ANarchists dont believe in Socialism

[EvilRedGuy]

I have heard from this board that Anarchists don't believe in socialism but direct-communism whith no socialist phase(Socialism is a phase or "road" before Communism) inbetween unlike marxists, is this true?

[Nachie]

It's all a bunch of semantics and nobody is ever going to agree on what any of it means because some people will use their own definitions, some people will use the media's definitions, and some people will use the strict definitions of the 19th century.

[bricolage]

I tend to use socialism and communism as interchangeable terms.

[EvilRedGuy]

No, socialism IS the phase BETWEEN capitalism and communism. Don't enrage me.

[AK]

No, socialism IS the phase BETWEEN capitalism and communism. Don't enrage me.
Funny you should say that when you were the OP for the thread in which this post was found:

Marx and Engels prefered the word "socialist", but chose the word "communist" because it was a word that wasn't already strongly associated with another movement.

"... when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France...."

--- Engels' 1888 preface to the Communist Manifesto

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm
What we oppose it state socialism - not the concept of socialism.

[Widerstand]

I don't believe in God Saint Marx The State. Does that count?

[bricolage]

No, socialism IS the phase BETWEEN capitalism and communism. Don't enrage me.
Not really, no.
Marx & Engels used the words to mean roughly the same thing, Bakunin called himself a socialist but not a communist. I suppose you could make a distinction between the various phases of communism such as upper and lower communism, socialism being the former. Seeing as you said anarchists don't believe in socialism though I am assuming you are working on the socialism='workers state' line of argument, I'd disagree with this.

[Aesop]

To be factal not all anarchists do believe in socialism, the likes of proudhon was not opposed to the concept of private property.

[Ovi]

To be factal not all anarchists do believe in socialism, the likes of proudhon was not opposed to the concept of private property.
Yes, upholding that property is theft makes you a randite.

[Thirsty Crow]

No, socialism IS the phase BETWEEN capitalism and communism. Don't enrage me.

Are you aware that you're taking up a theoretical "contribution" made by no other than Stalin? Hell, it's not even important who came up with this bogus notion, but the practical effects of it and theoretical foundations. In both cases, they are detrimental to the communist movement.

[DWI]

The "socialist phase" is a lot of nonsense. You don't arrive at statelessness by creating a vast totalitarian state.

[LebenIstKrieg]

You don't arrive at statelessness by creating a vast totalitarian state. I don't think that's what most socialists have in mind.

[DWI]

I don't think that's what most socialists have in mind.
Marx did. From the CM, his ten suggested steps for a transition society:

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.


I mean, I probably wouldn't call a state "vast and totalitarian" because it has inheritance tax, but we can all get together on the forced labour and conscription, right? Sorry, but I'm with Bakunin on this one.

[Widerstand]

Marx did. From the CM, his ten suggested steps for a transition society:

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.


I mean, I probably wouldn't call a state "vast and totalitarian" because it has inheritance tax, but we can all get together on the forced labour and conscription, right? Sorry, but I'm with Bakunin on this one.

It's been said and explained (on this forum, even. search for "ten planks of communism"; the thread by The Vegan Marxist) countless times that the ten planks are not up to date, that they in fact weren't even up to date during Marx' times, and that Marx himself noted that fact. They are simply not central to communist theory. The CM itself is more to be seen as some sort of historical document and fancy introduction than a central, theoretical text.

Besides that, I fully agree that a "vast and totalitarian" state is not an option on the road to communism, but this is not what "dictatorship of the proletariat" or "workers state" has to be. However, in any party-oriented, centralist ideology (ML), I can hardly see it taking other forms. I agree with Bakunin and others in so far.

[La Peur Rouge]

I was under the impression that the "ten points" were pretty outdated, wasn't the manifesto published in 1848?.

It seems like the only ones that bring them up are nutty conservatives trying to attack communism.

[ZeroNowhere]

I didn't know that Bakunin had a position on the Ten Planks. I do know that Marx called them antiquated, and that their purpose was simply to go beyond the demands of the petit-bourgeois democrats so as to allow the proletariat, in their struggle for them, to constitute itself as an independent force, and hence become capable of abolishing capitalism when the new crisis caused a revolutionary situation. The only real problem with that being that M+E had an immature crisis theory, and said crisis (predicted for 1851) didn't come. In such a revolutionary situation, the bourgeoisie were hardly going to be putting forward such demands, which went even beyond the petit-bourgeoisie, and as such it would be necessary for the proletariat to organize itself and fight for their enforcement, thus leading to their unity and independence as a class, which could allow them to emancipate themselves in the first place (if a revolutionary situation were to come about in 1851, then the danger would be the proletariat being assimilated by petit-bourgeois forces, which M+E saw happening increasingly, and precisely through fighting for demands beyond those of the petit-bourgeoisie, the working class could achieve constitution as a class within the surrounding revolution, and hence make the revolution permanent). Such measures implemented in a 'peaceful, bourgeois' time would be economically unstable, and Engels opposed Heinzen's advocacy of this as reactionary. Of course, it's not for 'socialism' either, but rather is to be carried out under a capitalist economy.

So really, there's nothing wrong with the measures per se, what matters is which class is enforcing them. At the time, a revolution in 1851, this class would have to be the proletariat, and the agitation for them would unite the proletariat into a stronger class, capable of abolishing capitalism itself. Other than that, the demand for, "An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished," is quite reasonable inasmuch as an increase in the means of production was seen as imperative if a proletarian revolution were to succeed ("In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.") This would also be important if the proletariat were to expand their numbers, and hence grow powerful enough to stand on their own (hence also industrial armies in agriculture, 'industrial armies' here designating a similar thing to what it did in 'Capital', so as to quickly expand the ranks of the proletariat, and hence the 'propertyless mass' which may abolish capitalism at last). Of course, Engels later took the view that their underdevelopment at the time rendered socialism impossible, and therefore their calls to make the revolution permanent infeasible. This development also made the demands, for example, for equal liability to labour antiquated, and by the Eighteenth Brumaire Marx already attacked the idea of using the current state unchanged as a weapon for the proletariat, although he still supported a somewhat similar conception otherwise:



In treating of the laws of inheritance, we necessarily suppose that private property in the means of production continues to exist. If it did no longer exist among the living, it could not be transferred from them, and by them, after their death. All measures, in regard to the right of inheritance, can therefore only relate to a state of social transition, where, on the one hand, the present economical base of society is not yet transformed, but where, on the other hand, the working masses have gathered strength enough to enforce transitory measures calculated to bring about an ultimate radical change of society.


Considered from this standpoint, changes of the laws of inheritance form only part of a great many other transitory measures tending to the same end.

Of course, one could rather simply be quite alright with the proletariat falling into the hands of petit-bourgeois forces, and hence wasting what was seen as quite possibly the next significant opportunity for revolution to rather waste away in capitalism and be further defiled.

[DWI]

It's been said and explained (on this forum, even. search for "ten planks of communism"; the thread by The Vegan Marxist) countless times that the ten planks are not up to date, that they in fact weren't even up to date during Marx' times, and that Marx himself noted that fact. They are simply not central to communist theory. The CM itself is more to be seen as some sort of historical document and fancy introduction than a central, theoretical text.

Besides that, I fully agree that a "vast and totalitarian" state is not an option on the road to communism, but this is not what "dictatorship of the proletariat" or "workers state" has to be. However, in any party-oriented, centralist ideology (ML), I can hardly see it taking other forms. I agree with Bakunin and others in so far.


I was under the impression that the "ten points" were pretty outdated, wasn't the manifesto published in 1848?.

It seems like the only ones that bring them up are nutty conservatives trying to attack communism.

If Marx repudiated it and the statist socialists decided they were all wrong in 1849 then maybe you'd have a point. But in practice, they dominated the socialist experiments of the 20th century, and the 10 points are a pretty accurate precis of USSR, DDR, PRC, NK, etc. policy.

I regard statist socialism as a failed revisionism and totally the wrong road to have gone down.

[LebenIstKrieg]

I mean, I probably wouldn't call a state "vast and totalitarian" because it has inheritance tax, but we can all get together on the forced labour and conscription, right? Sorry, but I'm with Bakunin on this one. What I meant was that socialists as a term is generally a mish-mash of Left Leaning Anarchism, Marxism(all doctrines), Arab Socialism, Reformist ect.

[syndicat]

I have heard from this board that Anarchists don't believe in socialism but direct-communism whith no socialist phase(Socialism is a phase or "road" before Communism) inbetween unlike marxists, is this true?


Marx made no distinction between socialism and communism. That distinction was concocted by Marxist-Leninists after the Russian revolution as part of their apologetics for a bureaucratic class dominated system. The Soviet Union wasn't socialist in any meaningful sense.

Modern anarchism is a tendency in the broad socialist movement, dating from the first international. So, anarchists are socialists, but they don't agree with the fake "socialism" of the Soviet Union and other countries run by Communist Parties.

[DaComm]

Marxist socialism denotes a phase (also known as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat) where the weak, dis-empowered and dis-unitied bourgeoisie is supressed. If using Socialism in this sense, we do oppose this.

[La Peur Rouge]

If Marx repudiated it and the statist socialists decided they were all wrong in 1849 then maybe you'd have a point. But in practice, they dominated the socialist experiments of the 20th century, and the 10 points are a pretty accurate precis of USSR, DDR, PRC, NK, etc. policy.

I regard statist socialism as a failed revisionism and totally the wrong road to have gone down.

I'm not here to argue about what dead guys did and didn't do, and I agree that there were extreme flaws in these countries (especially the DPRK).

What I was trying to say was that bringing up the "ten planks/points" is pointless in the 21st century.

[DWI]

I'm not here to argue about what dead guys did and didn't do, and I agree that there were extreme flaws in these countries (especially the DPRK).

What I was trying to say was that bringing up the "ten planks/points" is pointless in the 21st century.
No not really. The statist socialists didn't go away. Hence discussions like "Anarchists aren't real socialists".

[La Peur Rouge]

I guess you'll have to bring that up with them then. I don't believe that anarchists aren't real socialists.

[DWI]

I guess you'll have to bring that up with them then. I don't believe that anarchists aren't real socialists.
I wasn't trying to put those words in your mouth, it's just that that is the thread topic. I'm glad you also disagree :)

[EvilRedGuy]

Ok i see. :lol:

[Aesop]

Yes, upholding that property is theft makes you a randite.

Sometimes i wonder if some people actually read around anarchism:rolleyes:
However, despite that rhertoric he was not against the concept of private property in fact he promoted private property ownership as long as it had a non-exploitative commerical behaviour.
If i am not mistaken wasn't proudhon a mutualist?

[EvilRedGuy]

Yes, i think so.

[syndicat]

Marxist socialism denotes a phase (also known as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat) where the weak, dis-empowered and dis-unitied bourgeoisie is supressed. If using Socialism in this sense, we do oppose this.


no we don't. a popular power of the form advocated by libertarian socialists would still need to prevent armed attempts to reintroduce capitalism. This is a matter of self-defense of working class power.