Anarchism.

[SmashTheState]

Anarchists wish to remove all forms of governence, which is all communists goal in the long run.
In the case of Marxist Leninists, they first want to create a government then when all nations are socialist, then the theory is the state apparatus can absolve, which seems pretty sensible.

Anarchism seems the most pro worker/anti exploitation outlook to me but my problems with it are
1. How can a newly formed Anarchist nation defend from imperialism.
2.How can an Anarchist country run hospitals schools, stop sexual abuse, solve murders etc without any organised institutions to keep order.
3.How does a newly transformed Anarchist country feed the people, if there is no government, how does the country import goods to feed its people and how does it react to sanctions and embargo from the capitalist/imperialist nations.
If anyone can answer these for me i would be very greatfull
Thanks.

[HEAD ICE]

1. How can a newly formed Anarchist nation defend from imperialism.
2.How can an Anarchist country run hospitals schools, stop sexual abuse, solve murders etc without any organised institutions to keep order.

These two questions are roughly the same. Anarchists don't oppose organised institution - just the opposite actually, the thrust of anarchism is organisation. Anarchists do not object to workers taking arms and forming militias to defend the revolution.

I assume your question means during the revolution, and not when there is an "anarchist country." An "anarchist country" is a doomed country, you can not exist outside the sphere of capitalism for very long.


3.How does a newly transformed Anarchist country feed the people, if there is no government, how does the country import goods to feed its people and how does it react to sanctions and embargo from the capitalist/imperialist nations.

Again, there will be no "anarchist country", for the reasons of this question. "Transformed anarchism" is communism, and communism can't exist within capitalism for very long.

[SmashTheState]

These two questions are roughly the same. Anarchists don't oppose organised institution - just the opposite actually, the thrust of anarchism is organisation. Anarchists do not object to workers taking arms and forming militias to defend the revolution.

I assume your question means during the revolution, and not when there is an "anarchist country." An "anarchist country" is a doomed country, you can not exist outside the sphere of capitalism for very long.



Again, there will be no "anarchist country", for the reasons of this question. "Transformed anarchism" is communism, and communism can't exist within capitalism for very long.

Well when we have socialism in one country before every nation is socialist we call it socialist, before all the world is anarchist what is a single nation that has an anarchist revolution called

Also if you cant have anarchism in one country, why are the anarchists in greece rising?

Thanks for your answer, hope you get back to me

[iskrabronstein]

The anarchists in Greece are rising because they favor a policy of direct action and harassment rather than revolutionary change. Riots in the streets alone do not make a revolution - a revolution is the concrete transfer of power from one class to another.

[SmashTheState]

so how do anarchists make revolution, why do they not think the dictatorship of the proletariat is necesary

[revolution inaction]

For anarchists revolution is a process where the take control of the means of production and society as a whole, and begin to organise everything using anarchist methods.
Dictatorship of the proletariat is a vague term, it can mean all kinds of things.

you might want to have a look at the anarchist faq (http://www.anarchistfaq.org.uk/)

[PHUNX]

Anarchism seems the most pro worker/anti exploitation


Well when we have socialism in one country before every nation is socialist we call it socialist, before all the world is anarchist what is a single nation that has an anarchist revolution called
what type of Anarchism :confused:
for example Anarcho-Syndicalism is the most pro worker, but then there's anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, extra

Riots in the streets alone do not make a revolution - a revolution is the concrete transfer of power from one class to another.
yes they can and no it's not
the word revolution has nothing to do with "class" it comes from the Latin word revolutio meaning "a turn around"
how ever revolution has come to mean "fundamental change" in anything eg the industrial revolution, cultural revolution, sexual revolution, IT revolution

[revolution inaction]

what type of Anarchism :confused:
for example Anarcho-Syndicalism is the most pro worker, but then there's anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, extra
n
no there isn't, anarcho capitalism is nothing to do with anarchism.

[PHUNX]

no there isn't, anarcho capitalism is nothing to do with anarchism.

please elaborate why not :confused:

[ChrisK]

please elaborate why not :confused:

Because Anarchism is against all exploitation and hierarchical structures, and capitalism is both exploitive and and hierarchical. Thus, by definition, anarcho-capitalism is not anarchist, nor can it ever be.

[revolution inaction]

Because Anarchism is against all exploitation and hierarchical structures, and capitalism is both exploitive and and hierarchical. Thus, by definition, anarcho-capitalism is not anarchist, nor can it ever be.

this, also if you want more the anarchist faq goes into this quite a lot http://www.anarchistfaq.org.uk/

[PHUNX]

Because Anarchism is against all exploitation and hierarchical structures, and capitalism is both exploitive and and hierarchical. Thus, by definition, anarcho-capitalism is not anarchist, nor can it ever be.
i totally agree but go tell them that see how far you get

[HEAD ICE]

Radicalgraffiti is right - revolution is not an event, it is a process that includes the active dispossession and expropriation of the bourgeoisie. Anarchists are internationalists and believe that socialism can not exist in one country because it will eventually (or immediately) take the form of capitalism, collapse, or get attacked. Not only get attacked or embargoed, but occupied.

Anarcho-syndicalism, despite claims to the contrary, is very relevant in the 21st century. Anarcho-syndicalism is a strategy that seeks to radicalize the working class for revolution. Anarcho-syndicalists don't believe that unions can overthrow capitalism, we believe only the workers can. We also recognize that there is varying degrees of class consciousness amongst the working class. Anarcho-syndicalism proposes a political-economic organization that fights for economic justice in the now, while possessing radical politics. Getting everyone into the same union to declare revolution is not our goal nor is it possible. Anarcho-syndicalism is the adaptation of anarchist strategy - organization, agitation, and direct action - to the workers movement.

Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism and we should not forfeit the term to those confused individuals. I've also noticed that said individuals are now ditching the term, now using words like "agorism" and "voluntarism."

[ChrisK]

i totally agree but go tell them that see how far you get

That's like me saying Canada isn't socialist for for x, y and z and you saying, well tell that too American's and see how far you get. No matter what they say, they have a misconception, and they are not anarchists.

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

The anarchists in Greece are rising because they favor a policy of direct action and harassment rather than revolutionary change.
Thank you for this insightful, accurate, constructive and deep criticism of my country's anarchist movement:rolleyes:

2.How can an Anarchist country run hospitals schools, stop sexual abuse, solve murders etc without any organised institutions to keep order.
3.How does a newly transformed Anarchist country feed the people, if there is no government, how does the country import goods to feed its people and how does it react to sanctions and embargo from the capitalist/imperialist nations.
If anyone can answer these for me i would be very greatfull
An anarchist ''country'' based on today's nations and borders is a hollow term indeed as people have posted before me but it is logical that anarchism will not be simultaneously established worldwide, nor in a whole continent.Thus, what will most propably happen is the formation of revolted territories either in the context of today's nations borders, either excluding them or being a part of them.From there, those territories must immediatly spread revolution outwards while at the same time organising themselves in a horizontical way.There will be public assemblies, worker's councils, organisations and autonomous groups all linked together through networks working in a federative, anti-hierarchical manner.However if the revolution doesn't start spreading those territories are pretty much doomed since they can't combat neighbouring capitalist countries in economy.This is why communism/anarchism in one country is not feasible.The USSR tried to achieve state socialism, what they thought to be the middle step between capitalism and communism and something we anarchists call state collectivism/state capitalism which deteriorated back into capitalism (but that's another story and one that takes a loooot of debating, I'm not gonna post the anarchist opinion here).

[RadioRaheem84]

That's like me saying Canada isn't socialist for for x, y and z and you saying, well tell that too American's and see how far you get. No matter what they say, they have a misconception, and they are not anarchists.

Right. I get so pissed off talking to right-libertarian blowhards that think that anarchism belongs in their camp. When I tell them about Anarchist Spain, Noam Chomsky, Buenaventura Durruti, Zapata and the Zapatistas, Anarcho-syndicalism, the recovered factories movements in Argentina,etc. They get riled up and say that those are capitalists and right-libertarian movements because they're voluntary and have nothing to do with the State.

So in a sense, the oppositional side of their argument is ALL based on a misconception of socialism and it even effects their judgment when analyzing great movements that grew out of an opposition to capitalism, not out of a love for it.

They attribute the anarcho-syndicalist, cooperative movements as the ingeniousness embedded in the capitalist system. And just because the anarchists were against "one form" of capitalism doesn't mean they were against capitalism. They were just for another version of capitalism, one that was equitable in sharing the profits. :lol:

I tried telling the guy that if Durruti, Zapata, or any anarchist fighting against fascism and capitalism would've heard you say that he would laugh in your face. He replied back coyly; "it doesn't matter what they think they would still be in support of FREE MARKETS, just without knowing it" !

DELUSIONAL. Right-Libertarianism is probably the sickest ideology out there and the most anti-human thing ever thought of.

[Tiktaalik]

Anarchism cannot exist as it should in a capitalist world divided into nation-states.

However, wherever there is any struggle, anarchist or not, against oppression and initiating a better world, solidarity should be expressed and lessons learned so that we can take them back and apply them in our own situation.

The reason why many anarchists are paying attention to Greece is so that we can see what they did right and what they have done wrong and assess it and compare it to our own struggles. We must learn from our comrades and support any manifestation of anarchism.

Insurrections (occupations, riots, strikes) are not the whole revolution, sure. However, neither is paper-selling and walking with a sign. Insurrections draw the line in the sand for many people, it is amazing how cool it is to see folks realize who's on who's side and the actual class war when push comes to shove. Most working-class people are down with revolution more so than even the most ardent revolutionaries, in my experience, because they do not live in intellectual-land or politics-land, they live in the actual experience of daily life and have real connections with people that go beyond politics. It just takes a little push in the right direction.

And, for the record, the anarchists in Greece are not just rioting and bombing. Many high schools and universities, as well as elementary schools, have been occupied by students and faculty alike in the past few months. When the government tried pulling an austerity measure out, the tax collectors went on strike. When the court case for the 15-year-old kid shot last year was moved to a remote location, the farmers blocked 7 highways. The main obstacle for the Greeks are the established union bureaucrats and leftist party officials, who keep condemning the Greek working class for trying to assert its power by fighting with the police and occupying their spaces. The bureaucrats and party hacks are scum and in my mind, the main hindrance to revolutionary change not only in Greece but everywhere else too.

[Old Man Diogenes]

Anarchism seems the most pro worker/anti exploitation outlook to me but my problems with it are

1. How can a newly formed Anarchist nation defend from imperialism.
2.How can an Anarchist country run hospitals schools, stop sexual abuse, solve murders etc without any organised institutions to keep order.


To answer these two, to defend itself, a voluntary militia. As someone earlier said Anarchism is pro-organization, it is pro-order, what it is against is hierarchy and hierarchical organization.

And as someone else has suggested the Anarchist FAQ (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html) would probably be giant help to you, as it was to me.

[Wobblie]

Anarchists wish to remove all forms of governence, which is all communists goal in the long run.

Anarchism's goal is to destroy the state apparatus (amongst other things) and all forms of hierarchy, but not all forms of governance. If that were the case anarcho-syndicalism, with its ideas about workers councils running the factories and the economy (and possibly deciding on political issues, depending on the anarcho-syndicalist you talk to), wouldn’t be anarchy at all.

Besides, humans are social creatures. We can not survive with everyone living like hermits, so we join together in communities. For communities to function there needs to be a system in place for the community to make decisions about issues that affect everyone. That is a system of governance, and it is necessary for a functioning society.

[HEAD ICE]

Alexander Berkman wrote a chapter in his book The ABC of Anarchism on this very topic:
http://libcom.org/library/what-is-anarchism-alexander-berkman-31

However, Durruti put it much more succinctly:
"The only way we can establish libertarian communism is by destroying the bourgeoisie"