anarchy

[bakunin]

first of all a big hello to all you fellow leftists.i'm very lucky to have found a group of people that thinklike me.tnx

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Welcome to Che-lives, comarde, we're glad to have you.
Anarchism, I think lacks in the ways of effectively suppressing bourgeois society.

[Umoja]

It depends on the form of Anarchy, but to me I ideally don't see it as a society without laws, but a society without leaders.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

and without leaders, how do you plan on suppressing bourgeois society?

[Umoja]

Anarchy is a stage for after the government has been decentralized, it isn't a strong ideology standing on it's own.

[Lardlad95]

The problem is basically is that in today;s society it's harder to revert to a state we have evolved away from.

I'm not saying i'ts impossible, nothing is impossible, but it's damn close to it

[truthaddict11]

i dont think anarchism is impossible. Once a worker led and organized revolution has become succesful and capitalism is crushed then the worker led state is established no "transitional" period of "socialism" to communism then anarchism. Face it anarchism will never "gradually" happen. The classless leaderless workers state should be established immediatly. Revolution needs no leaders just the direct action of the working class.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

This is the ideology that i most often follow, but i'm still a bit reluctant to believe that the working class will just grab some guns and crush their oppressors. I am also not taken seriously if i admit to being even remotly anarchist.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 12:44 PM
i dont think anarchism is impossible.
Yes, that is because it has been put into practice before.

The Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html) lists some modern practical examples.

[ONE]

It is impossible. For it to work, everyone needs to subscribe to its philosophy and since not every one will be accepting of the idea, it will never work.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 07:07 PM
It is impossible. For it to work, everyone needs to subscribe to its philosophy and since not every one will be accepting of the idea, it will never work.
So, it is like another form of gov't in that respect, all ideologies need EVERYONE, or close to everyone for it to work. and second of all anarchy is the idea that the systems dont HAVE to work, because anarchy means they wont.

I think the answer lies somewhere in between anarchist principles should be integrated in our future form of gov't, to make it shift from power to the rulers to power to the people. As any gov't should be democratic, or shouldn't exist at all.

my 2 cents.

(im a czech my english isnt great so dont kill me)

[FistFullOfSteel]

laws is very important or i think someone would take the place as a president or something with the help from military....but riots is good :P..im not blaming anarchism i only have my thoughts about it.

[Durruti]

Anarchism is as impossible as democracy.

First of all, as an anarchist, I don't think that people should just pick up guns and overthrow the government. The State is a framework within which we build the new society. When we have built the new society we will have no trouble crushing the old one. If we don't build the new society before hand we'll likely end up like Soviet Russia (being murdered in droves just for trying to free the people).
People laughed at the idea of democracy, but it works some times. In fact, given a chance, it has the ability to work nearly perfectally all the time (I'm not talking about the USA here, that's an oligarchy for the most part). Likewise anarchism will rise and crush governments which, unlike the experiments in socialism, will spawn global revolution.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

can you give me an exampe of a republic that is not an oligarchy?

[CompadreGuerrillera]

dont worry, im sure your new society, will be completely crushed by the gov't b4 it has a chance to bloom. The gov't no doubt, will race to crush ur society, and others along with it. I think a soviet Russia example is doomed for this country(US) if it happens at all(which i beleive it will, just not at this moment)

[FistFullOfSteel]

one of my friends is from northern ireland an hes anarchist..is he leftist or middle?? :huh:

[Don't Change Your Name]

I am an anarchist and i believe that anarchism will work on small communities, it wont work on big places like USA because of many reasons.
I think that in first place an average communist government should take place, which should change laws, and start building what the new society needs, then it should start losing EVERYTHING, so it loses "shape".
Modern technology can make assemblies and direct democracy possible, excepting if there's hacking, sabotage or technical problems.
But this type of society will only work with people who wants it to be like that, because pro-state people will try to stop it by any means.

My question for all of you leftist comrades is: if it works, will you accept it? or you'll want stalinist authority anyway? or would you just want to have a state that represents you? if that last one is your oppinion, will you want to have a state that doesnt represent anarchism but doesnt oppose it, or will you try to remove the anarchist organizations?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 02:36 PM
one of my friends is from northern ireland an hes anarchist..is he leftist or middle?? :huh:
why don't you ask him?

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 16 2003, 10:47 PM
I am an anarchist and i believe that anarchism will work on small communities, it wont work on big places like USA because of many reasons.
I think that in first place an average communist government should take place, which should change laws, and start building what the new society needs, then it should start losing EVERYTHING, so it loses "shape".
Modern technology can make assemblies and direct democracy possible, excepting if there's hacking, sabotage or technical problems.
But this type of society will only work with people who wants it to be like that, because pro-state people will try to stop it by any means.

My question for all of you leftist comrades is: if it works, will you accept it? or you'll want stalinist authority anyway? or would you just want to have a state that represents you? if that last one is your oppinion, will you want to have a state that doesnt represent anarchism but doesnt oppose it, or will you try to remove the anarchist organizations?
why dont you think anarchism is possible in modern capitalist countries?


I think that in first place an average communist government should take place, which should change laws, and start building what the new society needs, then it should start losing EVERYTHING, so it loses "shape

Why not go straight from capitalism to anarchism, I dont think that a "communist" "transition" to anarchism can ever happen because the state will not "wither away" the state should be destroyed along with capitalism. The working class doesnt need a new set of bosses.

[sliverchrist]

hmmmmmm....

i think that anarchy loses potential and probability when applied to a large group. the larger the group the less effective and vice versa.

kropotkin (hope the name is right) had an excellent and appealing definition of anarchy, and from what i understood, it was not so much no leaders, but more if you are afected by a decision then you have a say in it, going about the small group method.

i think that i would personally love to see anarchy come into play somewhere with a lot of limelight, i would definitely be a strong supporter, but the odds definitely turn me off to the idea, so...thats why i'm certainly more of communist.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 02:05 AM
Anarchy is a stage for after the government has been decentralized, it isn't a strong ideology standing on it's own.
Anarch means: no rulers. So anarchism is a system in that form. It is indeed the last stage in the Marxist model for social change. To be an anarchist, is to oppose a system of rulers. I am an anarchist in this way, as well as a communist. I see that 24hour anarchism (instant anarchism)is absurd. 24-hour anarchism is equitable to jumping into the ocean and expecting to form gills. Only, in revolution you drown everyone. To create an anarchist society, you must first return to the people their power and freedom. This takes a stage to stop the ruling class from regaining power, so that the working class may be enabled to run thier lives free of expliotation. This is the function of a communist state, that must eventualy give way to anarchy.

BTW, welcome to Che-Lives ;)

[FistFullOfSteel]

does anarchism have any rules?

[truthaddict11]

313C7 iVi4RX, What makes it sure that this "communist" state will ever "give way" to anarchism, did this ever happen in any communist/socialist country? Why must another state exist after overthrowing one? Do you think that the leaders of that state would be that willing to give up the reins of power?

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Makes sense 313C7 iVi4RX, too me.

You see communism and socialism are systems working for a change in human behaviour, and its tribal like socieities.

First there was tribal structures, one monarch whos kids took the throne, feudalism wiht serfs and lords, then capitalism with economic control over the ppl, then communism, socialism(which hasnt expireinced its time to shine yet), then anarchism, no rulers, no class, the way its supposed to be, everything is a transition in human development to something better, perhaps well discover something better than sociailsm and anarchism, and all that.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 02:08 PM
313C7 iVi4RX, What makes it sure that this "communist" state will ever "give way" to anarchism, did this ever happen in any communist/socialist country? Why must another state exist after overthrowing one? Do you think that the leaders of that state would be that willing to give up the reins of power?
First off, in a communist state the leading representatives (or whatever system the people choose) should not hold more power than the people in the working class, as their job is to represent the working class as a whole. If they do not advance the rights of the people, as any communist should, this ceases to be a communist system, as it is not democratic and does not address the rights of everyone to participate in politics. So then it would not be ruled by the people, it would be ruled by some other class. This would be a massive failure for a communist society and after becoming a system that does not support the efforts of the working class (it would again} not be a communist society. This would be a reversal of all of the efforts the working class has made to have control over their own lives. For this reason, in any communist society, you must be ever vigilant to destroy any reactionary movement in the peoples' name. If there is not state after overthrowing an oppressive system, there is no controls to keep it from re-emerging, as this system is accepted by many misguided individuals, re-enforced by much coercion of the ruling class and only promoted by the capitalist ideology of meritocracy. To have a possiblity of beneficial social change, you must:

Revolt - Destroy all reactionary police/military infrastructures - crush resistance - deprogram and re-socialize, draw willing recruits from the populace
b) Dismantle the state - dissolve state bureaucracy
c) create a beacon/trap to capture fleeing ruling class criminals

Communist state globalization (critical):
a) Return political power to the people - Instate a democratic network of the working class by the working class and for the working class.
b) Crush counter-revolutionary movements - struggle against fascist influence - destroy the capitalist economic ideology and the myths that perpetuate it (i.e. meritocracy).

Anarchism:
a) Dissolve the communist state and all hierarchy

^This is that part of my model that petains to your question.
Not communist society has progresed this far. This progression takes a worldwide movement anmd the destruction of capitalism. when people no longer need the communist state, it will be no more. Until then, they must keep watch over it because a communist state is for the people. My model is a work in progress, I will bring it up again after in make more specifications.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 08:09 PM
Makes sense 313C7 iVi4RX, too me.

You see communism and socialism are systems working for a change in human behaviour, and its tribal like socieities.

First there was tribal structures, one monarch whos kids took the throne, feudalism wiht serfs and lords, then capitalism with economic control over the ppl, then communism, socialism(which hasnt expireinced its time to shine yet), then anarchism, no rulers, no class, the way its supposed to be, everything is a transition in human development to something better, perhaps well discover something better than sociailsm and anarchism, and all that.
Thanks Comrade CompadreGuerrillera, the history of struggle is also important.

[Hater]

Communist state?

[elijahcraig]

What the hell is with these anarchists putting Che in their avatar? Che hated anarchists, ie counter-revolutionaries.

I used to be an anarchist, but I do not believe it has any way to defend a revolution against imperialists, or against bourgeois tendencies. It's an idealist form of theory.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 08:49 PM
Communist state?
um...dictatorship of the proletariat, ring a bell?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 08:51 PM
What the hell is with these anarchists putting Che in their avatar? Che hated anarchists, ie counter-revolutionaries.

I used to be an anarchist, but I do not believe it has any way to defend a revolution against imperialists, or against bourgeois tendencies. It's an idealist form of theory.
Like is said anarchism is a system for after a communist state, no 24hour anarchism. We can debate the practicality of anarchism later.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 12:36 PM
does anarchism have any rules?
Comrade hugo,
Anarchism is a system enforced by a community effort, by the will of a society. There are no "rules," but the people just don't put up with restrictions on human rights and such. Anarchism is absolute democracy. There are not official "rules," or any institutional forms of that kind. Anarchism relies on an educated people to run their own lives and stop others from manipulating anyone or destroying anything of the people. There is simply no state or system of enforcement, it is all done by the will of the people. Now the people are confused. We need a state of communism to unite the workingclass against their oppressors, Maybe anarchism later.

[elijahcraig]

Anarchism is based on federalism, communism is not. They are not the same.

[trudeaumania]

I enjoy the posts on this board. It is really thought-provoking. But I have a question. <_< In a society, that now claims anarchy as it&#39;s system. What would stop an individual from not being influenced by mob - rule mentality. (Survival of the fittest) I say that because when you imagine an area that an anarchist system may begin, say a deserted island. A dozen inhabitants, and after a period of time. What is the general outcome. Remember the novel, Lord of the Flies. A society with no laws, to some, is a society of great explotation, especially against those less fortunate. I believe as it was stated earlier, this is a purely idealistic concept. But I am afraid that when the realism of the situation kicks in, the results can be devestating. :unsure: History has showed the old maxim,&#39; a society is governed best, when it is governed least&#39;. That to me is just not a realistic concept. But that is just my opionion. But the idea also of the system being implimented, after the &#39;new individual&#39; has been created, say after a Marxist state, is interesting also. I just feel whenever it would come about an individual always has the ability to revert back, if left unchecked, to the uncivilized. Thanks for a good discussion. :)

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 09:18 PM
Anarchism is based on federalism, communism is not. They are not the same.
Who said they where the same? Are you reading this thread? I don&#39;t see what you are getting at.

[elijahcraig]

Like is said anarchism is a system for after a communist state, no 24hour anarchism. We can debate the practicality of anarchism later.

Are you not asserting that anarchism is the thing which can take place after the socialist state dissolves?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 09:27 PM
I enjoy the posts on this board. It is really thought-provoking. But I have a question. <_< In a society, that now claims anarchy as it&#39;s system. What would stop an individual from not being influenced by mob - rule mentality. (Survival of the fittest) I say that because when you imagine an area that an anarchist system may begin, say a deserted island. A dozen inhabitants, and after a period of time. What is the general outcome. Remember the novel, Lord of the Flies. A society with no laws, to some, is a society of great explotation, especially against those less fortunate. I believe as it was stated earlier, this is a purely idealistic concept. But I am afraid that when the realism of the situation kicks in, the results can be devestating. :unsure: History has showed the old maxim,&#39; a society is governed best, when it is governed least&#39;. That to me is just not a realistic concept. But that is just my opionion. But the idea also of the system being implimented, after the &#39;new individual&#39; has been created, say after a Marxist state, is interesting also. I just feel whenever it would come about an individual always has the ability to revert back, if left unchecked, to the uncivilized. Thanks for a good discussion. :)
Education is the tool that can stop people from acting out of impulse, of peer presusure and "group mentality." Hopfully in any anarchist system, the people would know enough to understand the horrible outcome of mob rule. Lord of the Flies, seems to have a rather negative veiw of human nature, similar to the veiws presented by organized religions. These veiws tell people that they must be ruled to avoid becoming evil or such bullshit. I&#39;m not sure of the nature of the human but I don&#39;t believe we are all naturaly evil. I am not certain that anarchism is plausible but it seems reasonable in theory. I think we should focus on getting our revolution. After we are living in a communist society we can delve in length into the practicality of anarchism. Thank trudeaumania you for adding to the discussion ;)

[Xvall]

I&#39;m alright with anarchism, although it depends on what type. Anarcho-Capitalists are simply people that love capitalism, and hate social programs like welfare, social security, etc. I see anarchism as something possible, and I do not consider it counter-revolutionary. Anarchist likely admire Che for his determination to helping people, and not for his socialistic/communistic ideals. I think right now, it is possible for anarchism to work in small groups. However, any type of large-scake world anarchism is very unlikely in the near future.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 09:49 PM

Like is said anarchism is a system for after a communist state, no 24hour anarchism. We can debate the practicality of anarchism later.

Are you not asserting that anarchism is the thing which can take place after the socialist state dissolves?
Yes I am. Communist state > anarchism. It seems the most reasonable path, as I have been saying in this entire thread.

[elijahcraig]

Then my statement was correct, you say that communism is the same as anarchism in end.



Main Entry: fed·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: &#39;fe-d(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1789
1 a often capitalized : the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units -- compare CENTRALISM b : support or advocacy of this principle
2 capitalized : Federalist principles


Main Entry: cen·tral·ism
Pronunciation: &#39;sen-tr&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1831
: the concentration of power and control in the central authority of an organization (as a political or educational system) -- compare FEDERALISM

Federalist Anarchism and Centralist Communism are not the same. There&#39;s a footnote in Capital that says something about this, I can&#39;t find it.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 10:11 PM
Then my statement was correct, you say that communism is the same as anarchism in end.



Main Entry: fed·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: &#39;fe-d(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1789
1 a often capitalized : the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units -- compare CENTRALISM b : support or advocacy of this principle
2 capitalized : Federalist principles


Main Entry: cen·tral·ism
Pronunciation: &#39;sen-tr&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1831
: the concentration of power and control in the central authority of an organization (as a political or educational system) -- compare FEDERALISM

Federalist Anarchism and Centralist Communism are not the same. There&#39;s a footnote in Capital that says something about this, I can&#39;t find it.
When did I say that? I never said that communism in any form = anarchism. What are you trying to say? I don&#39;t disagree with what you are saying and I understand those definitions. Communism to anarchism (like I&#39;ve said before) abolishes the federalist aspect. I can see why you keep trying to confuse what I say, pleas explain.

[Som]

I&#39;m alright with anarchism, although it depends on what type. Anarcho-Capitalists are simply people that love capitalism, and hate social programs like welfare, social security, etc.

Oh don&#39;t even give the ancaps the benefit of the doubt, theyre not anarchists, so theres no need to distinguish them as a type.


I say that because when you imagine an area that an anarchist system may begin, say a deserted island. A dozen inhabitants, and after a period of time. What is the general outcome. Remember the novel, Lord of the Flies.

likewise remember the tv show gilligans island.

hell, even the millionare and his wife were sharing.

Strong vs weak degradation of it means someones getting screwed. In an anarchist society, I&#39;d think they&#39;d take action to get that crap dealt with.
At the very least we wont have to call those &#39;survival of the fittest&#39; type of savages things like officer, senator or even sir.


I wouldn&#39;t see why a marxist communism would have to be centralized, and would actually think that the hierarchy of centralization would lead to class differences.

[elijahcraig]

Yes I am. Communist state > anarchism. It seems the most reasonable path, as I have been saying in this entire thread.

OK, I must be misunderstanding this part. Please explain to me what "Communist state>anarchism" means. I don&#39;t want to keep arguing this if I am just not understanding.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I have always been an advocate of a dictatorship of the proletariat. i do not, however, advocate the complete rule by a communist party, this leads to tyrrany, oppression, and class warfare between the working class and the ruling class. I instead suggest the use of a dictatorship that gives complete power to the people in order to destroy bourgeois society. The dictatorship must be under the direct influence of the working class. see my signature, please. :)

[Elect Marx]

I was refering to the disolving of the communist state into anarchism. Like in my earlier posts.

[elijahcraig]

Well, I disagree. Anarchism is based on Federalism, I am not for Federalism.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 10:33 PM
I have always been an advocate of a dictatorship of the proletariat. i do not, however, advocate the complete rule by a communist party, this leads to tyrrany, oppression, and class warfare between the working class and the ruling class. I instead suggest the use of a dictatorship that gives complete power to the people in order to destroy bourgeois society. The dictatorship must be under the direct influence of the working class. see my signature, please. :)
I think that was basicaly the same idea I have been posting but good to know you agree Comrade Victorcommie :hammer:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

yes&#33; i am glad too, comarde. :hammer:
I was making the point that i am in favor of a dictatorship of the proletariat, as opposed to completely de-centralizing the government as soon as we win therevolution, as anarchism implies.

[elijahcraig]

VC, the ole idealist. :lol:

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 10:40 PM
Federalist Anarchism and Centralist Communism are not the same. There&#39;s a footnote in Capital that says something about this, I can&#39;t find it.

Well, I disagree. Anarchism is based on Federalism, I am not for Federalism.
What are you saying? Anarchism has no leaders or govering body, there is no distribution of power beyond the people.

[elijahcraig]

Here are some quotes from Capital on Proudhon:


[2] Proudhon begins by taking his ideal of Justice, of "justice éternelle," from the juridical relations that correspond to the production of commodities: thereby, it may be noted, he proves, to the consolation of all good citizens, that the production of commodities is a form of production as everlasting as justice. Then he turns round and seeks to reform the actual production of commodities, and the actual legal system corresponding thereto, in accordance with this ideal. What opinion should we have of a chemist, who, instead of studying the actual laws of the molecular changes in the composition and decomposition of matter, and on that foundation solving definite problems, claimed to regulate the composition and decomposition of matter by means of the "eternal ideas," of "naturalité" and "affinité"? Do we really know any more about "usury," when we say it contradicts "justice éternelle," équité éternelle "mutualité éternelle," and other vérités éternelles than the fathers of the church did when they said it was incompatible with "grâce éternelle," "foi éternelle," and "la volonté éternelle de Dieu"?


[26] It is by no means self-evident that this character of direct and universal exchangeability is, so to speak, a polar one, and as intimately connected with its opposite pole, the absence of direct exchangeability, as the positive pole of the magnet is with its negative counterpart. It may therefore be imagined that all commodities can simultaneously have this character impressed upon them, just as it can be imagined that all Catholics can be popes together. It is, of course, highly desirable in the eyes of the petit bourgeois, for whom the production of commodities is the nec plus ultra of human freedom and individual independence, that the inconveniences resulting from this character of commodities not being directly exchangeable, should be removed. Proudhon&#39;s socialism is a working out of this Philistine Utopia, a form of socialism which, as I have elsewhere shown, does not possess even the merit of originality. Long before his time, the task was attempted with much better success by Gray, Bray, and others. But, for all that, wisdom of this kind flourishes even now in certain circles under the name of "science." Never has any school played more tricks with the word science, than that of Proudhon, for "wo Begriffe fehlen, Da stellt zur rechten Zeit ein Wort sich ein." [See Proudhon&#39;s "Philosophy of Poverty"]


[10]We may well, therefore, feel astonished at the cleverness of Proudhon, who would abolish capitalist property-by enforcing the eternal laws of property which are themselves based on commodity production&#33;

Several more. "Poverty of Philosophy" also debunks Proudhonism/Anarchism.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 10:59 PM
Several more. "Poverty of Philosophy" also debunks Proudhonism/Anarchism.
I know that Marx has debunked Proudhonism/Anarchism but Marx&#39;s model for social change ended with anarchism. Marx was in the end an anarchist. His dictatorship of the proletariat was a means to enable the people to eventually live in anarchy. Marx was not an advocate of 24hour anarchy or revolution > anarchy. He had the establishment of the communist state for a reason.

[elijahcraig]

If Marx debunked Anarchism, then there is NO WAY Marx was an anarchist. You are making nonsensical statements.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 07:11 AM
why dont you think anarchism is possible in modern capitalist countries?

I never said that


Why not go straight from capitalism to anarchism, I dont think that a "communist" "transition" to anarchism can ever happen because the state will not "wither away" the state should be destroyed along with capitalism. The working class doesnt need a new set of bosses.

Although I do not like the idea of the state, it will be necessary to use some way of planning before the "anarchist state" takes place, but of course this shouldnt last a long time, it is just to organise the people, but this could also be done before a revolution. The ones that should organise this should be the people, but it is so that later there are new institutions that dont exist yet, that anarchism needs in order to have a democratic and well-organised society.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 11:19 PM
If Marx debunked Anarchism, then there is NO WAY Marx was an anarchist. You are making nonsensical statements.
There is no nonsense to it. Marx&#39;s disolving of the state into anarchism, is in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. He wrote it, he is an anarchist. How can you say otherwise? Maybe I should have said Proudhonism - anarchism. Proudhon&#39;s ideas of how anarchism should come about.

[elijahcraig]

How is Marx an Anarchist? He is for the DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT IN THE FORM OF A CENTRALIZED STATE&#33; That is NOT ANARCHISM&#33; You are making idiotic assertions&#33;

Here&#39;s a link to a site on Marx on Anarchism:

Letters on Anarchism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/letters/subject/anarchism.htm)

[elijahcraig]

Although I do not like the idea of the state, it will be necessary to use some way of planning before the "anarchist state" takes place, but of course this shouldnt last a long time, it is just to organise the people, but this could also be done before a revolution. The ones that should organise this should be the people, but it is so that later there are new institutions that dont exist yet, that anarchism needs in order to have a democratic and well-organised society.

There is no such thing as an anarchist state.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 08:51 PM
What the hell is with these anarchists putting Che in their avatar? Che hated anarchists, ie counter-revolutionaries.
I put Che as my avatar because I dont have any good image to put, because i like how he changed his life for an ideal, and because I want the left to be united because the enemy IS THE SAME, and that explains why the left and right are different.
Or you would prefer one of those capitalist kids with the Che shirt in the streets who think that he was born in Bolivia and that he died in Cuba???


I used to be an anarchist, but I do not believe it has any way to defend a revolution against imperialists, or against bourgeois tendencies. It&#39;s an idealist form of theory.

That&#39;s because you think anarchism should be used in huge places, where it will fail because of the nazis that will go to a mountain and install a new state.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 11:39 PM
There is no such thing as an anarchist state.
Obviously there&#39;s not, I was refering to the new order, which I decided to call that way for some reason. :P

[elijahcraig]

QUOTE
I used to be an anarchist, but I do not believe it has any way to defend a revolution against imperialists, or against bourgeois tendencies. It&#39;s an idealist form of theory.


That&#39;s because you think anarchism should be used in huge places, where it will fail because of the nazis that will go to a mountain and install a new state.

Go to a mountain? What are you talking about?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 11:38 PM
How is Marx an Anarchist? He is for the DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT IN THE FORM OF A CENTRALIZED STATE&#33; That is NOT ANARCHISM&#33; You are making idiotic assertions&#33;

Here&#39;s a link to a site on Marx on Anarchism:

Letters on Anarchism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/letters/subject/anarchism.htm)
I will look at you link and see if there is any proof there. I&#39;ll find the quote later I was refering to. If you are trying to turn a decent disscution into a flame war, then you are the idiot. I hope you will maintain a communistic attitude and not a reactionary one. If you insualt any more rational ideas, I can no longer see you as productive in debate. If you expect anyone to respect you, don&#39;t give them shit, in a debate.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 11:47 PM
Go to a mountain? What are you talking about?
I was meaning that after anarchism is "installed", the opposition living in a big country (which is probably going to be a big opposition, like if an anarchist revolution is installed in a place like Russia or the US) will try to bring back the old capitalist order. So one thing they might try would be getting away from the anarchist society and form a new state inside territory which should be under an anarchist system. That was an example.
I&#39;d say that a transition to an anarchist society shouldnt be fast, to avoid this, so that the anarchist system (the society) can control the places where it is meant to be applied.

[elijahcraig]

I was meaning that after anarchism is "installed", the opposition living in a big country (which is probably going to be a big opposition, like if an anarchist revolution is installed in a place like Russia or the US) will try to bring back the old capitalist order. So one thing they might try would be getting away from the anarchist society and form a new state inside territory which should be under an anarchist system. That was an example.
I&#39;d say that a transition to an anarchist society shouldnt be fast, to avoid this, so that the anarchist system (the society) can control the places where it is meant to be applied.

You understand, Anarchism has no "transition", it has only the "abolition of all states" as Bakunin put it.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 10:59 PM
Here are some quotes from Capital on Proudhon:
Anarchists don&#39;t mindlessly follow Proudhon or any other person. Most contemporary anarchists are opposed to Proudhon&#39;s mutualist system, which was the main focus of most of Marx&#39;s criticisms of Proudhon. "Proudhonism" does not exist.

Historically, the primary difference between anarchists and authoritarian Marxists has been over the role of the state. Marx & the majority of his followers argued for the seizure of state power by revolutionaries. They would form a "dictatorship of the proletariat," which after some unspecified period of time would "wither away" into anarchy. Revolutionary Anarchists argue that the state must be destroyed at the same time the capitalist class is overthrown, as part of the revolution. We argue that seizing state power, as advocated by most Marxists, will result in the state establishing itself as a new ruling class which dominates and exploits the proletariat just like the old one. "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" inevitably becomes "dictatorship of the bureaucracy." This has happened every single time a "dictatorship of the proletariat" has been implemented. The degeneration of the Russian, Chinese, etc. revolutions were all predicted by anarchists decades before they occured. States are always a means by which a tiny elite dominates and exploits the majority. It should be noted that there are a minority of Marxists (generally called Libertarian Marxists, Autonomous Marxists or Council Communists) that come very close to Anarchists and basically agree with us on the state. Sadly they are a minority.

Further reading:
What Are the Key Differences Between Anarchists and Marxists? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH1.html#sech12)
Why Do Anarchists Oppose State Socialism? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secHcon.html)
Anarchism and the Left (http://www.anarchism.ws/left.html)
Field Guide to The American Authoritarian Left (http://www.infoshop.org/left_field_guide.html)
Libertarian Marxism (http://www.infoshop.org/focus/lib_marxism.php)

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 10:11 PM
Then my statement was correct, you say that communism is the same as anarchism in end.



Main Entry: fed·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: &#39;fe-d(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1789
1 a often capitalized : the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units -- compare CENTRALISM b : support or advocacy of this principle
2 capitalized : Federalist principles


Main Entry: cen·tral·ism
Pronunciation: &#39;sen-tr&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1831
: the concentration of power and control in the central authority of an organization (as a political or educational system) -- compare FEDERALISM

Federalist Anarchism and Centralist Communism are not the same. There&#39;s a footnote in Capital that says something about this, I can&#39;t find it.
uh, question? who the hell would want a centralised communist society, i mean really. The type of socialism I want is a democratic one, or one with soviets(ring a bell) a soviet is a workers council. Only the maoists and lame groups like that would champion a central state

and another thing elijah, who said i was an anarchist? progress is a must, wether it be good or bad it must go through, like it or not.

I personally am an anarcho-socialist, in other words a anarchist following socialist principles. or vice versa if u like( same thing 4 me).

just my 2 cents

[elijahcraig]

Anarchists don&#39;t mindlessly follow Proudhon or any other person. Most contemporary anarchists are opposed to Proudhon&#39;s mutualist system, which was the main focus of most of Marx&#39;s criticisms of Proudhon. "Proudhonism" does not exist.

He also criticized Bakunin.


Historically, the primary difference between anarchists and authoritarian Marxists has been over the role of the state. Marx & the majority of his followers argued for the seizure of state power by revolutionaries. They would form a "dictatorship of the proletariat," which after some unspecified period of time would "wither away" into anarchy.

When the whole world is socialist, and it is running well, then the state can whither away, until then, no, it cannot.

I don&#39;t feel like replying to the rest, it is clear I disagree about Anarchism.

[elijahcraig]

uh, question? who the hell would want a centralised communist society, i mean really. The type of socialism I want is a democratic one, or one with soviets(ring a bell) a soviet is a workers council. Only the maoists and lame groups like that would champion a central state

If you&#39;re not for a centralized state, you are not a marxist.


and another thing elijah, who said i was an anarchist? progress is a must, wether it be good or bad it must go through, like it or not.

Did you not say you were an anarchist earlier, I&#39;m fairly sure you did.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 12:05 AM
You understand, Anarchism has no "transition", it has only the "abolition of all states" as Bakunin put it.
Yes but it wont be easy to do it from the first second after we can, and you said: "but I do not believe it has any way to defend a revolution against imperialists, or against bourgeois tendencies"
We have to defend a revolution from them from the start, a state would secure the revolution because of its natural power but it must be abolished later once the transition can be donde safely, without any damn capitalist trying to stop it, it mustnt be done in one day, it must be done once we have secured the revolution from them.

[elijahcraig]

Then you are not an anarchist. Anarchists rely on decentralized communal federations as defense, not the state. I disagree, I do not believe anarchism is materialist theory.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 18 2003, 12:25 AM
We have to defend a revolution from them from the start, a state would secure the revolution because of its natural power but it must be abolished later once the transition can be donde safely, without any damn capitalist trying to stop it, it mustnt be done in one day, it must be done once we have secured the revolution from them.
We don&#39;t need a state to defend the revolution. Arm the people and form a system of democratic
militias (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ7.html#secj76) like the Makhnovists (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH6.html).

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

elijah, when he says that Marx is an anarchist he means that according to Marxism, the final step of human political evolution is communism, after socialism. Socialism being the dictatorship of the proletariat, unless you&#39;re a Leninist, then the dictatorship of the proletariat is inclusive in communism. And the final step is Communism, where the state has withered away, meaning that it is completely de-centralized, much like what Anarchism seeks to establish. Except that Anarchists seek to establish a completely classless society immediately after the revolution. This, however, is unrealistic. I do not see how we can expect the working class to pick up weapons, emancipate themselves, and destroy bourgeois society thus creating anarchy, or a classless and stateless society. A more logical aproach to the working classes&#39; emancipation is the use of a dictatorship of the proletariat, where bourgeois society is suppressed. This, however, cannot occur in a maner favorable for the working class through the use of an authoritarian, centralized communist party that claims to work in fucktion of the proletariat with no true participation of the masses.

[elijahcraig]

yes, i understand. But Marx was not an anarchist.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 01:55 AM
yes, i understand. But Marx was not an anarchist.
I&#39;m sure you understand, thats why you haven&#39;t understood from the start right? Are you proud of yourself or what?

[CompadreGuerrillera]

um Elijah, i never said i was an anarchist. I just think similarily to one.

well, when the revolution happens, what state would u like to establish?

So you would govern from a central party, like the RCP suggests in America?

a corruptable dictatorship?

I think the most solid thing u could possibly have is a gov&#39;t by the people, and where the people govern themselves, not a capitalist democracy, but a socialist democracy, such things can exist, and they can work.

Your Maoist systems dont really serve the people they say they do.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 01:20 AM
We don&#39;t need a state to defend the revolution. Arm the people and form a system of democratic militias like the Makhnovists
I used to think that having an "anarchist army" could work, and maybe it will work, but i dont think those militias are going to be enough against our opposition, excepting if it is big enough. It is good for small territories (both urban or country areas), but with the state thing i was talking about big places, like huge countries, where the opposition can retreat somewhere and start a new state and try to get control again. In that case, the sate has the authority and the means to stop them, and meanwhile, it start dissapearing, the army becomes those militias, and well, then it comes the rest.

But as i think I already said, revolution will be for the revolutionaries and some of the people without a defined ideology, the rest will not have a real place, and probably, they wont be welcome (I&#39;m talking about the right), because i believe they would try to bring the state back and ruin the new society with their ideals.

[highway star]

anarchism isnt a strong ideology.because there r not laws or some leader organizations.people arent excellent to do that.but it isnt impossible.but veryx10 hard.

[Faceless]

Every anarchist I know has a problem with my Communist convictions because they believe that when the Communists destroy private propety they get power greedy etc. or a bad leader is bound to come along and then corrupt the process, thus turning it into a state capitalist society (eg USSR). Isn&#39;t there as much chance though that someone will come along and hijack an anarchist revolt. Once they&#39;ve destroyed the principle of private property, and of course the state, there has been no moulding of the social consciousness of society and those bitter few (ie the fallen ruling elite) have nothing to stop them from saying "No&#33;" You can&#39;t go lynching an entire bitter class. And that&#39;s just anarcho-communism. I don&#39;t really have time for mutualist and the other crap. Anarchy surely isn&#39;t possible in any other form than the result of social moulding of the population.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 07:55 PM
yes, i understand. But Marx was not an anarchist.
no, he was not an anarchist. But what he referred to as the final stage of Communism is similar, and in some cases identical to anarchist society.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Here, the fact is this, its progress, it MUST be done. Personally if Anarcho-Socialism was allowed its course of time, things wouldnt happen like corruption, the people would always the rulers, if they got too much power, they&#39;d start another anarcho-communist revolution, u just restrict the rulers authority and its military, and you give that to the commoner.

Thats basically both our philospophies, anarchists, and commies alike.

As an anarcho-socialist, here this elijah, i believe anarchists and communists should just stop there bickering, and forget about after the revolution for one seccond, team up, and take the ones in power, than melt into anarcho-socialism.

Lets just see what happens?
No harm in that, well, ya, but we still need to try.

I dunno, im tired from my first day of school(softmore(or whatever it is in English) year.