Definition of anarchist ?

[scarletghoul]

I'm never really sure what counts as Anarchism, and who counts as Anarchist.

Is an Anarchist just someone who thinks society can and should be run without classes, state, or any other form of hierarchy ? If so then every Communist is, ultimately, an Anarchist.

Or is an Anarchist someone who thinks that all hierarchy and oppression can and should be abolished instantly ? If so then practically no one is an Anarchist, because we all accept the need for revolution which is a pretty authoritarian act.

I am confused because it's hard to draw a clear line between Anarchism and statist Communism. Both want to establish a classless stateless society. Both accept that a period of struggle and authoritarianism is neccessary to achieve this (be it a workers' revolt or a Stalinist state apparatus). Where to draw the line ? Is there a line ?

[Uppercut]

As I understand it, an anarchist is someone who rejects all types of authority, and all types of statism and leadership. They pretty much have the same goal as Marxist-Leninists, supposedly (a classless, stateless society), but they don't believe in a transition stage to this society.

[scarletghoul]

But they support revolution, which is a (small) transition stage and is highly authoritarian. Also in practice no anarchist revolution has been able to establish classless statelessness right away, to abolish authority in one go. Apart from the initial revolution, anarchists have also had to set up quasi-state authoritarian institutions to protect the revolution.

[Tablo]

Anarchism generally means "No rulers". So in that way it is at odds with both the government and capitalism since the capitalists rule over us too. It is about disestablishing social hierarchy.

Also, I don't know what you mean by establishing a quasi-authoritarian state, but it is not comparable to something like the Soviet Union and is largely more democratic and free than any Marxist-Leninist dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Uppercut]

A
Also, I don't know what you mean by establishing a quasi-authoritarian state, but it is not comparable to something like the Soviet Union and is largely more democratic and free than any Marxist-Leninist dictatorship of the proletariat.

Actually, proletarian dictatorships have been pretty democratic in the past. Well, at least the nations that actually stuck with Marxism-Leninism. The concept of soviet democracy actually works quite well, IMO, especially for Albania and their idea of Autarky.

[Tablo]

Actually, proletarian dictatorships have been pretty democratic in the past. Well, at least the nations that actually stuck with Marxism-Leninism. The concept of soviet democracy actually works quite well, IMO, especially for Albania and their idea of Autarky.
As long as there is a government it isn't really purely democratic as far as I'm concerned, but I never said that they weren't democratic. An Anarchist revolution would have a largely less authoritarian and thus more democratic transition is what I was trying to say.

[revolution inaction]

Anarchists are aware that the ends achieved are determined by the means used, to get there, so if you use authoritarian means then you will get a authoritarian result.
Also we don't consider revolution authoritarian, it is not a coup or any military seizure of power, it is simplistically the workers taking control of the means of production/society, which should be ours anyway. Any violence we carry out will be defensive, even if we don't necessarily wait for the capitalists to make the first move.
I'm not sure if you use the word revolution the same way as us.

[ZeroNowhere]

But they support revolution, which is a (small) transition stage and is highly authoritarian.
No, see, the issue here is that you're using the word 'authoritarian' in a fairly idiosyncratic manner that anarchists do not share. If you were asking to clarify how anarchists use 'authority' when defining themselves as against it, there is nothing wrong with that, but this is no objection.

[Uppercut]

As long as there is a government it isn't really purely democratic as far as I'm concerned

But do you think people can establish their system all on there own, a.k.a a series of councils up to the national level?

The way I look at it, it would be nearly impossible to establish a democratic system like the one you want without a government to establish it from above.

[revolution inaction]

But do you think people can establish their system all on there own, a.k.a a series of councils up to the national level?

i think people can do this worldwide.



The way I look at it, it would be nearly impossible to establish a democratic system like the one you want

well this is kind of obvious, there has never been a successful revolution yet,



without a government to establish it from above.

but it is completely impossible for such a system to be established from above by a government, so the only option is for people to establish from below.

[Invincible Summer]

It seems the differences between Anarchists and Marxists is mainly wordplay. Anarchists have a different definition of revolution, authority, state, etc than Marxists, but they essentially talk about the same thing.

[Zanthorus]

Well I guess one main defining point of anarchism would be opposition to participation in bourgeois governments. Although left-communists also do that.

Another thing would be that we don't believe in the idea of a vanguard, or at least our "vanguards" are organised in a federalist way.

We also believe that any transitional society should not be a "workers state" but a society organised from the bottom up with federating factory councils and such.

I think the difference is quite subtle in some ways, especially with some of the more libertarian strands of Marxism. In the end I think it comes down to wether you identify more with the theoretical tradition of Marx & Engels or Bakunin & Kropotkin. Although even Bakunin praised Marx's work on economics and believed in historical materialism.

As was already said above, a lot of it does come down to semantics.

[syndicat]

There are different kinds of viewpoint called anarchism. A mass struggle-oriented social anarchist -- the main type historically -- would say that they are opposed to class subordination and other forms of oppression and are opposed to the state because it is inherently a class institution. Their view is that the mass of working class & oppressed people need to build their own movement, which they control, in order to gain control of the means of production & land and replace the class hierarchy with worker self-management and social self-management by the people, through some federated system of assemblies, councils, congresses. They may allow that all of the aims of social liberation are not going to be achieved overnight, and certainly not without difficult struggle, but that the tasks of the revolutionary transition can be carried out by new organizations/institutions based on participation, direct accountability, self-management. Popular power, yes, state, no.

[Agnapostate]

If revolutionary violence is needed to expropriate the means of production from the control of capitalists (and I don't see why it necessarily would be to any substantial extent in a democratic society; it's simply a matter of not acknowledging capitalists' claims of ownership of productive resources and instead operating them according to the production decisions of workers' democratic management, though I'll concede that the ownership of the majority of military-grade weaponry by a small minority would complicate issues), this would not be in conflict with libertarian principles. The capitalist labor market is based on coercion and the involuntary compulsion of workers into hierarchical social arrangements; as this can be reasonably defined as aggression, the elimination of this state of affairs can reasonably be defined as a tactic ultimately designed to reduce total aggression. It's similar to the philosophical basis behind law enforcement; police officers can forcibly restrain, arrest, and imprison violent criminals on the basis that their free movement would cause greater force and violence through their unrestricted ability to assault others. While we know that the actual practices of the police are far out of this purview (and it should be noted that these excesses are deliberate and by design, in light of what I'll say next), the ideological basis is sound.

Now, I should also add that no political philosophy has ever attained "purity" in implementation, least of all republicanism (since they are the most common critics of anarchism), so the premise that the existence of some form of coercion in anarchism invalidates the entire theory is fallacious. It disappoints me to witness other self-described socialists claiming any such thing, as it's one of the most common charges pressed against socialism in general, so that anti-socialists can tear down a strawman.

[The Vegan Marxist]

How exactly does the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' differ in Anarchism compared to how us Marxists view it as, given that both classes support such, but have two different manners of using it?

[syndicat]

anarchists don't use the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat." Not usually anyway.

When the anarchists in the Spanish revolution proposed a working class government based on the unions and workplace assemblies, some Spanish anarchists called this a "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat."

The idea was that the government -- called a defense council -- would be directly accountable to worker congresses, and the assemblies that elect the congresses, and would concern itself only with the armed defense of the revolution, the military, police and judicial function. The economy was to be self-managed and planned through a federative system of worker managed industrial organizations, neighborhood assemblies and worker congresses, not controlled by the defense council.

[The Vegan Marxist]

anarchists don't use the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat." Not usually anyway.

When the anarchists in the Spanish revolution proposed a working class government based on the unions and workplace assemblies, some Spanish anarchists called this a "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat."

The idea was that the government -- called a defense council -- would be directly accountable to worker congresses, and the assemblies that elect the congresses, and would concern itself only with the armed defense of the revolution, the military, police and judicial function. The economy was to be self-managed and planned through a federative system of worker managed industrial organizations, neighborhood assemblies and worker congresses, not controlled by the defense council.

But you would allow a government-like system to remain in place while this transition went on, for the time being that is? If so, then how exactly does anarchist ideology & communist ideology differ from then, despite the fact that, if one follows Marxist thought, there's a difference between the State & government?

[syndicat]

But you would allow a government-like system to remain in place while this transition went on, for the time being that is? If so, then how exactly does anarchist ideology & communist ideology differ from then, despite the fact that, if one follows Marxist thought, there's a difference between the State & government?

I don't know what you mean when you say "allow a government-type system to remain in place while this transition went on". the proposal of the anarcho-syndicalists was to dismantle the old capitalist state and replace it with popular power, working class power, through the institutions the working class would create and control. The workers government -- the Defense Council -- wasn't a state as anarchists understand this term. That's because the armed forces would be directly controlled by their members and the mass worker organizations, the unions. it would be the unions that would be formally represented on the defense council. parties would have only an informal representation through their members in the unions. the defense council would not control anything but the social defense function. so it would have far fewer powers, and lack the characteristic bureaucratic structure of a state.

There is thus a distinction between government and state. But I don't think there is such a distinction in "Marxist thought". A "proletarian dictatorship" for Marxists seems to be a state in the sense that it would have hierarchical agencies controlling various things such as social production.

[Zanthorus]

But you would allow a government-like system to remain in place while this transition went on, for the time being that is?

Yes. But this system would be nothing like the workers state envisioned by Leninists.


If so, then how exactly does anarchist ideology & communist ideology differ from then, despite the fact that, if one follows Marxist thought, there's a difference between the State & government?

If one follows anarchist thought then there's a difference between state and government as well:


...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.

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

It's also kind of implied when Proudhon contrasts the state with self-government by the masses:


The State is the EXTERNAL constitution of the social power. By this external constitution of its power and sovereignty, the people does not govern itself; now one individual, now several, by a title either elective or hereditary, are charged with governing it, with managing it affairs, with negotiating and compromising in its name; in a word, with performing all the acts of a father of a family, a guardian, a manager, or a proxy, furnished with a general, absolute, and irrevocable power of attorney.

- http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/resistance-to-the-revolution

As for the differences, again, anarchists don't believe that a workers "state" can remain in power for long without becoming an instrument for the domination of the majority by a minority. We also don't believe in "vanguards" (Or at least, our vanguards are not centralised institutions).

Although between the more libertarian leaning Marxists and anarchists most differences are semantic and depend on which school of thought you identify more with.

[Os Cangaceiros]

But they support revolution, which is a (small) transition stage and is highly authoritarian.

Anarchist Myth #1: Anarchists are opposed to "authority" in the broad sense of the word.

The reality: Anarchists are opposed to illegitimate authority.

If I had a nickel for everytime someone trotted out the old, "But revolutions by their very nature are authoritarian!" canard...:rolleyes: I would advise Leninists to at the very least look into anarchist responses to this claim, as the claim has been tossed around since Engels. In fact some Leninist organizations still use quotes from Engels to supposedly invalidate libertarian socialism's claims as a revolutionary tendency, when in fact all they're doing is showing gross misunderstanding of anarchism's position on the subject (a misunderstanding that Engels also shared).

[Agnapostate]

Some people here could profit from reading Section H.2 (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionH2) of the FAQ, clearly.

[whore]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-left-dictionary-t22628/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/making-sense-anarchism-t6416/index.html
two threads stickied in the learning forum.

anarchists are people who object to oppression, and desire freedom. many (probably most), the communists, think that equality is the only way to have freedom. others, individualists and mutualist types, think that freedom requires individual control over the means of production, so that one can be productive without relying on others.

a few (probably very few) are basically hermits. beliving that interactions between humans necesitate restrictions on freedom, and so that true freedom can only came about by not interacting with others.

many see animals as deserving as much right to freedom, and not to be used to an end not in their interest, as they see humans having those same rights.

anarchist pacifists see any use of force as dangerous, and incompatible with the objection to oppression.

what draws them altogether as "anarchist"? the objection to oppression, and the desire for freedom. they all desire a free society, but may differ as to how to get there.

what is the most likely type of anarchist you will encounter in a revolutionary situation? a communist, class-war type. they (generally) believe that revolution is justified as taking back what is rightfully the worker's own "property". they see violence as self-defence, and don't object to violence against the state, or capitalism. they oppress us every day of our lives, why not fight back!

i probably most fit that one. fuck them, they threaten us with violence (or use it against us if we object). they slander us, and attack us. they steal from us, and our loved ones. they kill, poison, and stab, and beat, and so on, all around the world. people are dying, because of capitalism.

don't get me wrong though. anarchists don't just object to capitalism, we also object to anything resembling the soviet style experiments, and the north korean shit. we want freedom, not a new, different, set of masters.

we don't want masters at all! (not even, if they claim to operate in our name, and to do our wishes. no, we don't want a "proletariat state", we want no state).

[whore]

http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html



Anti-Authoritarianism Anarchists are extremely skeptical about the need for any kind of authority. At minimum all anarchists believe that hierarchy should be abolished and some take this further and oppose other forms of authority. Instead of hierarchy, everyone should have control over their own life and an equal say in group decisions.

Free Association Everyone should be allowed to associate freely with those they choose and to disassociate themselves when they choose. Individuals should not be forced into social relations against their will. Society should be based upon free agreement, rather than coercion.

Mutual Aid Instead of attempting to dominate each other social relations should be based on solidarity and voluntary cooperation. When individuals come together to help each other they can accomplish more than when they work against each other.

Freedom Freedom means the ability to control one's own life instead of being controlled by others, as is the case with hierarchy. This is sometimes called liberty or autonomy. Controlling other people's lives is not freedom but a restriction of freedom.

Self-Management In groups decisions should be made in a manner so that everyone has an equal say. People should govern themselves, rather than dividing people into some who give orders and some who obey as in hierarchical organizations.

Radical Egalitarianism Anarchists believe in an egalitarian society. This does not mean some totalitarian society where everyone is identical or lives identical lives. It does not mean denying individual diversity or uniqueness. Rather anarchists believe in equality of both wealth and power - a natural consequence of the abolition of hierarchy.

Feminism Anarchists favor social, economic and political equality for men and women. The domination of men over women should be abolished and all people given control of their own lives.
i cannot see any true anarchist (including the few types i mentioned above), objecting to any of that.
even individualists/mutualists want an egalitarian society, they just do not see the need for a perfectly egalitarian society.

that is such a good text. i sugest read all of it!

[Uppercut]

i think people can do this worldwide.

How would people go about using it? We can't have a government assist us in establishing this type of system, or else it's not anarchy. And we can't have a party or organization do it because that's vanguardism.



but it is completely impossible for such a system to be established from above by a government, so the only option is for people to establish from below.

How is it impossible? The laws and policies of the government reflect the class nature of those who control it. So if we have a state controlled by workers' councils (soviets), the people would be able to participate from below. The state is just there is ensure and back up the decisions and wishes of the workers, as well as protect them from invasion and infiltration.

Imagine if Cuba's revolution was an anarchist one. It would have been crushed during the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

[Zanthorus]

And we can't have a party or organization do it because that's vanguardism.

Except anarchists have argued for and built organisations specifically for the purpose of aiding the revolution and building alternative infrastructure.

Your problem, as with all Marxist critics of anarchism, is you're trying to engage with it using the same semantic content of these words that Marxists use. Anarchists don't reject "vanguardism" as such, just the word (Because it implies minority led efforts and conspiratorial tactics even if that's not what it means).


How is it impossible? The laws and policies of the government reflect the class nature of those who control it.

I think most anarchists would follow you this far...


So if we have a state controlled by workers' councils (soviets)

But not this far. The problem is that even if a state is nominally a soviet democracy with decisions made by the working classes the decisions are being written into law and carried out by a small minority of representatives. The control is still very much in the hands of the minority.

The obvious rebuke would be to point out that the minority would still be working class and share the interests of the working class. But I think even if the people in control of the state don't constitute a seperate "class" as such (At least not one that would be recognised by any Marxist) it does constitute a group with disparate interests from the non-political classes.


The state is just there is ensure and back up the decisions and wishes of the workers,

Which they could just as easily do themselves.


as well as protect them from invasion and infiltration.

This would not require a minority-led centralised territorial concentration of force. At a stretch it would require the setting up of regional comittees to co-ordinate efforts related to the war. But anything else not related to the war effort could be controlled by the people themselves.

[Coggeh]

As long as there is a government it isn't really purely democratic as far as I'm concerned, but I never said that they weren't democratic. An Anarchist revolution would have a largely less authoritarian and thus more democratic transition is what I was trying to say.
Without a regional and national coordinated society you couldn't hope to defend against well organised counter revolution by overthrown capitalists and capitalist nations . The very reason why Russia was able to defend the revolution was because the state still existed without that organization it would have been easily crushed.

Anarchists who believe that a state is necessarily anti worker or reactionary lose sight of the function of a state in the first place in capitalism its function is to protect private property for the capitalists and defend against revolution. A workers state on the other hand would be democratically run by workers locally,regionally and nationally to defend the revolution against capitalist counter revolution oversee the socialisation of the economy etc. Their would be no bureaucratic Stalinist caste like you saw in the Soviet Union as everyone from local to national level would be elected , put on the average workers wage and subject to instant recall election if they stray from their mandate etc . Industry would also be in control democratically by workers , and in the case of certain services it would be joint ownership with surrounding communities etc . committees set up to do this would be elected by workers in the workeplace etc.

[Zanthorus]

Without a regional and national coordinated society you couldn't hope to defend against well organised counter revolution by overthrown capitalists and capitalist nations . The very reason why Russia was able to defend the revolution was because the state still existed without that organization it would have been easily crushed.

Yes, it was necessary for the Bolsheviks to use the state apparatus in order to secure victory in the civil war. If you ignore the Mahknovists or use the irrelevant dismissal of it's peasant class nature of course...

[ls]

Yes, it was necessary for the Bolsheviks to use the state apparatus in order to secure victory in the civil war. If you ignore the Mahknovists or use the irrelevant dismissal of it's peasant class nature of course...

The Makhnovisty used worker's councils and Makhno himself was willing to send delegates to Bolshevik-organised Ukrainian 'radas', so Makhno didn't dismiss the Bolshevik apparatus completely, he didn't like the state of course but what I'm saying is he was willing to work with them.

If the Makhnovisty were able to properly organise in the cities, with a little more understanding from Lenin and Trotsky (which was not inconceivable, they were considering it for some time in fact) we may have seen them pretty much become a part of the Bolshevik apparatus.

[syndicat]

Without a regional and national coordinated society you couldn't hope to defend against well organised counter revolution by overthrown capitalists and capitalist nations . The very reason why Russia was able to defend the revolution was because the state still existed without that organization it would have been easily crushed.

Libertarian socialists aren't against regional and national coordination. You seem to have this idea that the only alternatives are a hierarchical state or uncoordinated localism. Those are not the only alternatives. There can be such a thing as a horizontally coordinated social arrangement.



Anarchists who believe that a state is necessarily anti worker or reactionary lose sight of the function of a state in the first place in capitalism its function is to protect private property for the capitalists and defend against revolution. A workers state on the other hand would be democratically run by workers locally,regionally and nationally to defend the revolution against capitalist counter revolution oversee the socialisation of the economy etc.

This has never happened. Because the state is a hierarchical structure, with managers over public workers, it is inevitably a power base for a bureaucratic class. Social anarchists propose Popular Power as the alternative to the socalled "workers state" (which for the Bolsheviks meant a state controlled top down by a socalled "workers party", not actual participation and direct control by workers).

[Outinleftfield]

But do you think people can establish their system all on there own, a.k.a a series of councils up to the national level?

The way I look at it, it would be nearly impossible to establish a democratic system like the one you want without a government to establish it from above.

Weren't some of the first governments established from below? The nobility in the towns came together and decided on a king to protect their property?

These were terrible, authoritarian governments but it shows how regional and national levels of administration can be formed by the voluntary agreement of local levels of administration.

[Die Rote Fahne]

An Anarchist is someone who believes in eradicating hierarchy.

[Uppercut]

Except anarchists have argued for and built organisations specifically for the purpose of aiding the revolution and building alternative infrastructure.

I know you have your anarchist federations and bureaus, like Freetown Christiana. The problem is that there are no major anarchist revolutions being waged, and the ones that have been fought have been short lived. Catalonia may have lasted longer had they taken more authoritative measures.


Anarchists don't reject "vanguardism" as such, just the word (Because it implies minority led efforts and conspiratorial tactics even if that's not what it means).

Actually, the Bolsheviks were pretty open for the most part, and Lenin was not hesitant to recognize his mistakes and take responsibility for them. Speeches and works done by party members were usually published, either in Pravda or through some other form of media.

It's true that by the time of his death, the USSR had developed an unhealthy bueaurocracy. However, soviet democracy was not broken by any means.


I think most anarchists would follow you this far...

Well, as a Marxist-Leninist, I don't see governments to always be the root of all evil. Capitalist state? Of course they're corrupt; It's their job. However, there is much more responsibility on the hands of party members and delegates in a genuinely socialist state.




The problem is that even if a state is nominally a soviet democracy with decisions made by the working classes the decisions are being written into law and carried out by a small minority of representatives. The control is still very much in the hands of the minority.

Not exactly. If decisions are made by the working class through their local soviet, the delegates must review and discuss the decisions among the public. Therefor, it is much more difficult for corruption to spread if the masses are aware exactly what their delegates are writing into law.


The obvious rebuke would be to point out that the minority would still be working class and share the interests of the working class.

Some ministers do, some don't. That's why these delegates must be recallable if corruption or beaurocracy is spotted.




This would not require a minority-led centralised territorial concentration of force.

Why do you think that a communist revolution must be "minority led"? People can participate if they wish through the party or the guerrilla army. And just because the team has a coach doesn't necessarily mean it is an elitist system. Some people truly are meant to lead and inspire, brilliant people who dedicate their lives to helping the majority.

Leaders need to prove themselves before they can gain much support. Elected officials in today's bourgeois governments are not heroes, they're extensions of capitalism.



At a stretch it would require the setting up of regional comittees to co-ordinate efforts related to the war. But anything else not related to the war effort could be controlled by the people themselves.

But do you think that the people are educated and trained enough to know what to do during a war on their own soil? A central authority is often required during armed conflict to coordinate attacks from above.

[Uppercut]

Weren't some of the first governments established from below? The nobility in the towns came together and decided on a king to protect their property?

These were terrible, authoritarian governments but it shows how regional and national levels of administration can be formed by the voluntary agreement of local levels of administration.

For the most part, I agree with this post. But I think local and regional councils should have to form a national administration, at least until hostility and capitalism is mostly eliminated.
If it were voluntary, some would participate in the national assembly and some would not, creating inconsistency in the flow of information and cooperation among the seperate administrations.
Local councils can still enact laws pertaining exclusively to their area, though. I just believe that a national assembly is necessary to settle common agitations and concerns among all regions of the country.

[Outinleftfield]

For the most part, I agree with this post. But I think local and regional councils should have to form a national administration, at least until hostility and capitalism is mostly eliminated.
If it were voluntary, some would participate in the national assembly and some would not, creating inconsistency in the flow of information and cooperation among the seperate administrations.
Local councils can still enact laws pertaining exclusively to their area, though. I just believe that a national assembly is necessary to settle common agitations and concerns among all regions of the country.

But to enforce that would require violence against fellow communists if a local, socialist community did not want to join the national federation. That's not only wrong that's a waste of resources that could go to fighting against capitalism (such as aiding workers in a community to expropriate the means of production where capitalists have somehow managed to maintain their property rights). We should avoid infighting.

As for common agitations and concerns I can kind of see what you are getting at but that could be resolved without a "state". For example, with environmental concerns self-defense would apply against anyone leaking toxic pollutants into the atmosphere. The lack of a state would not prevent communities from banding together, sending delegates to councils, voting on a resolution, and then telling that community off and if necessary forceably shutting down the pollution.

No state does not mean no force or no law. The problem with states is that they are too static, they come with a fixed structure which can not be quickly changed to suit society's needs. It also holds society itself in an unreasonably static position. In reality there are both many societies and just one society(many because people have so many different interests and one because we are all connected as humans living on the same planet). It might make sense to have a large federation over an area to deal with certain issues while at the same time having a large federation over another overlapping area to deal with completely different issues. If community A and B share the same water source and community B and C share the same electrical source it makes sense for A and B to form associations to negotiate on common rules for the water source and B and C to negotiate common rules for using the electrical source but it does not generally make sense for community C to concern itself with the water issues or A to the electrical issues.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Imagine if Cuba's revolution was an anarchist one. It would have been crushed during the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

Uhh no. Just because we don't need someone in another city possibly hundreds of miles away telling us what to do doesn't mean we can't defend ourselves.

[Wolf Larson]

I'm never really sure what counts as Anarchism, and who counts as Anarchist.

Is an Anarchist just someone who thinks society can and should be run without classes, state, or any other form of hierarchy ? If so then every Communist is, ultimately, an Anarchist.

Or is an Anarchist someone who thinks that all hierarchy and oppression can and should be abolished instantly ? If so then practically no one is an Anarchist, because we all accept the need for revolution which is a pretty authoritarian act.

I am confused because it's hard to draw a clear line between Anarchism and statist Communism. Both want to establish a classless stateless society. Both accept that a period of struggle and authoritarianism is neccessary to achieve this (be it a workers' revolt or a Stalinist state apparatus). Where to draw the line ? Is there a line ?

We saw and learned from what went wrong when the state was taken over by a minority. In part the Bolsheviks were counter revolutionary in and of themselves and didn't want to give up power ,and,also, the state or communism couldn't progress to the point where the state was abolished because of America and the containment plan but early anarchists predicted many of the problems that would arise under the state socialist phase. Kropotkin being one. Anarchists don't want to take over the state apparatus. Anarchists want anarchism in one fell swoop while Marxists want anarchism incrementally. Both seek anarchist communism as the end goal. Anarchists believe hierarchy is at the root of most of our problems and giving a minority class control of the state, as we have seen, doesn't end well [perhaps it would have if America didn't exist].

Also, it's my opinion, with nuclear weapons a communist state cannot abolish capitalism with force this will have to happen simultaneously from below within each capitalist society. Capitalists will in fact start a nuclear war with another nation state in order to hold onto their system but I'm not so sure they'd destroy their own people in an uprising. Starting a nuclear war would in fact destroy everyone....fucking capitalists. They'd probably nuke a worker rebellion in their own nation, hell, I wouldn't put it past them but they don't need to- they have all the loyal workers they want. This is the problem. The game has changed since Marx's time. We need to all rise up together in our respective nations to overthrow the state- the working class needs to become conscious but I don't see it happening and it's depressing. I think Keynes ruined any chance of a worker movement in the future. We should be advocating free market capitalism [sounds crazy] so a new era of Robber Barron rule takes over America....then you'd see some revolutionary potential [I don't really believe that, well, sometimes I do- to be honest]. Anyway, it seems these days there cannot be a communist state taking on a capitalist state. Capitalists containment plan = cold war =nuclear war. Anarchists think it's in the workers hands to take over not a small minority in control of a nation state.

[Zanthorus]

haha, I totally forgot about this thread...


I know you have your anarchist federations and bureaus, like Freetown Christiana. The problem is that there are no major anarchist revolutions being waged, and the ones that have been fought have been short lived. Catalonia may have lasted longer had they taken more authoritative measures.

Eh? What does Christiania have to do with this? Your original point was that the institutions of popular control couldn't be set up by a party or organisation because that would be "vanguardism". When I was talking about anarchist organisations I didn't mean things like christiania I mean organisations like the IAF-IFA (http://www.iaf-ifa.org/). Historically these organisations have helped in the creation of popular control of anarchist territories, for example the Korean Anarchist Communist Federation helped to set up the autonomous shinmin region from 1939 to 1932.

I don't see the nonexistence of anarchist revolutions at the current time as anything against anarchism. The question should be that if there were a revolution would anarchist theory and practice be the best theory and practice to lead the revolution.

I'm honestly not actually that well versed in the history of the Spanish civil war. However I think the fact that a good portion of the workforce was still under the influence of the UGT (Trade union affiliated with the Spanish Socialist Workers Party) greatly contributed to the degeneration of it. The CNT had actually tried to set up a federation to aid the war effort instead of joining the republican government but none of the other parties of the left was having it. If they'd tried to go it alone and fight for libertarian communism they'd have been forced into a war against not only Franco but the rest of the anti-fascist side which couldn't have ended all that well.


It's true that by the time of his death, the USSR had developed an unhealthy bueaurocracy.

Precisely. Now the question is how did this happen. The beuracracy didn't spring up out of thin air. I believe there to be two possibilities:

1) The beuracracy developed due to the innate ogliarchical nature of the state.

2) The beuracracy developed as a response to outside pressure by imperialist powers etc

Now obviously an M-L would try and reach for option two. However then another question arises which is, did the beuracracy develop as a result of imperialist pressure on the governmental structure of the soviet union? In other words could the degeneration have been avoided by the use of the type of organs of horizontal popular power advocated by anarchists? Or would it have happened anyway?

I honestly don't have any answers to either of these questions (Ugh, I really need to read through more of the history of the RR) I'm just trying to point you in the direction of the questions you should be asking.


Well, as a Marxist-Leninist, I don't see governments to always be the root of all evil.

As an anarchist I don't see government to be the "root of all evil" either, nor do I necessarily believe in the existence of a metaphysical objective "good" and "evil". I work for the victory of the proletarian classes. Whose interests the state as an institution wether capitalist or a "workers state" is (In my opinion) directly opposed to.


Capitalist state? Of course they're corrupt; It's their job.

Well actually their job is to represent the interests of the bourgeoisie. "Corruption" doesn't really play into it.


However, there is much more responsibility on the hands of party members and delegates in a genuinely socialist state.

Well done for making that assertion without bothering to back it up. It doesn't matter how "responsible" delegates are. The fact is that the decision making is taking place over and above the proletariat. As such even if the state does manage to represent the interests of the workers all the way through a revolution eventually you'll end up with a new ruling caste (Not necessarily a class, depending on how you define class). Now unlike Robert Michels I don't believe that all organisation necessarily tends towards ogliarchy. But that specific organisational structure designated by the term "state" certainly does.


Not exactly. If decisions are made by the working class through their local soviet, the delegates must review and discuss the decisions among the public. Therefor, it is much more difficult for corruption to spread if the masses are aware exactly what their delegates are writing into law.

It's even more difficult for corruption to spread if the masses themselves are the ones writing things into law. It's not automatically gauranteed that the proletariat in the course of revolution will make all the right moves. Certainly the existence of some form of ideological vanguard (The Bakuninist "Invisible Dictatorship") helps. But what's even more important is ensuring that if the bourgeoisie do manage to make it past the revolution they don't have any institutions of power to grasp onto. Your system gives them that possibility.


Why do you think that a communist revolution must be "minority led"?

Clearly I don't or I wouldn't be an anarcho-communist. Marxism is not the be all and end all of communism.


People can participate if they wish through the party or the guerrilla army.

How about by creating their own institutions of mass resistance instead of having to participate in a party created only by advanced members of the class?


And just because the team has a coach doesn't necessarily mean it is an elitist system. Some people truly are meant to lead and inspire, brilliant people who dedicate their lives to helping the majority.

Natural leadership does not equate to institutional leadership.

[ContrarianLemming]

Is an Anarchist just someone who thinks society can and should be run without classes, state, or any other form of hierarchy ? If so then every Communist is, ultimately, an Anarchist.

yes, and no, that IS what an anarchist is, but not every communist is an anarchist, there is also christian communism and marxist communism, anarchist commies and marxist commies both seek the same thing, but there not the same, they have a different class analysis and different definitions and (in general) a different way of bringing about communism


Or is an Anarchist someone who thinks that all hierarchy and oppression can and should be abolished instantly ? If so then practically no one is an Anarchist, because we all accept the need for revolution which is a pretty authoritarian act.We do not accept the idea that revolution is authoritarian, it is not evil to destroy evil, so it is not wrong to fight wrong


I am confused because it's hard to draw a clear line between Anarchism and statist Communism. Both want to establish a classless stateless society. Both accept that a period of struggle and authoritarianism is neccessary to achieve this (be it a workers' revolt or a Stalinist state apparatus). Where to draw the line ? Is there a line ?State Communism (notice the capital C) is based around a transitionary period of useing the state as the instrament of the workers to acheive communism, anarchists do not believe in a transition period. we do not acccept that revolution is authoritarian or even necessarily violent

[ContrarianLemming]

anarchists have also had to set up quasi-state authoritarian institutions to protect the revolution.

abolsute bullsh!t