkin, et.al)

In concern about revolution, Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War could be seen as a small example of what may occur in a social anarchist revolution.

[dar8888]

Funny, the anarchists in Lenin's time used to make fun of him for neglecting the real ongoing workers' struggle and just being a theorist, writing books and building his little party.. seems the "Leninists" today haven't read much of his stuff.

What Is To Be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/)

Yes, and what success have anarchists had? Ever?

[The Vegan Marxist]

I have no need to read second rate nonsense. Read Lenin...that is all you need.

Lenin even betrayed Marxist theory! He didn't believe that the proletarians should be the driven-force of the revolution, but rather a state-run military! So how could you even support Lenin when you talk about the Soviet Union, when it was started through Marxist principle?

[Raúl Duke]

Yes, and what success have anarchists had? Ever?

You haven't had any actual success either, unless you call degenerate "workers" states going back to capitalism a resounding success.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Yes, and what success have anarchists had? Ever?

Catalonia during the Spanish Revolution comes to mind.

[dar8888]

You do know that in Marxism, communism is the class-less state-less stage of history?
If you don't, than it's clearly you who don't know about Marx.
It's socialism which is the transitional stage with a state apparatus under the influence of the proletariat (or under the control of the vanguard of the proletariat, the self-described advanced section of the proletariat)


You could say that anarchism is incompatible with state socialism, and this is true.

Are you saying that anarchists can't do revolution or that anarcho-communism doesn't exist? Clearly, you know very little about anarchism to make such a statement. Have you heard of the theoretical founders of anarcho-communism? (Malatesta, Kropotkin, et.al)

In concern about revolution, Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War could be seen as a small example of what may occur in a social anarchist revolution.

Theoretical is the key to your statement. A Socialist society will be state-less, but you can't get there without some form of state to phase out the need for government.

[dar8888]

Catalonia during the Spanish Revolution comes to mind.

And what do they have now?

[dar8888]

You haven't had any actual success either, unless you call degenerate "workers" states going back to capitalism a resounding success.

Limited success is better than no success.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Theoretical is the key to your statement. A Socialist society will be state-less, but you can't get there without some form of state to phase out the need for government.

No, when we gain a socialist economy, we've gained a class-less society. To gain a state-less society, we'd have to achieve communism. You're getting it all backwards.

[Tablo]

Limited success is better than no success.
I see no success. It is all gone.

[Raúl Duke]

As mentioned, Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War and the soviets in Russia, Germany, Europe during and slightly after WWI are all real world, not theoretical, examples of worker's power without the need for a centralized state.

[The Vegan Marxist]

And what do they have now?

It showed that anarchy is possible, but that a communist society can't be achieved through just one state. How about you start reading through revleft more & then get back here with your semantics.

[dar8888]

No, when we gain a socialist economy, we've gained a class-less society. To gain a state-less society, we'd have to achieve communism. You're getting it all backwards.

Communism is not the end result...Socialism is. Communists seek Socialism.

[dar8888]

It showed that anarchy is possible, but that a communist society can't be achieved through just one state. How about you start reading through revleft more & then get back here with your semantics.

Who said anything about one state? Quit reading nonsense into my replies.

[Tablo]

Communism is not the end result...Socialism is. Communists seek Socialism.
Communism is the end result and Communism happens to be socialistic in how the workplace and economy are democratically run.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Communism is not the end result...Socialism is. Communists seek Socialism.

:confused:............:laugh:

[Wobblie]

Theoretical is the key to your statement. A Socialist society will be state-less, but you can't get there without some form of state to phase out the need for government.

Marx argues that there is a need for a dictatorship of the proletariat, after which the proletariat as a class will have destroyed itself and ushered in communism (the classless stage) which would be the end of the state. However, there is no one I've ever heard, anarchist or communist, who has said we don't need a government. There is a difference between a government and the state.

[Raúl Duke]

Communism is not the end result...Socialism is. Communists seek Socialism.

:facepalm:

Communists seek communism
To every actual communist, both Marxist and anarchist, communism is the end goal.

I guess I had enough of this discussion, seeing that you are new and all.
Although the thread as delineated away from the OP, perhaps a mod/admin will fix this eventually.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Who said anything about one state? Quit reading nonsense into my replies.

as in one country, or one area. That's the only reason it fell three years later. but what had happened, itself, showed that an anarcho-communist revolution & world is possible.

[dar8888]

Marx argues that there is a need for a dictatorship of the proletariat, after which the proletariat as a class will have destroyed itself and ushered in communism (the classless stage) which would be the end of the state. However, there is no one I've ever heard, anarchist or communist, who has said we don't need a government. There is a difference between a government and the state.

Oh, I see...a government but no state. How nice.

[Imposter Marxist]

Communism is not the end result...Socialism is. Communists seek Socialism.

Troll? Im sorry to jump to such an accusation. But come on...

[Wobblie]

Communism is not the end result...Socialism is. Communists seek Socialism.
Either this is a joke, or you are speaking some language that I don't understand.

[Wobblie]

Oh, I see...a government but no state. How nice.
You do know what the Marxist definition of a state is, right? A state is the body that imposes the will of one class on another. A government is a system of governance. They are not synonymous.

[Kléber]

Lenin even betrayed Marxist theory! He didn't believe that the proletarians should be the driven-force of the revolution, but rather a state-run military!
Lenin didn't want it to turn out that way, but the Bolsheviks couldn't help the fact that they got elected to run the soviets and defend them in the worst situation possible. The revisionist course of the CPSU and its transformation into an organ of capitalist repression and restoration is because of the low cultural level of the Russian working class and not Lenin's organizational theories. Revisionist bureaucrats won out, strangled the working class and kept the Soviet republic frozen in time in spite of Lenin's work, not because of it. Lenin can't be blamed for what happened after the Civil War because it was impossible to know what would happen, he was mentally debilitated from 1922 until his death, and he was a notoriously slow and methodical writer; furthermore, he was prohibited from reading about current events towards the end of his life since it was worried this might cause him to have another stroke, so he never had the proper chance to analyze criticize what was happening. I firmly believe however that if he had lived, he would have ardently defended the proletarian internationalist principles of the revolution against the revisionist course undertaken by Stalin and his motley crew of ill-fated opportunist collaborators Zinoviev, Bukharin et al.


Communism is not the end result...Socialism is. Communists seek Socialism.
Socialism is democratically-run industrial economic activity that has the capitalist owner taken out of the picture, but still has a distribution system based on wages and prices to encourage people to work. Communism is the same but without the price system, ie goods being available for free. Communism will slowly grow out of socialism as technology and productivity improve and money becomes superfluous. A public water fountain is an example of communism. Everyone uses it, and it's so cheap to provide, why bother charging money? Eventually every good/service will be like that.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Lenin didn't want it to turn out that way, but the Bolsheviks couldn't help the fact that they got elected to run the soviets and defend them in the worst situation possible. The revisionist course of the CPSU and its transformation into an organ of capitalist repression and restoration is because of the low cultural level of the Russian working class and not Lenin's organizational theories. Revisionist bureaucrats won out, strangled the working class and kept the Soviet republic frozen in time in spite of Lenin's work, not because of it. Lenin can't be blamed for what happened after the Civil War because it was impossible to know what would happen, he was mentally debilitated from 1922 until his death, and he was a notoriously slow and methodical writer; furthermore, he was prohibited from reading about current events towards the end of his life since it was worried this might cause him to have another stroke, so he never had the proper chance to analyze criticize what was happening. I firmly believe however that if he had lived, he would have ardently defended the proletarian internationalist principles of the revolution against the revisionist course undertaken by Stalin and his motley crew of ill-fated opportunist collaborators Zinoviev, Bukharin et al.

You're possibly right. I'll give that to you. But it's apparent that dar8888 is a revisionist, no doubt.

[SeaSpeck]

Well, this was fun.

[Agnapostate]

There will be no more need for government when we reach communism.

No state, rather. As far as I can discern, no Marxist or Leninist communist has explicitly claimed that there will be a complete abolition of managerial hierarchies, which remain in conflict with anarchism.


And then the Soviet Union collapsed.

It did not. While I don't want there to be any illusions about my opposition to authoritarian "socialism" and a command economy, the USSR was dissolved against the will of a popular majority of its citizens.

[Tower of Bebel]

There's no difference between a hypothetical "anarcho-communist" revolution and a hypothetical "leninist" revolution. Mass strikes, councils, militias, etc. are common traits. The difference is one of organization: is such a revolution conditioned by the existance of mass parties of the working class or not? Even the question of the state isn't very important as the so called worker's state that existed in the Soviet Union wasn't ideal. Far from it. Of course (for example!) you have the typical red army worshipers but in general Marxists fight for abolishing the standing army.

[robbo203]

Anarchism is a political philosophy that states that a "state" is unnecessary at best, and harmful at worst. It is incompatible with Communism, and incompatible with any sort of functioning government.

Communism is incompatible with the existence of the state and your insistence on the necessity of a state is incompatible with any claim you might make to be a communist yourself

[Agnapostate]

It's rare that I see such a piss-poor understanding of socialist ideology. I suspect an "anarcho" or "libertarian" capitalist trying to claim that anarchism is merely opposition to the state (a common claim of theirs) incompatible with communism. That's their precise party line.

[JacobVardy]

How would a Anarcho-Communist revolution play out?


My guess is that it will be global, messy and drawn out. I think what Raul Duke described will be the end game of the revolution. Prior to that there will decades of organising, that properly should be considered part of the revolution. The death of the capitalist state will be the death of a thousand cuts: a factory occupation here, co-ops there, a farmer's grange and a squat defense next door, a general strike somewhere else - the slow building up of communal property, facilities and abilities.

The most important part will be international solidarity - workers preventing the cappies and their state from crushing workers else where. The revolution will not happen instantly, everywhere.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Well, this was fun.
Apologies. A mod should probably split off a separate "dar8888 being wrong about communism" thread so you could get some decent answers to your question. Are you familiar with the Spanish Revolution (and not just Catalonia, Aragon was pretty advanced as well) and the Ukraine while it was independent from both the Bolsheviks and the Whites? Obv, a modern-day revolution would be very different from those, though. I suppose Greece is the best example of a country where the beginnings of anarchist revolution seem possible today.

[Girl A]

The very definition of anarchism says that no such revolution could ever take place.

I think you misunderstand anarchism.

Also, the poster asked for some ideas on how an anarcho-communist revolution could take place, not for a tendency argument. You know, it's not helpful to start these sort of misleading debates on the forum beginners to revolutionary politics read. =\

[whore]

yes, dear, it's true. a state is needed to be able to bring about a society without a state. why can't you see, it makes so much sense!

to the op
an anarchist revolution would, as has been mentioned above, play out much like other revolutions. some features i suspect will happen include;
workers will work for themselves, will freely distribute their work, without worrying about pay. suppliers will send material to manafacurers, who will make goods, and send them to the supermarkets, who will give them out to all comers.

some police will hold the line, but many will desert. the same with the army etc. especially when they are told to fire on their own countryfolk. it maybe that the various governments will send thier troops to other countries to help crust rebelians, while those other countries will send troops back.

hopefully it will be peaceful. but, you never know, we can onlyhope.

[The Vegan Marxist]

yes, dear, it's true. a state is needed to be able to bring about a society without a state. why can't you see, it makes so much sense!

to the op
an anarchist revolution would, as has been mentioned above, play out much like other revolutions. some features i suspect will happen include;
workers will work for themselves, will freely distribute their work, without worrying about pay. suppliers will send material to manafacurers, who will make goods, and send them to the supermarkets, who will give them out to all comers.

some police will hold the line, but many will desert. the same with the army etc. especially when they are told to fire on their own countryfolk. it maybe that the various governments will send thier troops to other countries to help crust rebelians, while those other countries will send troops back.

hopefully it will be peaceful. but, you never know, we can onlyhope.

Do you think our government would allow other country's police force & military to come over here on our land to help suppress the revolution that would be taking place?

[syndicat]

Then why was there a Soviet Union in the first place. Lenin understood the need to have government, in order to phase it out...moron.

As Kropotkin said, there is a distinction between state and government. As Engels pointed out in "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", the state is a bureaucratic structure ruling over society but separate from the masses being able to exercize effective control over it.
As Engels says, it is necessary to have governance of society by a bureaucratic structure of this sort in order to defend the interests of dominating, exploiting classes. if there were no dominating, exploiting class, no state would be needed.

Social anarchists tend to agree with this concept of the state.

It is this hierarchical, bureaucratic state that social anarchists propose to get rid of in a revoloution and replace with forms of popular power, such as worker councils, neighborhood assemblies, grassroots congresses, a popular militia, etc. It's not possible to create an economy socially planned from below unless the working class & oppressed consolidate and unify their power in institutions of social self-governance.

This would be a form of government, but not a state. Lenin on the other hand proposed to create a new state...a new centralized and top-down form of political power, with a central planning agency to control the whole economy set up within a few weeks of the Bolsheviks gaining power. In "State and Revolution" Lenin said the German post office was his model for how the economy should be run. This means a state-controlled hierarchical apparatus to which workers would be subject.

The problem with the idea of a so-called temporary state is that it is very unmaterialist to suppose it would be temporary or "wither away." That's because the state is by its nature a class institution. It is run by managers and experts who preside over public workers. The bureaucratic class is present in the state structure itself. Because this layer would have an interest, as any dominating class does, in perpetuating their power, that is what they'd fight for. The idea that some dominating class in the state would voluntarily give up power is a very unMarxist idea.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I have no need to read second rate nonsense. Read Lenin...that is all you need.

In order to completely understand an ideology, you need to read more than just said ideology's critics. That's why many anarchists I know also read Lenin and Marx.

[The Vegan Marxist]

As Kropotkin said, there is a distinction between state and government. As Engels pointed out in "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", the state is a bureaucratic structure ruling over society but separate from the masses being able to exercize effective control over it.
As Engels says, it is necessary to have governance of society by a bureaucratic structure of this sort in order to defend the interests of dominating, exploiting classes. if there were no dominating, exploiting class, no state would be needed.

Social anarchists tend to agree with this concept of the state.

It is this hierarchical, bureaucratic state that social anarchists propose to get rid of in a revoloution and replace with forms of popular power, such as worker councils, neighborhood assemblies, grassroots congresses, a popular militia, etc. It's not possible to create an economy socially planned from below unless the working class & oppressed consolidate and unify their power in institutions of social self-governance.

This would be a form of government, but not a state. Lenin on the other hand proposed to create a new state...a new centralized and top-down form of political power, with a central planning agency to control the whole economy set up within a few weeks of the Bolsheviks gaining power. In "State and Revolution" Lenin said the German post office was his model for how the economy should be run. This means a state-controlled hierarchical apparatus to which workers would be subject.

The problem with the idea of a so-called temporary state is that it is very unmaterialist to suppose it would be temporary or "wither away." That's because the state is by its nature a class institution. It is run by managers and experts who preside over public workers. The bureaucratic class is present in the state structure itself. Because this layer would have an interest, as any dominating class does, in perpetuating their power, that is what they'd fight for. The idea that some dominating class in the state would voluntarily give up power is a very unMarxist idea.

A State does not have a nature, in itself, but rather the nature of those that run the state. In which, there is no such thing as 'human nature', so there is no nature running the State, itself. There is only environmental conditions within people that make who they are now. So, naturally, the State would operate under the conditions that are of the people running it. Which is the main reason why we constantly see the State of today operate under such capitalistic, poor conditions because it's basing itself under the conditions of those that are running it in the first place.

This is why a workers state is a necessary element to help, not only gain, but to enforce a pathway towards Communism. The workers are put into the conditions to where they are aware of the oppressment by the State they are under now, & their conditionings that allow them to envision a better world would then be the conditions that would operate the new State that is brought forth by the workers, & not by the corporate establishments that is running the State now.

[Os Cangaceiros]

A State does not have a nature, in itself, but rather the nature of those that run the state. In which, there is no such thing as 'human nature', so there is no nature running the State, itself. There is only environmental conditions within people that make who they are now. So, naturally, the State would operate under the conditions that are of the people running it. Which is the main reason why we constantly see the State of today operate under such capitalistic, poor conditions because it's basing itself under the conditions of those that are running it in the first place.

This is why a workers state is a necessary element to help, not only gain, but to enforce a pathway towards Communism. The workers are put into the conditions to where they are aware of the oppressment by the State they are under now, & their conditionings that allow them to envision a better world would then be the conditions that would operate the new State that is brought forth by the workers, & not by the corporate establishments that is running the State now.

Everyone knows what the Marxist position on the state is. Just like (presumably) everyone knows what the anarchist (and some Marxist sects) position on the state is: that the state is a coercive instrument with it's roots in the origins of capitalist class society, and is incompatible with the developement of a more organic, egalitarian reorganization of society and it's resources.

And there is such a thing as "human nature", by the way. To say that there isn't would be to say that human nature is no different from the nature of a cat or a monkey. It's just that human nature is a very complex thing that proponents of various ideologies use to bolster their arguments.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Everyone knows what the Marxist position on the state is. Just like (presumably) everyone knows what the anarchist (and some Marxist sects) position on the state is: that the state is a coercive instrument with it's roots in the origins of capitalist class society, and is incompatible with the developement of a more organic, egalitarian reorganization of society and it's resources.

And there is such a thing as "human nature", by the way. To say that there isn't would be to say that human nature is no different from the nature of a cat or a monkey. It's just that human nature is a very complex thing that proponents of various ideologies use to bolster their arguments.

Really? You actually believe there is such a thing as 'human nature'? Please show me any scientific argument, that has been peer-reviewed & published I might add, that shows the existence of 'human nature'.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If you disagree that there is such a thing as human nature, then perhaps you should change your username, as Marx felt that there was a "human nature".

The very concept of alienation rests on the assertion that there is a natural desire for humans to control the fruits of their labor that is being thwarted by capitalism.

[Wolf Larson]

Anarchism is a political philosophy that states that a "state" is unnecessary at best, and harmful at worst. It is incompatible with Communism, and incompatible with any sort of functioning government.

No.

[syndicat]

Really? You actually believe there is such a thing as 'human nature'? Please show me any scientific argument, that has been peer-reviewed & published I might add, that shows the existence of 'human nature'.

Studies of language indicate that all human natural languages have the same underlying logical structure. For example, all humans produce sentences with a subject/predicate structure. Sentences can always be negated to deny them.

All humans have the same visual system, which is identical to the color vision system of almost all primates.

The Human Genome Project has tracked the various variable trait bundles of the human DNA, which is the design plan for development of a human.

In medical schools there are various things you would learn about how to determine whether given human tissues or organs are healthy or not.

But when I was talking about the nature of the state, I wasn't talking about human nature. You're confusing different things. The nature of the state is that it is a certain kind of structure, which has only existed since class society began, and which is characterized, as Engels says, by its separation from control by the masses. The most plausible explanation for this is that it makes it easier for the state to be used for the benefit of, and to protect, dominating classes.

This is why no state can be wielded by the working class. Working class power requires a different kind of governance structure, not separated from popular control, but expressing direct popular power, through the grassroots assemblies, councils, congresses.

[The Vegan Marxist]

If you disagree that there is such a thing as human nature, then perhaps you should change your username, as Marx felt that there was a "human nature".

The very concept of alienation rests on the assertion that there is a natural desire for humans to control the fruits of their labor that is being thwarted by capitalism.

First of all, show me where Marx had stated that there was such thing as 'human nature'. Second, I don't have to follow EVERY word of Marx to still be a Marxist. If one had to follow absolutely EVERYTHING a person says, then how could one have any kind of open mind & don't allow it to turn into some dogmatic worship.

[whore]

Do you think our government would allow other country's police force & military to come over here on our land to help suppress the revolution that would be taking place?
i don't know what you mean by "our government", i claim no government as my own. (i also don't know where you live).

but, i do think that governments around the world will call on other governments to help them surpress up risings. because the military of the one nation will not be as willing to shoot civilians from the same nation. bbut may be willing to shoot them from other countries.

[The Vegan Marxist]

i don't know what you mean by "our government", i claim no government as my own. (i also don't know where you live).

but, i do think that governments around the world will call on other governments to help them surpress up risings. because the military of the one nation will not be as willing to shoot civilians from the same nation. bbut may be willing to shoot them from other countries.

Well, the government that's in power over the country that you live in. But you've answered the question regardless.

[x359594]

Do you think our government would allow other country's police force & military to come over here on our land to help suppress the revolution that would be taking place?

If your government (which ever one it may be) faced a serious threat to its existence it would most probably accept military and police help from outside sources, particularly if it shared a contiguous border with the country from which it was seeking help. For example, the US military intervened in Mexico during the revolution with the specific intent of attacking the Northern Division under the command of Francisco Villa.

The US military intervened in several Central American revolutions dating from the 1920s to the 1980s on the side of counter-revolution.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

If your government (which ever one it may be) faced a serious threat to its existence it would most probably accept military and police help from outside sources, particularly if it shared a contiguous border with the country from which it was seeking help. For example, the US military intervened in Mexico during the revolution with the specific intent of attacking the Northern Division under the command of Francisco Villa.

The US military intervened in several Central American revolutions dating from the 1920s to the 1980s on the side of counter-revolution.
Not to mention that many US allies, such as Britain, already have American troops stationed on their soil, even in the absence of a revolutionary situation.

[Wolf Larson]

How would a Anarcho-Communist revolution play out?
General strike. Read ABC's of anarchism by Alexander Berkmen. It's difficult to use that plan though as today we have a non unionized service economy with absolutely ZERO working class solidarity. Unions aren't necessary for the general strike but solidarity is. Part of capitalism's victory has been it's ability to create a society of separateness/every man for himself in competition for survival.Working class solidarity is the foundation of anarchist revolution.


Sad thing, this current economic crisis hasn't spawned working class solidarity as past capitalist crisis's have- this crisis has spawned the god damned Tea Party movement. WE ARE ALL DROPPING THE BALL. Marxists and anarchists alike.

[Tiktaalik]

^ What this guy said.

Get the fuck off your computer and stop talking trash on each other and start talking to real people!

Do something for revolution instead of cocksizing your theoretical understanding of abstract ideas and saying who's theory is better or how revolution will happen. No one gives a fuck!

There is no working-class solidarity because the fucking left and anarchists alike are for the most part, either pointlessly arguing with each other or not engaging non-radicalized people.

In case you haven't noticed while you wasted yer life on the internet, there's a right-wing populist movement inspired by rampant nationalism and racism during the middle of a fucking economic recession that could spiral into a depression in a few years... and every industrialized government seems to be moving more and more to the right.

What are you all gonna do about that? Whine about who's right and who's wrong, insult our comrades, and then ***** about how shitty capitalism is? Get off this site and do something productive.