Need help

[6SR]

I want to pick a tendency but it's confusing. There's too much to read, I don't have 9 lives! Can someone help me? How do I decide without reading a million pages? I know I want communism but how to choose a path to get there? Is there a test I can take?:confused:

[ContrarianLemming]

to be frank - and despite claims that's it's inaccurate - wikipedia has a wealth of accurate information on anarchism and marxism, read about both, follow links, it's all there.

[6SR]

I do and it tells about history which I don't think matters for me to pick a tendency. And it tells about what people believe but it doesn't tell what I need to know to pick a tendency which is how do I decide which side is right? Like if I start with Anarchism and Marxism I can learn what they are but I can't learn how to pick one. I know Anarchists say kill the state and capitalism will die and Marxists say kill capitalism and the state will die. Who is right? Everybody with a tendency had to answer this stuff so how did they do it?

[ContrarianLemming]

you need to stop obsessing over finding a clique, you don't need to join a club straight away, slow down! You can go on for years in leftism and not pick one, you shouldn't feel such a need to pigeon-hole yourself now.
All these questions are questions you can never get an unbised answer for. If I started answering them now then you might aswell call yourself an anarchist now, and visa versa if I was a marxist. Figure it out yourself, we don't want to think for you.

[revolution inaction]

I want to pick a tendency but it's confusing. There's too much to read, I don't have 9 lives! Can someone help me? How do I decide without reading a million pages? I know I want communism but how to choose a path to get there? Is there a test I can take?:confused:



no, not really. you shouldn't be so impatient.

[ContrarianLemming]

Ok let's simplify this: your a communist now. I dub thee communist *kneel*

happy?

[6SR]

:) I guess. But I'd still like to have one. It's not like I can't change it later if I change my mind. I won't be stuck with it. I was hoping someone could explain the Anarchist plan in simple terms but I guess for now I'll say I'm a Marxist instead of an Anarchist. Only because I don't understand how Anarchists will kill the state. Marxists will kill capitalism using the state. That's a plan I can understand. But now I need to know which kind of Marxist! :(

Maybe Marxists should go first and then let Anarchists take over and kill the state? :blink:

[NecroCommie]

No, really, tendencies are simply a way to describe one's views briefly. I am a proponent of human welfare and justice first, a communist second and a leninist last. Theory is not a value in itself, people are.

You already have oppinions whether you know it or not, why not try to describe them with two or three words? Lets start there.

[Zanthorus]

Marxists will kill capitalism using the state.

Not all groups of 'Marxist' will agree with this. Not least Marx himself, who said that although socialism requires a political revolution for it's achievment, to dissolve the old order of society, when the organising function, the constructive tasks of socialism emerge, it throws it's political mask aside. And not least the Marx who praised the Paris Commune, not for being a revolution to transfer the state apparatus from one faction of the ruling classes to another, but a revolution against the state itself, to break down the horrid machinery of class domination.

[NecroCommie]

Zanthorus is right. No one in this forum is a statist in the real meaning of the word.

[revolution inaction]

:) I guess. But I'd still like to have one. It's not like I can't change it later if I change my mind. I won't be stuck with it. I was hoping someone could explain the Anarchist plan in simple terms but I guess for now I'll say I'm a Marxist instead of an Anarchist. Only because I don't understand how Anarchists will kill the state. Marxists will kill capitalism using the state. That's a plan I can understand. But now I need to know which kind of Marxist! :(

Maybe Marxists should go first and then let Anarchists take over and kill the state? :blink:

anarchists don't intend to destroy the state then capitalism, rather both at once.
have you read the anarchist faq?

[6SR]

NecroCommie OK well I can't do it in 2 or 3 words but I want communism and I know Marxists and Anarchists both want it too so I know that's the first choice I have to make. I know I don't like the way Stalin ran the USSR so does that mean I might be a Trotskyist? Like I don't like the secret police and the way nobody trusted anybody. I know Trotsky was against Stalin.

Zanthorus do most Marxists agree about it though? Which ones don't? How did you pick Left Communist? You must have asked yourself the same questions and you must have answered them or you would still be stuck like me. How come you're not an Anarchist or a different kind of Marxist? Are Left Communists Marxists?

[6SR]

radicalgraffiti no but I've seen it and I bet it I printed it out it would be over a thousand pages!

[blackwave]

My recommendation is for you not to go 'which group do I agree with', but sit back examining the problem and deciding what YOU think to be the most rational strategy for solving it. Once that is done, you can look to see which group your ideas are most in harmony with. This assures that you remain an independent and critical thinker, rather than a lemming who goes along with something intuitively.

[28350]

Read a lot of history, come up with a theory of your own, and see which tendency it's closest to.

[Zanthorus]

Zanthorus do most Marxists agree about it though?

Well, no. Unfortunately, a good deal of them have simply not read Marx.


Which ones don't?

Most of the 'Leninist' currents. I have heard it said in fact, that the first instance in which the term 'workers' state' was used was during the internal debates by the Bolshevik party on the degeneration of the Russian revolution. Although this might be apocryphal, or just plain false, it is still an interesting story, as this was the context within which no less than Lenin himself criticised the formula of the 'workers' state'.


How did you pick Left Communist?

To be perfectly honest, I defected from anarchism after realising that Bakunin and Kropotkin weren't all they're cracked up to be, and Left-Communism, particulary the German-Dutch Left, is probably one of the smallest, and therefore easiest, political steps I could've taken. After that I read some basic texts like Gorter's 'Open Letter to Comrade Lenin', as well as spending a day devouring all the material by Pannekoek on the Marxists Internet archive, and material by modern leftcom organisations.


You must have asked yourself the same questions and you must have answered them or you would still be stuck like me.

To be perfectly honest, I'm still as unsure of my positions as I was when I began, only now I have a slightly deeper understanding of the debates around various issues. The thing is not to pick a single tendency and stick with it. Just read around, learn, grow, develop your positions. I reccomend checking out the positions of modern organisations, as that can always be a good starting point.

[NecroCommie]

NecroCommie OK well I can't do it in 2 or 3 words but I want communism and I know Marxists and Anarchists both want it too so I know that's the first choice I have to make. I know I don't like the way Stalin ran the USSR so does that mean I might be a Trotskyist? Like I don't like the secret police and the way nobody trusted anybody. I know Trotsky was against Stalin.
Well, history is rarely an issue when describing one's believes and views. People usually prioritize modern and future issues and solutions. That is why I recommend you forget the USSR at least for the duration of this thread.

The issue is, do you support a centralized party of which's members lead the revolution in some manner? If yes, you sound like some sort of Leninist. If you support a party but not any form of transitional "workers state", you sound like some sort of libertarian socialist or something. If you denounce authority completely, even in the name of revolution you are certainly an anarchist. If you support cultural revolution as a method of reaching communism, you propably are some sort of maoist.

There are many many factors, but try to think of the most broad ones when describing yourself. Most importantly, do you support a rigid worker's party hierarchy, and how much are you ready to compromize in the face of political conditions.

There really is no way around this. You must either study hard and describe yourself through philosophical ideas, or be very rough and roundabout about the description. A good example of a non-standard description is that of Noam Chomsky. He calls himself "libertarian socialist", which is not a philosophy or a political movement in itself, but tells us already some important aspects about his views. He opposes authority, and opposes capitalism.


Zanthorus do most Marxists agree about it though? Which ones don't? How did you pick Left Communist? You must have asked yourself the same questions and you must have answered them or you would still be stuck like me. How come you're not an Anarchist or a different kind of Marxist? Are Left Communists Marxists?
Personally, I do not know any marxist who didn't want to get rid of state apparatus. The only real difference between marxist and anarchist ideologies are the methods in which we think this stateless society is achieved.

[revolution inaction]

radicalgraffiti no but I've seen it and I bet it I printed it out it would be over a thousand pages!

yes its been made into a book

heres a shorter thing about anarchism

http://libcom.org/thought/anarchist-communism-an-introduction

and another not so short one

http://libcom.org/library/introduction-anarchist-communism-anarchist-federation

[revolution inaction]

To be perfectly honest, I defected from anarchism after realising that Bakunin and Kropotkin weren't all they're cracked up to be, and Left-Communism, particulary the German-Dutch Left, is probably one of the smallest, and therefore easiest, political steps I could've taken. After that I read some basic texts like Gorter's 'Open Letter to Comrade Lenin', as well as spending a day devouring all the material by Pannekoek on the Marxists Internet archive, and material by modern leftcom organisations.


i dont really care that much if you call your self an anarchist or a left communist but you know lots of anarchists read council communist texts, and don't read bakunin, theres no obligation to agree with everything bakunin of kropotin wrote, i mean we're not bakunists or kropotkinists are we?

[ContrarianLemming]

i dont really care that much if you call your self an anarchist or a left communist but you know lots of anarchists read council communist texts, and don't read bakunin, theres no obligation to agree with everything bakunin of kropotin wrote, i mean we're not bakunists or kropotkinists are we?

agreed, im totally anti Bakunin, my ideas are far more in line with Marx then him, yet I am an anarchist

also, yes agree with the above, forget about history for now, ignore the USSR and the CNT.

So maybe I can breifly sum up the differences, their really arn't many.

Both anarchists and marxists are revolutionary, class war-ish, working class movements, they're both concerned with creating a stateless classless society based around a confederation of communes and regions, using direct democracy, workplace democracy, delegation instead of representation and communal ownership of the means of production (MoP).

Differences between "libertarian marxists" and anarchists are almost all theory related, in practice they are identicle, though lib marxists tend to be less friendly towards regular unions.

the difference between Marxist Leninists (who easily make up the majority of Marxists) and anarchists is bigger, both in theory and practice.

Differences in theory are:

Anarchists have traditionally had more positive view on peasants and the self employed, though it's not a rule.
Anarchists have not always only based someones class on there relationship to the means of production.
Marxists almost always favour "Economic determinism" and "historical materialism" most anarchists do also, but not necessarily.
Marxism has been, in the words of whats-his-name, been more analytical, anarchism has been more ethical.
Anarchism has focused far more on unionism, Marxism on parties.

In practice:

Marxist leninists rely on a vangaurd party, a party which takes control of the state and uses it as a tool of the working class to (imo paradoxicaly) dismantle the state
Anarchists have often relied on vangaurd organizations aswell (CNT-FAI), though anarchist style vangaurdism has not been concerned with controlling the state, but rather staying seperate from it, seeing the state is inherantly unusable in struggle
Anarchists, in there non-state transition of revolution, favour a more decentralized form of revolt, warfare and most everything else, and visa versa.

still thinking..

[6SR]

blackwave that makes sense I guess but I feel lost in the meantime. :(

Oscar the Grouch always read, read, read! :mad: Just kidding I know I will have to read SOMETHING but I don't want to spend years reading millions of pages just to pick a tendency. It shouldn't be that hard.

Zanthorus thanks for those answers. That's interesting that you still feel unsure.

NecroCommie I will have to think about all that before I can answer! But thanks a lot for those!

radicalgraffiti I will look at those.

[mossy noonmann]

i just got involved with the group that was most active in my town
one of the two as it happens
if you want to learn lots of theory heres a good place but you really have to try it out and as you are not convinced by any then does it matter ?
your experience will shape your theory and that is good

if you want to see what too much theory without practice does check out (some of )the philososphy threads

[ContrarianLemming]

I spent a bit editing my post to make up the below, but it's prob gonna get ignored now since we're on the next page, so I think it's fair that I bump it.



So maybe I can breifly sum up the differences, their really arn't many.

Both anarchists and marxists are revolutionary, class war-ish, working class movements, they're both concerned with creating a stateless classless society based around a confederation of communes and regions, using direct democracy, workplace democracy, delegation instead of representation and communal ownership of the means of production (MoP).

Differences between "libertarian marxists" and anarchists are almost all theory related, in practice they are identicle, though lib marxists tend to be less friendly towards regular unions.

the difference between Marxist Leninists (who easily make up the majority of Marxists) and anarchists is bigger, both in theory and practice.

Differences in theory are:

Anarchists have traditionally had more positive view on peasants and the self employed, though it's not a rule.
Anarchists have not always only based someones class on there relationship to the means of production.
Marxists almost always favour "Economic determinism" and "historical materialism" most anarchists do also, but not necessarily.
Marxism has been, in the words of whats-his-name, been more analytical, anarchism has been more ethical.
Anarchism has focused far more on unionism, Marxism on parties.

In practice:

Marxist leninists rely on a vangaurd party, a party which takes control of the state and uses it as a tool of the working class to (imo paradoxicaly) dismantle the state
Anarchists have often relied on vangaurd organizations aswell (CNT-FAI), though anarchist style vangaurdism has not been concerned with controlling the state, but rather staying seperate from it, seeing the state is inherantly unusable in struggle
Anarchists, in there non-state transition of revolution, favour a more decentralized form of revolt, warfare and most everything else, and visa versa.

still thinking..

[Thirsty Crow]

Zanthorus is right. No one in this forum is a statist in the real meaning of the word.

That is simply not true. There are plenty of people who advocate a "workers' state" which entails a predominance of a centralized apparatus of administrations that is disconnected from the autonomous workers' organizations (for example the network of soviets and neighbourhood councils - though the question of spatial integration is very complex) and other "incorporated" interest groups. This disconnection is precisely crucial for the way this "new state" functions - as a dominating force in itself and for itself (the moment when the concept of class shifts its referential point). Some people even go so far as to claim that workers' are intrinsically unmotivated for self-management.

[6SR]

ContrarianLemming that's a good post. I'll think about those differences.

[blackwave]

blackwave that makes sense I guess but I feel lost in the meantime. :(


Join the club...

And when it comes to reading, wikipedia for the win. It's arguably less biased than most books.

[revolution inaction]

Join the club...

And when it comes to reading, wikipedia for the win. It's arguably less biased than most books.

i don't think there is such a thing as an unbiased book/text, its just that some writers are more open about there biases then other's.

although you could do worse than wikipedia

[Magón]

Just become an Anarchist, and get it over with.


~Comment sponsored by the Bomb-throwers International of the World~

:P

[AK]

Zanthorus is right. No one in this forum is a statist in the real meaning of the word.
You haven't met bie or any of the other tankies, have you?

[NecroCommie]

That is simply not true. There are plenty of people who advocate a "workers' state" which entails a predominance of a centralized apparatus of administrations that is disconnected from the autonomous workers' organizations (for example the network of soviets and neighbourhood councils - though the question of spatial integration is very complex) and other "incorporated" interest groups. This disconnection is precisely crucial for the way this "new state" functions - as a dominating force in itself and for itself (the moment when the concept of class shifts its referential point). Some people even go so far as to claim that workers' are intrinsically unmotivated for self-management.
I understand this, but do they support these as ideal societies or just as methods to reach a stateless society? If someone does not ultimately want a stateless society, I wonder if they are in the right forum.

[Thirsty Crow]

I understand this, but do they support these as ideal societies or just as methods to reach a stateless society? If someone does not ultimately want a stateless society, I wonder if they are in the right forum.

I'll say this: when you look at the "orthodox" Marxist view on the state, it is supposed that it will "wither away". One the other hand, some folks support a delusional theory which presupposes that in order that stateless communism is achieved, the state should progressively tighten its hold on the entire social sphere.
In my opinion, they are either deluded or members of the wrong forum.

[NecroCommie]

I'll say this: when you look at the "orthodox" Marxist view on the state, it is supposed that it will "wither away". One the other hand, some folks support a delusional theory which presupposes that in order that stateless communism is achieved, the state should progressively tighten its hold on the entire social sphere.
In my opinion, they are either deluded or members of the wrong forum.
Well, I will not address your oppinion here as it is not the topic, but even if a person would think that the state would wither away with increased state control, would that not make him still want a stateless society, thus making him a non-statist? As far as I understand, statist is a word used to describe what you want, not what is likely.

[AK]

Well, I will not address your oppinion here as it is not the topic, but even if a person would think that the state would wither away with increased state control, would that not make him still want a stateless society, thus making him a non-statist? As far as I understand, statist is a word used to describe what you want, not what is likely.
Unfortunately, some people on here really do just want a state and that's about it. Talk to them about workers' democracy and they make all sorts of excuses about how workers can't manage society.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, I will not address your oppinion here as it is not the topic, but even if a person would think that the state would wither away with increased state control, would that not make him still want a stateless society, thus making him a non-statist? As far as I understand, statist is a word used to describe what you want, not what is likely.

Well, I'm not so sure that this topic we're discussing is off the mark in relation to the original theme.
But maybe you're right, so I'll add just this: to advocate a "non-statist" position, one should always have his/her strategy worked out. And increased state control is simply out of the question since it does not and can not lay the foundation for the future self-management of associated producers' organizations.
Statist as a political term may refer to the irrational aspect of political activity ("what I want is..."), but it should always be coupled with a sound, logical construction of possible changes (needless to say, the problem of strengthening state control is by no means a logical step forward when it comes to stateless, classless society).

[Peace on Earth]

You sound like a distressed 13 year old girl who can't find a dress to wear to the dance. Get over it. You shouldn't be interested in finding a tendency, rather, you should develope your ideas and sooner or later you'll realize that you might fit in with a tendency. Don't mold your ideas to fit a tendency.

[6SR]

Thanks a lot Mr. Peace!:mad:

[AK]

Thanks a lot Mr. Peace!:mad:
The unprovoked attack aside, Peace on Earth made a good point.

You shouldn't be interested in finding a tendency, rather, you should develope your ideas and sooner or later you'll realize that you might fit in with a tendency. Don't mold your ideas to fit a tendency.

[fa2991]

Learn all you can about the Soviet Union. Understand the rule by the Bolsheviks and the rule by the anarchists in the Ukraine. If you reject Lenin & Stalin's respective modes of governance but like Makhno's, anarchism might be for you. If not, Marxism-Leninism might be.

[DaComm]

You sound like a distressed 13 year old girl who can't find a dress to wear to the dance. Get over it. You shouldn't be interested in finding a tendency, rather, you should develope your ideas and sooner or later you'll realize that you might fit in with a tendency. Don't mold your ideas to fit a tendency.

I concur, develop your ideas as you go along and learn, and don't just conglomerate a bunch of ideas together that you may not necessarily adhere to. As cliche as this sounds, be yourself. By the way, Peace man, it's important that he udnerstand the message being conveyed, but insulting is not a great way to encourage learning.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

DaComm and pretty much everyone else are right - be yourself. Once you find somewhere though, the discussions on the tendency pages are good places too. But don't forget - keep asking questions and if you're not sure about something, maybe it's not the right place for you.

Welcome to the board.