For Anarchists

[DaComm]

This is a burning question of mine for the Anarchists- why is it that you guys do not believe that Socialism is necessary, nay even denounce it?

[bcbm]

because they are against the state.

[AK]

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secHcon.html

[Broletariat]

You can't lead people to a leaderless society etc.

[StoneFrog]

I am a Marxist and Anarchist, i dont believe in this "socialist" transition stage.
Here are my reasoning:
-Leads to a new Elite bureaucratic class, replacing one master with another.
-The state requires a government structure, taking away from the freedom of the people.
-Easy to repress groups people in the name of the "greater good" under a state.
-A government is easy to corrupt and be manipulated by our enemy.
-Like in Russia sometimes forms nationalism, which even most communists should see as going backwards not forwards.

[#FF0000]

-Easy to repress groups people in the name of the "greater good" under a state.
-A government is easy to corrupt and be manipulated by our enemy.
-Like in Russia sometimes forms nationalism, which even most communists should see as going backwards not forwards.

What makes an anarchist mode of organization immune to any of these?

[AK]

I am a Marxist and Anarchist
Oh no you're not. You are a Libertarian Marxist. Council Communist society would bear a very strong resemblance to an anarchist society, but you are not an anarchist (in terms of the theory).

[StoneFrog]

What makes an anarchist mode of organization immune to any of these?

nationalism... manipulation of the government would not happen under anarchist organization because a country doesn't exist a government doesn't exist.

maybe the first one might happen, but you must say its much easier for it to happen under state organization.


Oh no you're not. You are a Libertarian Marxist. Council Communist society would bear a very strong resemblance to an anarchist society, but you are not an anarchist (in terms of the theory).

I take from both Marxist theories and Anarchist, just because i call myself a council communist doesn't seclude me to Marxist theories; but gives me the chance to utilize both.

[Paulappaul]

This is a burning question of mine for the Anarchists- why is it that you guys do not believe that Socialism is necessary, nay even denounce it?

I'm a Marxist which resists the notion that the transitionary phase to communism is chracterised by nationalisation of industry under a power state. That Marx never really advocated State Socialism, that Bakunin and Marx had more in Common then they did not.

[AK]

What makes an anarchist mode of organization immune to any of these?
Not to be a douche, but the first point did specifically mention "under a state".

[#FF0000]

I'm saying that imbalance in power and hierarchy and all that stuff can exist in statelessness just as easily as it can with a state. I know anarchists are against all hierarchies and all this but people just sort of assume that as long as you don't have a state then everyone is equal and society is incorruptible and just.

Why is the anarchist model of organizing society immune to corruption? Why can't it be manipulated? Why is it impossible for an anarchist society to repress certain members in it?

[StoneFrog]

I'm pretty sure its much easier to bribe the heads of state than it is to try and manipulate thousands if not millions of people. Those Whom want power are naturally going to try and become heads of state during this transitional stage, these are the people most likely to be easily manipulated by the peoples enemies. With out the government our enemies gotta go through the mass instead of just having to deal with the heads of states. Anarchists look to remove money immediately, removing the fundamentals of controlling the mass. Disarming the Bourgeois of one of their tools of controlling the mass. Countries which have tried to break their chains via transitional period, still kept the use of money making it much easier to corrupt.

[#FF0000]

I'm pretty sure its much easier to bribe the heads of state than it is to try and manipulate thousands if not millions of people.

Yeah that was true up until they came up with this thing called "advertising"


Those Whom want power are naturally going to try and become heads of state during this transitional stage, these are the people most likely to be easily manipulated by the peoples enemies.

That might be true but the thing about states and government is that you have checks and balances to limit the power of any individual in the state. What checks would an anarchist society to keep a majority from using force to do what it wants? I'm seriously asking.

[gorillafuck]

Most anarchists believe in government (whether they admit to it or not). Just not the state defined as minority ruling a majority.

[#FF0000]

Yeah, every place I say "government", just imagine I said "State". That's what I meant.

[Zanthorus]

There is no transition stage called "socialism" anywhere in Marx. I think that particular "innovation" was thought up by the second international and solidified into communist doctrine by Lenin's half-finished musings in The State and Revolution. The only times "socialism" is used as a concept seperate from "communism" in Marx are in things like the Manifesto where he uses "socialism" to designate the reactionary and bourgeois socialists who are opposed to proletarian revolution as well as the socialists who support it but don't have a quite yet adequate grasp of the tasks of the working class movement as a whole. In other words it was meant to distuinguish socialism as a movement from communism as a movement, not between socialism and communism as historical stages. The distinction also seems to gives a bit too much leeway to Stalin's claims to have achieved "socialism" in the USSR... although judging by the OP's group memberships he won't be too swayed by that argument.

[ContrarianLemming]

Most anarchists believe in government (whether they admit to it or not). Just not the state defined as minority ruling a majority.

Thank you
yes all anarchists support government, not state
theres a difference, government is the practice of governance, the workers council and the federation in anarchism is "government". State, on the other hand, is always stratified.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This is a burning question of mine for the Anarchists- why is it that you guys do not believe that Socialism is necessary, nay even denounce it?

Are you asking us why a transition state is unnecessary?

You do realize that this subject has been written about probably more than any other when it comes to debates between anarchists and Marxists, right?

[Zanthorus]

You do realize that this subject has been written about probably more than any other when it comes to debates between anarchists and Marxists, right?

Which is unfortunate because I thought the debate between Marx and Bakunin on wether the general council should control the local and national sections of the International or wether it should be purely for statistical purposes with each local and national section having autonomy from the rest was more interesting and more immediately relevant... or maybe I'm just strange.

[The Red Next Door]

In anarchy, it would be easier for someone to take control again.

[Zanthorus]

Normal people (i.e. Marxists)

Yeah totally, I walked into the local newsagents just yesterday and saw a group of people discussing the formal and real subsumption of labour under capital while buying heat magazine...


and of course a state (i.e. an organization with a monopoly of violence, i.e workers councils) are necessary to advance and defend any workers' revolution.

"An organisation with a monopoly of violence" is the liberal definition of the state and it's rubbish. By your reasoning homeowners in Texas also constitute a "state" since they have a monopoly of violence within their houses.

For anarchists the state is the institution by which a minority class controls the majority. For Marxists the state is political society seperated from civil society and the institution by which one class in civil society represents it's own particular interest as the general interest. It is these conflicting definitions of the state that lie at the root of the Marxism/Anarchism conflict over the transitional stage.

[syndicat]

This is a burning question of mine for the Anarchists- why is it that you guys do not believe that Socialism is necessary, nay even denounce it?

you don't seem to realize that anarchism is a form of socialism. It's libertarian socialism.

As Marx suggested...correctly in my opinion...socialism as it emerges out of capitalism will bear the marks of that birth and will develop in a way that will lead it further away from capitalism, for example, in the consiousness of the population. But that evolution can't occur unless the basic socialist mode of production is actually created in the revolutionary period. And this means that the system of domination and exploitation of the working class has to be abolished.

Anarchists and libertarian socialists generally reject the idea that there are two different modes of production, "socialism" and "communism." This was concocted as part of the Leninist apologetics for the emergence of a bureaucratic ruling class in Russia and their effort to mask the failure of that revolution.

[thomasludd]

Of course there will be a transitionary stage, unless you think that you go from capitalist society a to socialist society b instantly. Normal people (i.e. Marxists) call this a transitional stage, and of course a state (i.e. an organization with a monopoly of violence, i.e workers councils) are necessary to advance and defend any workers' revolution.

Sorry if some people come across as not normal. :)

[ContrarianLemming]

In anarchy, it would be easier for someone to take control again.

Why?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Is your user-title supposed to denote your age in real life, Thirteen?

[ContrarianLemming]

You (anarchists, vegans, life-stylist hippies, liberals, animal-rights losers) don't come across as normal, period.


How in the world are class war anarchists accociated with that rabble?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Nah, its supposed to denote how many times I fucked your Dad.

Whatever floats your boat, man...

[ContrarianLemming]

Thru th3 [email protected] anArkisMz, Wh3r3 @ll HiErArChY is iLLeg1tiMat3!!! inCludiNg human'S hierArchY ovEr the cARRot and LettuCe, and humAn'S hierArchY ova ANiMals maaaaaaaan! :blushing:

go to the gulag (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trashcan-f34/index.html)

[Zanthorus]

I was using the definition which anarchists typically employ; a minority with a monopoly of violence. If you want to banter about definitions that's your prerogative but really only shows that you're a pedantic fuckwit.

Instead of getting unnecessarily angry you could attempt to follow a line of argument. You said that the state was an "organisation with a monopoly of violence, i.e workers councils" which implies that any institution with a monopoly of violence is a state unless you think that workers councils are institutions of minority control. Against this I pointed out that simply talking about a monopoly on the use of violence doesn't help us to distuinguish between ordinary instances of territorial monopolies and the specific territorial monopoly known as the state. Now you reply:


A 'state' obviously isn't limited to a household, or a school... but in today's world, nations.

Except there is no clear line of demarcation between a "nation" and smaller instances of territorial monopoly. There are some pretty tiny states out there and some pretty big tracts of land owned by the same people. I'm willing to bet if you look around you can find someone who owns more land than say, the Vatican.


Which is why I used their term.

No you didn't.


Which begs the question as to why you're trying to perpetuate a conflict of semantics?

I'm trying to solve a conflict of semantics, not perpetuate it. You're the one perpetuating the semantics debate.


Anarchists believe that a state is a minority ruling a majority through whatever organs, and that it is because of this majority/minority complex that the state should be fought. I argue that, yes, the state does represent a minority but it can represent a majority

But this is just you perpetuating the semantics conflict, since if the state represented a majority it would no longer be a "state" according to the anarchists.

[#FF0000]

I'm giving Thirteen an infraction for each spam post now stop whining and being dumb.

[ContrarianLemming]

the system works..

[Zanthorus]

Well yes, yes there is. Which is why we have 'suburbs' and 'districts', and the collection of the organizations which have a monopoly of violence we call the state. Merely because you can't be specific on what constitutes a state, doesn't mean the term is meaningless.

I'm not specific on what constitutes a "state" because I think it's a meaningless buzzword that gets chucked around.

[Zanthorus]

You know I have a funny feeling about Thirteen. Their aggressive style of posting reminds me of... someone.

[syndicat]

Instead of getting unnecessarily angry you could attempt to follow a line of argument. You said that the state was an "organisation with a monopoly of violence, i.e workers councils" which implies that any institution with a monopoly of violence is a state unless you think that workers councils are institutions of minority control. Against this I pointed out that simply talking about a monopoly on the use of violence doesn't help us to distuinguish between ordinary instances of territorial monopolies and the specific territorial monopoly known as the state.

Z is right. Class struggle anarchists have a conception of the state more akin to what Engels says in "The Origin of Private Property, the Family and the State". That is, it is an apparatus that rules over society and has been separated out so that the mass of the people don't control it. This is because it can't serve its function of protecting the interests of the dominating classes if it were simply the direct rule of the masses.

So, right there, 13 has ignored an essential feature of the state, from a class struggle anarchist point of view: It's function is to serve the interests of a dominating, exploiting class.

As Kropotkin pointed out, a state and a government are not the same. Kropotkin pointed out also that it is the tradition of what he called "folk-mote government"...that is, government through popular assembly...that is closest to anarchism. This is precisely why social anarchism or libertarian socialism has stressed the direct democracy of assemblies, both as method of controlling struggles and also as aim.


I was using the definition which anarchists typically employ; a minority with a monopoly of violence. If you want to banter about definitions that's your prerogative but really only shows that you're a pedantic fuckwit.

As I've pointed out above, you have not used the definition employed by class struggle anarchism.



Which is why I used their term, rather than whinge like a **** (e.g. yourself) about the proper usage of words!1!!1


Okay, we know this person is either British or Australian. And I'd put out to 13 that in the USA the "c" word is a disgusting piece of sexist language that is not acceptable in polite company or on the Left. and don't tell me about the slang usage in UK or Down Under. this is an international board.

[StoneFrog]

That might be true but the thing about states and government is that you have checks and balances to limit the power of any individual in the state. What checks would an anarchist society to keep a majority from using force to do what it wants? I'm seriously asking.

Checks like was in the USSR? You know the checks which stopped Anarchists from being detained and killed by the state? Hell "workers states" have even persecuted other communists that don't agree with their interpretation of Marxism.

There is no bullet proof solution for this, the only way i can see that deters this is building a strong community spirit and a diverse community. Let the community as a whole become the deterrence, for if you don't build this, even communism will also never reach its final stage. Its the same questions communists need to look at for to be able to reach Communism "how is the final stage of communism going to prevent this from happening".

[griffjam]

In anarchy, it would be easier for someone to take control again.

A common objection to anarchism is that an anarchist society will be vulnerable to be taken over by thugs or those who seek power. A similar argument is that a group without a leadership structure becomes open to charismatic leaders so anarchy would just lead to tyranny.

For anarchists, such arguments are strange. Society already is run by thugs and/or the off-spring of thugs. Kings were originally just successful thugs who succeeded in imposing their domination over a given territorial area. The modern state has evolved from the structure created to impose this domination. Similarly with property, with most legal titles to land being traced back to its violent seizure by thugs who then passed it on to their children who then sold it or gave it to their offspring. The origins of the current system in violence can be seen by the continued use of violence by the state and capitalists to enforce and protect their domination over society. When push comes to shove, the dominant class will happily re-discover their thug past and employ extreme violence to maintain their privileges. The descent of large parts of Europe into Fascism during the 1930s, or Pinochet's coup in Chile in 1973 indicates how far they will go. As Peter Arshinov argued (in a slightly different context):

"Statists fear free people. They claim that without authority people will lose the anchor of sociability, will dissipate themselves, and will return to savagery. This is obviously rubbish. It is taken seriously by idlers, lovers of authority and of the labour of others, or by blind thinkers of bourgeois society. The liberation of the people in reality leads to the degeneration and return to savagery, not of the people, but of those who, thanks to power and privilege, live from the labour of the people's arms and from the blood of the people's veins . . . The liberation of the people leads to the savagery of those who live from its enslavement." [The History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 85]Anarchists are not impressed with the argument that anarchy would be unable to stop thugs seizing power. It ignores the fact that we live in a society where the power-hungry already hold power. As an argument against anarchism it fails and is, in fact, an argument against capitalist and statist societies.

Moreover, it also ignores fact that people in an anarchist society would have gained their freedom by overthrowing every existing and would-be thug who had or desired power over others. They would have defended that freedom against those who desired to re-impose it. They would have organised themselves to manage their own affairs and, therefore, to abolish all hierarchical power. And we are to believe that these people, after struggling to become free, would quietly let a new set of thugs impose themselves? As Kropotkin argued:

"The only way in which a state of Anarchy can be obtained is for each man [or woman] who is oppressed to act as if he [or she] were at liberty, in defiance of all authority to the contrary . . . In practical fact, territorial extension is necessary to ensure permanency to any given individual revolution. In speaking of the Revolution, we signify the aggregate of so many successful individual and group revolts as will enable every person within the revolutionised territory to act in perfect freedom . . . without having to constantly dread the prevention or the vengeance of an opposing power upholding the former system . . . Under these circumstance it is obvious that any visible reprisal could and would be met by a resumption of the same revolutionary action on the part of the individuals or groups affected, and that the maintenance of a state of Anarchy in this manner would be far easier than the gaining of a state of Anarchy by the same methods and in the face of hitherto unshaken opposition . . . They have it in their power to apply a prompt check by boycotting such a person and refusing to help him with their labour or to willing supply him with any articles in their possession. They have it in their power to use force against him. They have these powers individually as well as collectively. Being either past rebels who have been inspired with the spirit of liberty, or else habituated to enjoy freedom from their infancy, they are hardly to rest passive in view of what they feel to be wrong." [Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, pp. 87-8] Thus a free society would use direct action to resist the would-be ruler just as it had used direct action to free itself from existing rulers. An anarchist society would be organised in a way which would facilitate this direct action as it would be based on networks of solidarity and mutual aid. An injury to one is an injury to all and a would-be ruler would face a whole liberated society acting against him or her. Faced with the direct action of the population (which would express itself in non-co-operation, strikes, demonstrations, occupations, insurrections and so on) a would be power seeker would find it difficult to impose themselves. Unlike those accustomed to rulership in existing society, an anarchist people would be a society of rebels and so difficult to dominate and conquer.

Anarchists point to the example of the rise of Fascism in Italy, Spain and Germany to prove their point. In areas with strong anarchist movements the fascists were resisted most strongly. While in Germany Hitler took power with little or no opposition, in Italy and Spain the fascists had to fight long and hard to gain power. The anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist organisations fought the fascists tooth and nail, with some success before betrayal by the Republicans and Marxists. From this historical experience anarchists argue that an anarchist society would quickly and easily defeat would-be thugs as people would be used to practising direct action and self-management and would have no desire to stop practising them.

As for self-management resulting in "charismatic" leaders, well the logic is astounding. As if hierarchical structures are not based on leadership structures and do not require a charismatic leader! Such an argument is inherently self-contradictory -- as well as ignoring the nature of modern society and its leadership structures. Rather than mass assemblies being dominated by leaders, it is the case that hierarchical structures are the natural breeding ground for dictators. All the great dictators the world have seen have come to the forefront in hierarchical organisations, not libertarian structured ones. Hitler, for example, did not come to power via a libertarian organisation. Rather he used a highly centralised and hierarchically organised party to take control of a centralised, hierarchical state. The very disempowerment of the population in capitalist society results in them looking to leaders to act for them and so "charismatic" leaders are a natural result. An anarchist society, by empowering all, would make it more difficult, not less, for a would-be leader to gain power -- few people, if any, would be willing to sacrifice and negate themselves for the benefit of another.

Anarchists think an anarchist society must defend itself against attempts to re-introduce the state or private property.

Our discussion on the power hungry obviously relates to the more general the question of whether ethical behaviour be rewarded in an anarchist society. In other words, could an anarchist society be stable or would the unethical take over?

It is one of the most disturbing aspects of living in a world where the rush to acquire wealth is the single most important aspect of living is what happens to people who follow an ethical path in life.
Under capitalism, the ethical generally do not succeed as well as those stab their fellows in the back, those who cut corners, indulge in sharp business practises, drive competitors into the ground and live their lives with an eye on the bottom line but they do survive. Loyalty to a firm or a group, bending over backwards to provide a service, giving a helping hand to somebody in need, placing friendship above money, count for nothing when the bills come in. People who act ethically in a capitalist society are usually punished and penalised for their ethical, moral and principled behaviour. Indeed, the capitalist market rewards unethical behaviour as it generally reduces costs and so gives those who do it a competitive edge.

It is different in a free society. Anarchism is based on two principles of association, equal access to power and wealth. Everybody in an anarchist society irrespective of what they do, or who they are or what type of work they perform is entitled to share in society's wealth. Whether a community survives or prospers depends on the combined efforts of the people in that community. Ethical behaviour would become the norm in an anarchist community; those people who act ethically would be rewarded by the standing they achieve in the community and by others being more than happy to work with and aid them. People who cut corners, try to exercise power over others, refuse to co-operate as equals or otherwise act in an unethical manner would lose their standing in an anarchist society. Their neighbours and work mates would refuse to co-operate with them (or reduce co-operation to a minimum) and take other forms of non-violent direct action to point out that certain forms of activity was inappropriate. They would discuss the issue with the unethical person and try to convince them of the errors of their way. In a society where the necessities are guaranteed, people would tend to act ethically because ethical behaviour raises an individuals profile and standing within such a community. Capitalism and ethical behaviour are mutually exclusive concepts; anarchism encourages and rewards ethical behaviour.

Therefore, as can be seen, anarchists argue that a free society would not have to fear would-be thugs, "charismatic" leaders or the unethical. An anarchist society would be based on the co-operation of free individuals. It is unlikely that they would tolerate such behaviour and would use their own direct action as well as social and economic organisations to combat it. Moreover, the nature of free co-operation would reward ethical behaviour as those who practice it would have it reciprocated by their fellows.

One last point. Some people seem to think that anarchism is about the powerful being appealed to not to oppress and dominate others. Far from it. Anarchism is about the oppressed and exploited refusing to let others dominate them. It is not an appeal to the "better side" of the boss or would-be boss; it is about the solidarity and direct action of those subject to a boss getting rid of the boss -- whether the boss agrees to it or not! Once this is clearly understood the idea that an anarchist society is vulnerable to the power-hungry is clearly nonsense -- anarchy is based on resisting power and so is, by its very nature, more resistant to would-be rulers than a hierarchical one.

[BeerShaman]

We consider socialism unnecessary, because socialism follows statist steps. We are against the state and prefer to throw it off game directly. By organising collectives during the revolution from its own start, we beleive that we can create our society and maintain it by using proper tactics. Then we will spread the revolution and enlarge our collectives' scale and range. Goes somehow like this.
P.s... don't believe everything you see or hear. Question all!

[Agnapostate]

Anarchism is a form of socialism that pre-dates Marxism. It's always struck me as interesting that Leninists are insistent on appropriating the terms "socialism" and "communism" (to say nothing of "Marxism"), so that it becomes a matter of the "anarchists vs. the socialists/communists."

[AK]

In anarchy, it would be easier for someone to take control again.
It's funny because you were an anarchist once, apparently. I can do no better than quote myself in this scenario.

Our principles keep anyone from coming into power...
An anarchist system is not designed to accommodate individuals with the power and authority to rule over others. The common argument of "but anarchism would let capitalists to take control" is bullshit. A centralised government would be much more susceptible to subjugation by capitalists, etc. because the "capitalist roader" in question - along with their accomplices - need only gain control of the topmost level of hierarchy to impose their will on everyone below. An anarchist system would only fall to such a low if the system itself were completely destroyed and replaced with a hierarchical one - not fitting in with the strawman of an anarchist system's weak resistance to infiltration and sabotage by those already inside the system. The only way that internal sabotage could lead to the downfall of an anarchist system is if the vast majority of those living in an anarchist society suddenly became overcome with capitalist principles - highly unlikely.

[#FF0000]

Checks like was in the USSR? You know the checks which stopped Anarchists from being detained and killed by the state? Hell "workers states" have even persecuted other communists that don't agree with their interpretation of Marxism.

Cool straw man. I never said anything about the USSR's state.


There is no bullet proof solution for this, the only way i can see that deters this is building a strong community spirit and a diverse community. Let the community as a whole become the deterrence, for if you don't build this, even communism will also never reach its final stage. Its the same questions communists need to look at for to be able to reach Communism "how is the final stage of communism going to prevent this from happening".

I don't expect any bullet proof solutions or even very detailed plans for this sort of thing. Some kind of answer would be nice. I mean I think this is a serious question that anarchists should be concerned with. A state isn't a prerequisite for an oppressive society.

[JacobVardy]

That might be true but the thing about states and government is that you have checks and balances to limit the power of any individual in the state. What checks would an anarchist society to keep a majority from using force to do what it wants? I'm seriously asking.

Its certainly a problem, you only need to look at the bullying that can occour in co-ops and collectives, where justice can become synonymous with popularity. I suspect the question does not occur to a lot of anarchists since our groups tend to be structured to prevent any bullying. The brief answer would be that in a society where the persecution of any individual would require a decision of the most local community, unreasonable persecution would be difficult. In a society where any officer can be removed and recalled instantly, illegitimate persecution would be difficult. Furthermore, in a society where the means of production are owned in common, what grounds are there for persecution?

[Fietsketting]

I mean I think this is a serious question that anarchists should be concerned with. A state isn't a prerequisite for an oppressive society.

The modern state is just the consequenze of capitalist economic monopoly, and the class divisions wich this has sat up in society, and merely serves the purpose of maintaining this status by every opressive intrument of political power. I expect that these same instruments, as shown in several revolutions, will be used to keep the party in power. After wich the party equals the state.

[meow]

you want freedom. you have to keep eye out for not freedom. easy.