Would an anarchist country be possible...

[Velkas]

Would an independent anarchist country be possible? I mean a country operating internally on anarchist principles, and providing a model for revolution. Sort of like a commune, but an independent country, and it would be bigger than a commune. (More likely a collection of communes.)

I think that it could be possible, if it had a powerful enough defensive system, and a self-sufficient economy.

What do you think?

[Crusade]

I absolutely believe so. I always assume someone will say "no" to these kinds of questions for some reason, but my answer is yes.

[red cat]

Would an independent anarchist country be possible? I mean a country operating internally on anarchist principles, and providing a model for revolution. Sort of like a commune, but an independent country, and it would be bigger than a commune. (More likely a collection of communes.)

I think that it could be possible, if it had a powerful enough defensive system, and a self-sufficient economy.

What do you think?

The final goals of Marxist communism and anarchism are same. What you are talking of will be possible only after the bourgeoisie has been eliminated throughout the world.

[ev]

No, you couldn't, the anarchist society would be invaded by neighboring bourgeois countries, the elite upper class would be restored and workers would be made wage-slaves again.

- The end.

[Crusade]

No, you couldn't, the anarchist society would be invaded by neighboring bourgeois countries, the elite upper class would be restored and workers would be made wage-slaves again.

- The end.

Do you believe a communist country could exist at all if the majority of the world is Capitalist?

[Velkas]

What you are talking of will be possible only after the bourgeoisie has been eliminated throughout the world. Would anyone argue that the existence of such a society is possible in the midst of a capitalist world. If such a society has a military far more advanced than any other, is brimming with defenses, has a easily dependable position, has a self-sufficient economy, and has extremely devoted inhabitants, would it be able to exist? What advantages would be necessary for a socialist society to exist in a capitalist world?

[ev]

Do you believe a communist country could exist at all if the majority of the world is Capitalist?

I think i answered that question already, "a communist country" isn't communism.. If you are refering to a socialized state regime like we have seen in the past, then i think such a regime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende)would face heavy resistance and would be probably just be overthrown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) by the CIA or some other states clandestine service, and replaced by some capitalist-backed fuc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet)k who will serve the people. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile_under_Pinochet#Human_rights_violations)

[Velkas]

But what if it's not a state capitalist regime? What if the society is truly socialist, created by revolution, and operated through direct democracy?

[robbo203]

No, you couldn't, the anarchist society would be invaded by neighboring bourgeois countries, the elite upper class would be restored and workers would be made wage-slaves again.

- The end.

Firstly , you cannot have such a society without a majority wanting it and understanding it.

Given that, how do you imagine it is remotely possible that you could have a majority in one part of the world wanting an anarcho-communist society and not also have very significant minorities elsewhere wanting the same? Ideas spread by their very nature and more rapidly today than ever before.

If you have significant minorities elsewhere that implies the social climate would have been altered a long way in the direction of anarcho-communist society. Which means that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for these residual bourgoeis countries to justify - let alone,effect - an invasion of the anarcho-communist neighbours. There simply would not be the necessary support for such a rash action.

[Velkas]

Given that, how do you imagine it is remotely possible that you could have a majority in one part of the world wanting an anarcho-communist society and not also have very significant minorities elsewhere wanting the same? Ideas spread by their very nature and more rapidly today than ever before.If a group of socialists from around the world people gather together and spark a revolution in order to create a socialist society. It is feasible, is it not?

[Glenn Beck]

Not really, no.

[bcbm]

i think it probably is not possible for such a "country" to exist in isolation, but i also think it is something for the under classes to fight for and take whatever gains they can get, even if it means winning in one country and facing an imperialist onslaught.

[red cat]

Would anyone argue that the existence of such a society is possible in the midst of a capitalist world. If such a society has a military far more advanced than any other, is brimming with defenses, has a easily dependable position, has a self-sufficient economy, and has extremely devoted inhabitants, would it be able to exist? What advantages would be necessary for a socialist society to exist in a capitalist world?

In addition to what you said, if you assume that a vast majority of the citizens of this society are fully class conscious and politically and militarily educated, then such a society is possible . These points are necessary because otherwise capitalist takeover might occur from within.

[Forward Union]

Would an independent anarchist country be possible? I mean a country operating internally on anarchist principles, and providing a model for revolution. Sort of like a commune, but an independent country, and it would be bigger than a commune. (More likely a collection of communes.)

I think that it could be possible, if it had a powerful enough defensive system, and a self-sufficient economy.

What do you think?

The weight of this question is exactly the same as whether a genuinely socialist or communist country could survive alone.

It depends on the size, resources, and industrial capacity of said country/commonwealth. If it had vast quantities of these things it could realistically hold out in a cold war against capitalism. It would after all be invaded by almost every country in the world, as happened to Russia after the revolution. Indeed, this scenario is inevitable for some period of time, but capitalism would eventually need to be totally surmounted. Though it would by no means be a total or immediate shift. There are still some rotten remains of Feudalism hanging about...

[revolution inaction]

Would an independent anarchist country be possible? I mean a country operating internally on anarchist principles, and providing a model for revolution. Sort of like a commune, but an independent country, and it would be bigger than a commune. (More likely a collection of communes.)

I think that it could be possible, if it had a powerful enough defensive system, and a self-sufficient economy.

What do you think?

no a self sufficient economy is impossible, you'd need a continent sized area to be self sufficient, probably more, and if there is that much support for anarchist communism then your in the process of a world wide revolution.

[Tablo]

The term country insinuates a Nation-State which can't possibly exist in Communism since Communism is stateless. Can an area specifically be Communist? It can resemble it, but I don't think any of us are free until we are all free.

[Forward Union]

If a group of socialists from around the world people gather together and spark a revolution in order to create a socialist society. It is feasible, is it not?

No

[Forward Union]

no a self sufficient economy is impossible, you'd need a continent sized area to be self sufficient, probably more, and if there is that much support for anarchist communism then your in the process of a world wide revolution.

No there isn't. The Russian revolution effected the entire nation of Russia which also included parts of Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. It was potentiality self sufficient, it had all the resources it needed but no industry which was why it lost the cold war.

Even if it had all the industry it needed, it was invaded by almost every country in the world, and thus besieged. I don't want a discussion about the 'if's and whens of the Russian revolution, so we'll leave that point there. What we can safely assume however, is that such a situation will happen whenever and whenever a region comes under workers control, we have to ensure that the region taken is industrial enough to survive many years in a state of cold war with Capitalist industries.


term country insinuates a Nation-State which can't possibly exist in Communism since Communism is stateless. I think we all know this by now. Though I hope you don't feel that a country is inherently tied to the concept of a "nation state", England for example is a country, but not a state. For the sake of this particular discussion we can assume that the word country is loosely interchangable with the word "region"


Can an area specifically be Communist? It can resemble it, but I don't think any of us are free until we are all free. Empty poetry. I think when you say "resemble" you probably mean "would resemble in ever meaningful way" (and therefore...would actually be it) but that it would not be global, and ought to be.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't think it is impossible. Although without of an increasing class consciousness as a result of a revolution in this region I don't know how long it would survive in isolation.

[Jacobinist]

Is an anarchist country aka a country where the working class is in the saddle, possible?

Absolutely.

[Old Man Diogenes]

No, you couldn't, the anarchist society would be invaded by neighboring bourgeois countries, the elite upper class would be restored and workers would be made wage-slaves again.

- The end.

I think that's a bit pessimistic, I'm hoping (and now I may be being a bit optimistic) that a revolution in one country, or area, will spread to other countries. And perhaps when the neighbouring bourgeois attempt to mount an attack their soldiers will resist, and their people begin a revolution in solidarity, but maybe I'm just getting a bit romantic. :wub:

[Old Man Diogenes]

Would anyone argue that the existence of such a society is possible in the midst of a capitalist world. If such a society has a military far more advanced than any other, is brimming with defenses, has a easily dependable position, has a self-sufficient economy, and has extremely devoted inhabitants, would it be able to exist? What advantages would be necessary for a socialist society to exist in a capitalist world?

If that were the case, they would be some very lucky anarchists. I suppose it depends on the country and conditions at the time, regardless I think we should still aim to spread the revolution. :thumbup1:

I can't really think of any advantages, but I can think of many disadvantages and difficulties, but that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't any.

[Velkas]

I've added a poll to this thread.

[syndicat]

It's possible but it would depend upon the revolution rather quickly encompassing a fairly broad area, preferably a number of "national" territories, with a mix of resources and the ability to feed and defend itself...for example, South America say.

We can't say that a classless society can only exist worldwide because it's not likely that all areas of the world are going to have revolutionary consciousness develop at exactly the same time, tho things like the internet and tighter communication make quick spread of such ideas more possible today than in the past, but this can't ensure it because political dynamics and culture vary.

Also, these "communes" would have to be based on a well-organized movement that can integrate the economy and military defenses of this territory.

[Velkas]

It's possible but it would depend upon the revolution rather quickly encompassing a fairly broad area, preferably a number of "national" territories, with a mix of resources and the ability to feed and defend itself...for example, South America say.But might it be better to establish a small but powerful and well-defended foothold, and then expand?

[Comrade B]

In this world? Now? I don't think so, the US or NATO or some ass holes would go in and try to turn it into a puppet state, not necessarily by military means, but they might finance someone fighting to restore the previous state/create a new one.

[CartCollector]

Would a countrywide anarchist federation be able to come to power? Possibly.
Would it last longer than two months before getting smashed by a military coalition? Probably not.

[Velkas]

But when they are attacked, they would retreat to a defensive position, and kill all who are sent their way, refusing to surrender. The capitalists would see that there efforts are futile, and that it's a waste of time, money, and effort, and so the capitalists would eventually give up. Through a well defended position, and superior military capabilities, and with the ability to produce its own food, such a society could withstand almost any invasion.

[mikelepore]

Would an anarchist country be possible...


Could an independent socialist society exist in a capitalist world?

First you say "anarchist" and then you say "socialist", as though these terms were synonymous.

Yet another poll that I can't in good conscience vote in.

[Velkas]

First you say "anarchist" and then you say "socialist", as though these terms were synonymous.

Yet another poll that I can't in good conscience vote in. An anarchist society would be a specific type of socialist society, as anarchism is a subset of socialism.

Regardless of my specific choice of words, do you think it would be possible to have a independent radical leftist country, and have it survive?

[AK]

It would certainly be possible. But prepare for invasion, economic warfare and a propaganda war.

[Forward Union]

But might it be better to establish a small but powerful and well-defended foothold, and then expand?

No because since command and conquer moved the sidebar down I find it hard to play.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

When we speak of internationalism I don't think any Communist sees revolutions in every region of the world happening simultaneously. Ultimately one region or group of regions will be the vanguard which will influence the future revolutions elsewhere.

[<Insert Username Here>]

No, Anarchism is impossible.

[jmlima]

Probably, but, as history teaches us, they would struggle heavily, specialy to obtain the products they would undoubtly need.

The experience of the SCW taught many things to whoever is willing to try it though.

(and as long as they do not make a big wall around them)

[jmlima]

An anarchist society would be a specific type of socialist society, as anarchism is a subset of socialism.
...

Communism yes, but hardly a subset of socialism.

(no illuminated vanguards leading the way backwards!)

[AK]

No, Anarchism is impossible.
Would you care to expand on that, rather than start a tendency war filled with short and shitty one-liners?

[Velkas]

No because since command and conquer moved the sidebar down I find it hard to play.What do you mean? That makes absolutely no sense.

[Velkas]

Communism yes, but hardly a subset of socialism.

(no illuminated vanguards leading the way backwards!)

(http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socialism) Socialism: (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socialism)


Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources, as advocated by socialists (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socialist).
The socialist political philosophies as a group, including Marxism (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Marxism), libertarian socialism (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libertarian_socialism), democratic socialism (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/democratic_socialism), and social democracy (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/social_democracy).
(Leninism) The intermediate phase of social development between capitalism (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/capitalism) and full communism (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/communism). This is a strategy whereby the State has control of all key resource-producing industries and manages most aspects of the economy (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/economy), in contrast to laissez faire (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/laissez_faire) capitalism (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/capitalism).


I was using the word to refer to definitions 1 and 2 (though I wouldn't consider social democracy a type of socialism).

[<Insert Username Here>]

Would you care to expand on that, rather than start a tendency war filled with short and shitty one-liners?

Its not a strong enough system to enter without decades of establishment of widely accepted socialism. It would be ripped to shreds by opportunism and crime. Anarchism couldn't contain psychopaths and sociopaths like authoritarian states can. Anarchism doesn't have any real solution to tackle crime, other than lynch mobs which are backwards and wrong.

[AK]

Its not a strong enough system to enter without decades of establishment of widely accepted socialism. It would be ripped to shreds by opportunism and crime. Anarchism couldn't contain psychopaths and sociopaths like authoritarian states can. Anarchism doesn't have any real solution to tackle crime, other than lynch mobs which are backwards and wrong.
I agree, crime is a major barrier to Anarchism, but why would you want an authoritarian state of all things? We're anti-authoritarians here, remember? Because if that's everyone's ideal socialism, then I'm becoming an Anarchist.

[Jacobinist]

Again a common fallacy. In anarchist societies, there is no power vaccum or void. On the contrary, the working class is in control, through various networks.

Anarchism, despite right wing communist allegations, is not chaos or disorganization.

Comrade <Insert> should read up more on it.

[<Insert Username Here>]

I agree, crime is a major barrier to Anarchism, but why would you want an authoritarian state of all things? We're anti-authoritarians here, remember? Because if that's everyone's ideal socialism, then I'm becoming an Anarchist.

We're not all anti-authoritarians here Comrade. There is no reason to distrust authority if the authority is truly righteous. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, all it matters is who is holding the gun.


Again a common fallacy. In anarchist societies, there is no power vaccum or void. On the contrary, the working class is in control, through various networks.

Anarchism, despite right wing communist allegations, is not chaos or disorganization.

Comrade <Insert> should read up more on it.

And Comrade Jacobinist should try the real world. Its hard enough to keep the peace when you have professionals do it. Amateurs would fuck it up and then we would have chaos and disorganisation.

[revolution inaction]

you don't seriously think that the police etc are there to keep the peace do you? :laugh:

[<Insert Username Here>]

you don't seriously think that the police etc are there to keep the peace do you? :laugh:

If you don't you're an idiot.

[revolution inaction]

If you don't you're an idiot.

this level of naivety is almost cute :lol:

[AK]

If you don't you're an idiot.
Oh I love the cops. Keeping the peace. Breaking up strikes. Shooting kids.

It reminds me of how the brave boys at the army are fighting out there on that battlefield every day to uphold precious democracy and protect our freedom.

Some freedom. Some peace.

[AK]

"Death solves all problems- no man, no problem!"- Josef Stalin


Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.82

I wouldn't bother arguing with this guy.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

If you don't you're an idiot.

The police are the ruling classes thugs. They protect ruling class peace and work in the interest of the ruling class. Of course you could argue that is because they are just part of the infrastructure of capitalism and the fact the laws are engineered to criminalise working people and defend private property means they have no choice. However I don't believe that a unaccountable full time police force in a socialist society couldn't devolve into an institution which is in conflict with the working class. Nonetheless there is no getting away from the fact that the police are working class enemies in capitalist society.

[Jacobinist]

you don't seriously think that the police etc are there to keep the peace do you? :laugh:


Coming from the guy who thinks police are to here to protect the proletariat, your mean-spirited comments seems funny.

[<Insert Username Here>]

A lot of you seem to have had little to no contact with the Police. Maybe you need to realise that general police =/= riot squads. A lot of police are there (in the UK at least) to serve and protect. Political power grows from the barrel of a gun, what matters is who is holding the gun and why.

[<Insert Username Here>]

I wouldn't bother arguing with this guy.

My Political compass should be waaaay more authoritarian than that. The reason it isn't is because I believe in private freedoms such as sexuality. Which put me closer to the bleeding heart liberals.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

My Political compass should be waaaay more authoritarian than that. The reason it isn't is because I believe in private freedoms such as sexuality. Which put me closer to the bleeding heart liberals.

What do you not believe in which put you so far on the authoritarian side?

[tornwarriorx]

Do you believe a communist country could exist at all if the majority of the world is Capitalist?

Maybe if the country had enough resources and space to be economically self sufficent, but even then it would be highly unlikely and wouldn't be true communism, because it would then need a defense system, a military, and that pretty much (theoretically there could be exceptions) requires a government. I suppose a transitional socialist country on the right path to communism could exist in a captialist world, but only true communism can exist in a communist world.

[Velkas]

Maybe if the country had enough resources and space to be economically self sufficent, but even then it would be highly unlikely and wouldn't be true communism, because it would then need a defense system, a military, and that pretty much (theoretically there could be exceptions) requires a government. I suppose a transitional socialist country on the right path to communism could exist in a captialist world, but only true communism can exist in a communist world.An anarchist country can have a military. An anarchist country can have a government, as long as it is controlled through direct democracy and has no coercive authority over the people, and only has authority in organizing the people and defending from external threats. Perhaps this isn't true communism (or perhaps it would be -if there's a gift economy and no coercive authority), but it's close enough, isn't it?

[AK]

My Political compass should be waaaay more authoritarian than that.
Why are you advertising that like it's a good thing?

[CartCollector]

Political power grows from the barrel of a gun
-In socialism, the proletariat has complete control of politics (dictatorship of the proletariat)
-Therefore, in socialism, the proletariat should have complete control of all guns

[Velkas]

If everyone has access to guns, no one has power over anyone else. (At least not by that means.)

[AK]

If everyone has access to guns, no one has power over anyone else. (At least not by that means.)
What if some has a pistol and someone else has a machine gun? :lol:

[Velkas]

What if the person with the machine gun was a decent human being?

[AK]

What if the person with the MG had a twitch in his trigger finger?

[Forward Union]

My Political compass should be waaaay more authoritarian than that. The reason it isn't is because I believe in private freedoms such as sexuality. Which put me closer to the bleeding heart liberals.

Fine but are you suggesting that the police will not have an active involvement in attacking any serious manifestation of a workers movement? On the contrary, I can't think of a case in exception. And I doubt you will find one.

So, assuming you wont contend this, is it not then logical, if not neccesary to label the police as a hostile organisation? that is not to say we must engage in hostilities with them, because this is normally poor PR, but certainly expect it in return.

Remember, we are not debating the concept of a police service, which may in my opinion be used as an instrument of the people. We are discussing the nature of the current police force, and its role in protecting property rights.

In my view, the police (which was started in glasgow as a middle class militi which broke up strikes) only fulfil the good tasks of catching murderers and rapists, because if they didn't, there would be a power (or shall we say; justice) vacuum, which is not in the interests of the elite.