anarchy

[crazy comie]

how do pepole think anarchy would work strate a way. surely it needs socialism as in a transition stage first for education of the mass then anarchy.

[truthaddict11]

because i see it highly unlikely that this "transitional" stage of "socialism" will ever "give away" to anarchism. When the destruction of capitalism comes so should the destruction of the state.

[Hegemonicretribution]

People could naturally live in anarchy, and be successful. If there was no option, being masters of srvival we are (ish) we would no doubt pull together if there was no option. If the destruction of the state, meant people realised bits of paper with faces on meant fuck all, they would trade, services and goods, almost like the start of capitalism, but no. In our highly developed world, people have many more trades needed to hold things together. The people needed to make the power come on, the hospitals work etc would have to sort themselves out.

Self management is the key really, if someone goes too far astray mob mentality is a scary tool used to puyll them back on track, of course scapegoats are always a problem, but still they are now.

Anarchy is basically nothing else working. It would work straight away, because other systems take time to be put in place. People will naturally help each other out, even if it is just family or friend groups. Even humans out for self gain will work in teams as it would be mutually benificial.

Saying it would work straight away means it could be in place straight away, the anarchy I described n top, basically a big happy family getting on like today is maybe a little far fetched. More likely is there will be problems, but even if things are pretty bad the lack of institution could be anarchy.

Anarchy is as good conditioning for communism, in my oppinion, as communism is for anarchy. The difference is peopple have no choice, yet choose in a sense to develop in anarchy.

[crazy comie]

i Disagree i think with out prior education it would turn into capitalism becuse some pepole would start to exploit others.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I suppose it depends on the mindset upon entering anarchy, and the reasons for doing so.

However what I said is anarchy could exsist, it just might not work very well. It would exist as a result no no other system being present, if only for a short time.

If anarchy was that stereotypical back to tribal times way, and people had to worry about mere day to day survival, before the exploitation of others, those of the time would learn a lot. A hardened populus like that would take better to communism.

[MiNdGaMe]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 20 2003, 11:25 AM
i Disagree i think with out prior education it would turn into capitalism becuse some pepole would start to exploit others.
In Anarchism, with the abolishment of Capitalism their would be no need to "exploit" others as you put it, since socialism provides for the individual and the individual provides for socialism "from each according to his ability to each according and his need"(apologise for gender-biased terms, it was as quoted). I think this is a question of economics and therefore you should once again look at your ideological beliefs, since they are similar to that of Anarchism (except with the absence of hierarchal orgnizations/state).

[crazy comie]

i wasn't talkin about need but greed. I belive in anarchy after a marxist state

[Hegemonicretribution]

I believe in anarchy whenever, it is a case of how well it will work, anarchy after a Marxist state woul work better than if we went straight to anarchy tommorow, however if we went straight to a Marxist state it would not work as well as goin through a period of anarchy, people need a transitional period, it doesn't matter too much if it a transition of anarchy to communism, communism to anarchy, or just a longer peeiod of one system, eventually it would balance out, it is just the nasty in between bit that will be harder.

[ONE]

I don't believe Anarchy will ever work.



People will naturally help each other out, even if it is just family or friend groups. Even humans out for self gain will work in teams as it would be mutually benificial.


...and people will naturally kill each other. If you have an anarchy that lacks unanimity in belief, those who don’t subscribe to its ideals will unite and oppress the others. As this group grows more powerful, you will have history repeating itself from communities (towns/cities) to city states to kingdoms to empires with everything that comes with this expansion, i.e. war, racism, destruction...

[MiNdGaMe]

To state the obvious ONE has no idea of what Anarchism or Anarchy implies and what such a society would be like. He/She is meerly stumbling in the dark.




I don't believe Anarchy will ever work.


Go live in your statist 'socialistic' society, and I'll live in harmony with those around me and the earth.
The state redarts the mind, hindering all individuals to develop to their full interllectual ability. It's not "Freedom" when you have a party in power to govern you.


If you have an anarchy that lacks unanimity in belief, those who don’t subscribe to its ideals will unite and oppress the others.

If their isn't unanimity at all, the revolution wouldn't of even happened.


If you have an anarchy that lacks unanimity in belief, those who don’t subscribe to its ideals will unite and oppress the others.

If this was true, their would be mass genocide at this moment, equivalent to that of Hitler and Stalin. People have morals, well some of us.


People will naturally help each other out, even if it is just family or friend groups. Even humans out for self gain will work in teams as it would be mutually benificial.

This is correct. Anarchism is based on cooperation on individuals within a community, then communities cooperating with other communities and so on... for mutual economic, political and social benefit.


t's unfortunate, but there are those who can't handle or know how to behave in a “direct democracy”

What's hard to handle, the fact that you have freedom, ability to control your life?


You can't deny the fact that some would refuse to "play by the rules".

What rules? Anarchism simply encourages the individual to develop to his/her's upmost, without external interference from hierarchal institutions.


I should be a little more specific; I don't think Anarchy will work globally! It will at a smaller scale though.

Throughtout this century, Wars have been fought for one idea, Freedom (bullshit). This was only superficial but you got the general message from what propaganda (non-racist or religious) was trying to inspire. If say the Nation state of the US archieved Anarchism, this would inspire others to revolt.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 03:57 AM
I don't believe Anarchy will ever work.

OH? Then how do you explain this...? (http://www.anarchist-action.org/sections/anarchism/anarchistfaq/secA5.html)



...and people will naturally kill each other.

Which hasn't happened, unless you're talking about fighting the opposing capitalist forces, which has happened in every socialist revolution.



If you have an anarchy that lacks unanimity in belief, those who don’t subscribe to its ideals will unite and oppress the others.

After ridding of the old capitalist rule, there will be nothing to stop anyone from participating in the direct democratic process -- even if those people who are capitalist. One must remember that anarchism can only come from majority support of the people. Where anarchism has worked, the majority of people have accepted the basic anarchist principles, which includes direct democracy.



As this group grows more powerful, you will have history repeating itself from communities (towns/cities) to city states to kingdoms to empires with everything that comes with this expansion, i.e. war, racism, destruction...

See above.

[ONE]

Sorry, I haven't had a chance to read the article yet...

I should be a little more specific; I don't think Anarchy will work globally! It will at a smaller scale though.

You can't deny the fact that some would refuse to "play by the rules". You can't force every one in the world to accept your ideals. They could be wrong, misguided, morons, whatever, the point is not everyone will accept Anarchism. If this segment of the population exists, then re-read the scenario I suggested.

It's unfortunate, but there are those who can't handle or know how to behave in a “direct democracy”

[Valkyrie]

I 100% agree with Truthaddict (?) when he says that a leader will not relinguish power. I don't believe they would for one second--- that's why current communism is as far from Marxism as it can possibly get. Isn't the end (withering away from the state) much more important than the means of getting there?

Anyway... Two events have reconfirmed that I am on the right path with anarchy and those comrades who are with me: 9/11 and The great Black-out of 2003. In both instances The State was basically down. On 9/11 - the President and his cabinet were cowering in some undisclosed underground bunker, not to be heard from for days... and during the Great Black-out, Wall Street was in animated suspension, thus Capitalism was virtually Dead during that time and The State and Pigs were as usual --- useless.

Still, what I observed in both events was that people who would never generally even talk to each other otherwise, banded together and cooperatively helped others out. There was little to no looting, murders, crime or anything that has been predicted in a moment of anarchy.

Of course, when things went back to the norm and The State retook it's throne and utilities were restored.. the people went back to their status quo of continuing to hoarde things again.

However, these two crucial events proved to me two things:

1) If Anarchy can work for a minimum amount of time, than it can also work at the sustained Maximum amount of time, given that The People and not The State is relied on.

And,

2) The State is THE impedence that prevents people from communicating and cooperating together.

[ONE]

Why does everyone here have a short fuse? Seems like no one has an open mind. Why do you guys take everything as a personal attack??? I’m only trying to express my opinion and participate in what I hope would be an intellectual conversation. Is it the age???



Go live in your statist 'socialistic' society, and I'll live in harmony with those around me and the earth.
The state redarts the mind, hindering all individuals to develop to their full interllectual ability. It's not "Freedom" when you have a party in power to govern you.


What’s a statist? How about redarts?

“hindering all individuals to develop to their full interllectual ability”

Really? How do you mean? can you please elaborate?




If their isn't unanimity at all, the revolution wouldn't of even happened.


Think about this one for a second……..heck take a few minutes…. So there was(is) unanimity???.................. Then who did(will) you revolt against??? If there is Unanimity, no one will fight! If you revolted against someone and had to kill others to achieve Anarchy, then obviously there was no unity – (between everyone worldwide and not just the anarchist crowd.) There will ALWAYS be those who will be against Anarchy for whatever reason…



If this was true, their would be mass genocide at this moment, equivalent to that of Hitler and Stalin. People have morals, well some of us.


What are you talking about???

About morals; Yes, I agree… but when you say, “some of us have morals” this means that some don’t, right? Well, it is those people that will spoil this unanimity, and create problems and eventually destroy the system.



What's hard to handle, the fact that you have freedom, ability to control your life?


The problem is some (those with no morals discussed above and/or megalomaniacs and an assortment of other “bad guys”) would want to control other people’s lives. It’s those people that will form the new governments and become the new oppressors.



What rules? Anarchism simply encourages the individual to develop to his/her's upmost, without external interference from hierarchal institutions.


I did say "play by the rules", but these rules I was talking about are the “no rules”, that’s why I put it in quotes!… Think a little before you post…



Just a word of advice, never insult others, especially at first correspondence, because if you make a fool of yourself (which you did), people will lose respect for you (but I won't)!



By the way, you should say “Wouldn’t have” rather than “wouldn't of” – Please don’t take my last comment as an insult, it’s only meant to be constructive.


So what do you say we start fresh again?

Ok? No hard feelings? :)

[ONE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 05:58 AM
...

However, these two crucial events proved to me two things:

1) If Anarchy can work for a minimum amount of time, than it can also work at the sustained Maximum amount of time, given that The People and not The State is relied on.

And,

2) The State is THE impedence that prevents people from communicating and cooperating together.
- The blackout did not last enough for people to get comfortable with committing crime. Furthermore, the cops were out in force and criminals noticed this. The power was out, not the government!

- What works for a "minimum" amount of time won't necessarily work for a "maximum" amount of time! Numerous scientific tests have shown this. Otherwise, we should have a lot more drugs (medicinal) and heck of a lot more technological devices.

- Yes, I agree, some people were nicer than usual, but others were ruder than usual. It goes down to the difference in personalities and how people were raised.

- The state does NOT prevent people from talking to each other, it's the selfishness, lack of social values, or concern about other human beings that does.

[crazy comie]

i was talkin about a transition period spesifficly to teach pepole how to act in an anarchist society.

[MiNdGaMe]

What�s a statist? How about redarts?

Statism is the state/government etc... a hierarchical institution.

Anarchists believe that the state and other hierarchical instiitutions like it, hinders an individuals ability to develop to their interllectual upmost. Whenever the state has had its least influence, Culture has flourished.

As for unanimity, in a Revolution their are those fighting for it those against it called Counter-revolutionaries (mainly Fascists, Capitalists, other persons still trying to cling to the old ways for their benefit, no doubt). A revolution is not always gun and barricades as it once were. It would be of today, the seizing of factories and the general strike. A general strike is very unsuccessful without the full support of all labour, so therefore unanimity.

When I'm talking about those without morals, i'm talking about Stalin, Hitler and such persons with little disregard for his/shes fellow human/animal and planet. Capitalists, Polluters, Fascists etc...

Its hard to start a government without people to govern or that would allow you to govern them.

[crazy comie]

The state dosn't have to be opressive if it is truly controld by the mass like a true Marxist state would be.

[MiNdGaMe]

Crazy Commie are you talking about Lennism or some other prefixed variation of Marxism. Because if I remember correctly Marx didn't advocate statism, he did however advocated that it would take transitional steps in order to archieve a "workers utopia".

A state is based on hiearchy, their fore it has a majority at the bottom and a minority at the top, subordinating those at the bottom, which is false social and political equality. And as we all know in the example of the USSR the party was very well looked after compared to that of the general population.

[ONE]

Anarchists believe that the state and other hierarchical instiitutions like it, hinders an individuals ability to develop to their interllectual upmost. Whenever the state has had its least influence, Culture has flourished


Can you please give me an example?

Because from what I know, if you look back at history, culture and society flourished with the advent of sedentary life, cultivation and formation of cities. This allowed for the invention of numerous things including writing, astronomy, medicine, mathematics, etc... Unfortunately, war and the lust for power came with it as well. So from historical evidence, culture, society flourished as people started living in towns, cities and kingdoms. In addition, the founding of civilization itself came with the formation of cities (with a government)



As for unanimity, in a Revolution their are those fighting for it those against it called Counter-revolutionaries
...
A general strike is very unsuccessful without the full support of all labour, so therefore unanimity.


Do you think that after the revolution, whether violent or not, there will no longer be counter-revolutionaries? Do you think everyone can, or will be converted to Anarchism?

My definition of unanimity is everyone in the world united in their belief of Anarchy... this does not exist; therefore, there is no unanimity in belief.




Its hard to start a government without people to govern or that would allow you to govern them.


True, this is a good point!

However, this won't happen suddenly. Consider the scenario I gave earlier.. I'll re-state it with more details:

This group of counter revolutionaries, immoral greedy people, etc who do not accept the ideals of anarchy and refuse to live in such a system would desire to live away from anarchists. Now these people will locate each other and move out to establish their own town (would this be illegal in an anarchist society?). This town will obviously be different from other Anarchist towns. As more non-anarchists hear about this, they will migrate to that town, call it NAD (non-anarchists' Den :P ).

As more people move into NAD, it will grow in to a city, which will have a different structure than that of an Anarchist city (obviously). This city, packed with people who dislike Anarchy, and pressured by the demands to find more arable land and natural resources due to an increased population and shrinking land area, will, in addition to simple lust for power, form an organized, well equipped and professionally trained army and take over the Anarchist's lands nearby. This compels me to ask a question: would anarchists have an organized army knowing that such an establishment is hierarchical, and needs to be so for maximum efficiency? Would it be a professional army?
Anyway, NAD's very professional, organized and hierarchical army will slowly take over more and more land... Elsewhere on earth, there would be other "NAD"s that would all be doing the same thing. NADs will grow in to bigger cities, will become city states, then empires; these NADs will eventually even fight each other for power, control and dominance over natural resources and land. Even religion can be thrown in to the mix... Compare this to history statring from the foundation of towns and cities… History will repeat itself...

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 03:50 PM
This group of counter revolutionaries, immoral greedy people, etc who do not accept the ideals of anarchy and refuse to live in such a system would desire to live away from anarchists. Now these people will locate each other and move out to establish their own town (would this be illegal in an anarchist society?). This town will obviously be different from other Anarchist towns. As more non-anarchists hear about this, they will migrate to that town, call it NAD (non-anarchists' Den :P ).

As more people move into NAD, it will grow in to a city, which will have a different structure than that of an Anarchist city (obviously). This city, packed with people who dislike Anarchy, and pressured by the demands to find more arable land and natural resources due to an increased population and shrinking land area, will, in addition to simple lust for power, form an organized, well equipped and professionally trained army and take over the Anarchist's lands nearby. This compels me to ask a question: would anarchists have an organized army knowing that such an establishment is hierarchical, and needs to be so for maximum efficiency? Would it be a professional army?
Anyway, NAD's very professional, organized and hierarchical army will slowly take over more and more land... Elsewhere on earth, there would be other "NAD"s that would all be doing the same thing. NADs will grow in to bigger cities, will become city states, then empires; these NADs will eventually even fight each other for power, control and dominance over natural resources and land. Even religion can be thrown in to the mix... Compare this to history statring from the foundation of towns and cities… History will repeat itself...
Anarchists should have an army, I think. It shouldnt be a huge professional and powerful army with the latest technology, but a group of armed people that can be trusted, and that are ready to act.

In an anarchist "country", all the people should be anarchists or at least leftists. Then we can create some kind of ghetto for the opposition. It sounds cruel but it is that, having to kill them or them killing us.

At the start we should use the state's power to stop them though.

I believe in Anarchism.

[crazy comie]

the hole world would be one state acording to marx and it would be controlled by a dicktatorship of the prolitarian in other words democracy.
if marx didn't belive in one state then how come he said "Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly". "Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. "
Marxism would be Anarchy if we belived in no state in the transition period .

[ONE]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 22 2003, 05:08 AM
Anarchists should have an army, I think. It shouldnt be a huge professional and powerful army with the latest technology, but a group of armed people that can be trusted, and that are ready to act.

In an anarchist "country", all the people should be anarchists or at least leftists. Then we can create some kind of ghetto for the opposition. It sounds cruel but it is that, having to kill them or them killing us.

At the start we should use the state's power to stop them though.

I believe in Anarchism.
But I don't think a small amateur army will be able to defeat a bigger, more powerful and better equipped professional army!



In an anarchist "country", all the people should be anarchists or at least leftists. Then we can create some kind of ghetto for the opposition. It sounds cruel but it is that, having to kill them or them killing us."


In my scenario, this will fix the problem. But It's cruel and barbaric. Still though:

- How would you identify these people?
- What if some are wrongfully accused?
- Will they have a chance to defend themselves?
- Would there be courts in an Anarchist system?

Other questions:

- Would there be any regulations?
- In case of conflict between two individuals, how would it be resolved?
- If someone committed murder, will he/she be punished? If so, by whom?

I think I had more, but I guess this is enough for now :P

[Valkyrie]

How about..... the transitional period before Anarchy is right now...... during the struggle of the revolutionary process. Isn't it though? or else shouldn't it be?


One, your reply to my post: The State does impede communication and cooperation. Who continues to babysit their little brother once the parent's get home?
The rest of your reply all i can say is that your glass is half-empty, whereas mine is always half-full.

I KNOW it can work.

[ONE]

But how does the state impede communication and cooperation??? Can you give me more details? People have claimed this, but no one has backed it up yet!

As for:



The rest of your reply all i can say is that your glass is half-empty, whereas mine is always half-full.


It might be the case for my first point (not enough time for criminals)

However, for your theory of what works for a min time does work for max time; I only stated a fact to counter that argument! What you said is not necessarily true!

The third point I addressed came from experiences that I had; so it's not a case of pessimism but experience and general knowledge of psychology.

As for my last point, my glass IS half full - but when looking at the state! Glass half full/half empty is only a matter of perception. The glass was half full for both of us!

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 02:59 PM
But I don't think a small amateur army will be able to defeat a bigger, more powerful and better equipped professional army!
Well, that army should do some training so it wont be so amateur, the equipment is going to be a problem.


In my scenario, this will fix the problem. But It's cruel and barbaric. Still though:

- How would you identify these people?
- What if some are wrongfully accused?
- Will they have a chance to defend themselves?
- Would there be courts in an Anarchist system?

- That's going to be hard.
- Accused of what? They can leave anarchist organizations anytime they want.
- Yes they will
- I think people should pick up punishments. The creation of courts and such things will be decided by the communes. If they create courts, they should pick the people that will make decisions.


Other questions:

- Would there be any regulations?
- In case of conflict between two individuals, how would it be resolved?
- If someone committed murder, will he/she be punished? If so, by whom?

I think I had more, but I guess this is enough for now :P

- What do you mean by regulations?
- If they dont get to an agreement they could just ask a 3rd part to moderate and give ideas to help sorting out the conflict.
- By the people, or the courts (if they exist). The punishment should be a rehabilitation and maybe making them do the dirtiest jobs. If the murderer is a serial killer or something like that, isolation would help, because there arent many chances for them to be good for the society.

[Valkyrie]

haha - One. Well... see... if we put our halves together we'll have a whole full glass. I am all for Marx's economic theory and his withering away of the State.... So, maybe you can be for a world that gives everyone the UTMOST life-affirming freedom as well as food to eat.

I am sure you would not be so oppossed to anarchism if you could relate it to something positive. There are many pluses to a decentralized communist system.

The State impedes people from communicating and cooperating to the fullest human extent by having them rely on them for their basic existence and freedoms and thus turning them into abiding, helpless, and divided sheep.

I'd like to ask ---- how much autonomy would smaller regional areas have in the system you envision with leader?

I know that the theory of a decentralized system ALL the benefits of communism would be extended outward in the same respect, however, each regional area would be able to contend with their particular and unique needs in a much better, faster and efficient manner.

Will the centralized leader really give a shit that the town with a population of 800 has dirty drinking water or dangerous pot-holes on the street? maybe so.. but, how fast will he see it fixed or allot the resources for those things- with all the major important things he has to do, like keep production going and the food rolling in? Or any and all the myriad of little minor things that are very important to a community of people? These things are much better served at a decentralized grassroot level. Communism is much better at a grassroots level. A bunch of little communisms that equal one whole communism all over the entire world. In fact, it has a much greater chance of succeeding once people stop being the nameless, empty, cog in the macrocosmic wheel and actually have a voice and some input in the contribution to society. Hey, we're only here once!

I think something like the original idea of the Bolivarian Circles, the neighborhood and civic associations, would be excellent to incorporate in an anarcho-communist society! It can work!!!!! YES! YES! YES!

[Valkyrie]

By the way, I have to say I like you One, as you're willing to discuss this and raise some questions. Very good!

I think we've all been in your place once... most if not all anarchists although anarchist by nature, have come to practical Anarchy by way of Conventional Communism --- until we realized that Anarchy has laid some very precise and logical theoretical ground.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html


http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...ives/index.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/index.html)

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 06:12 AM
Why does everyone here have a short fuse?
Possibly because you are repeating bourgeois propaganda about anarchy. Your position isn't even a Marxist critique of anarchism, it's just the standard claptrap the media, schools, etc. put out. Anarchists have written volumes on the things you have brought up, you ought to read some of them. A good starting point is the anarchist FAQ and the writings on Anarchy Archives, which others have posted links to here.


But I don't think a small amateur army will be able to defeat a bigger, more powerful and better equipped professional army!

There are many examples of this happening successfully, the key is to have the support of the local population. I'm in favor of arming the population, which makes it very difficult for counter-revolutionary armies to suceed. The most famous example of an anarchist militia system was the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of the Ukraine, which was organized by anarchists during the 1918-1921 Ukrainian Revolution. It suceeded in defeated the Germans, the Austrians, Ukrainian Nationalists and two counter-revolutionary White armies. So we know it is possible for anarchist militias to use guerilla warfare against enemy armies, even if it may not be a perfect solution. Unfortunetly, the Bolsheviks invaded and used their immensely greater rescources to suppress the revolution and impose their party dictatorship. Militia systems can work, although they aren't invulnerable.

[elijahcraig]

What is the difference between Makhno's army being a vanguard for revolution under the banner of anarchism, being disciplined harshly as Makhno would have enemies killed like any military radical would...and the vanguard of the party under the banner of communism? There is none as far as I can tell. You support a vanguard with a different name.

[Morpheus]

Uh, there's a humungeous difference. First, the Makhnovists were not a vangaurd in Lenin's sense because they weren't lead by the intellectuals, they did not organize along the lines of democratic centralism and they did not establish a state. The Makhnovists did not pass decrees or boss the villagers around like the Bolshevik state. Peasants (and workers) organized their own communities free of any hierarchical power, based on village assemblies and free soviets. The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, established a state that bossed everyone around, implemented censorship and suppressed all opposition. It exploited the peasants (through grain requisitions) and the workers (through central planning). In Anarchist Ukraine opposition groups weren't shot, nor were opposition newspapers censored like in Russia. Makhno's army didn't wage the revolution - the peasants (and workers) did. They initiated the revolution well before the militias were even formed. The militias were formed simply to destroy the counter-revolutionary armies, that is all they were to do. When entering villages militia units would often post signs that read:

"This army does not serve any political party, any power, any dictatorship. On the contrary, it seeks to free the region of all political power, of all dictatorship. It strives to protect the freedom of action, the free life of the workers against all exploitation and domination. The Makhno Army does not therefore represent any authority. It will not subject anyone to any obligation whatsoever."

Or other similar things. And they generally followed through on that.

Discipline in the Makhnovists was quite different from in the Red Army. The Makhnovista was voluntary, whereas the Red Army used conscription heavily. The Makhnovista maintained the system of soldier's councils that sprang up at the start of the revolution - the Red Army implemented a traditional military hierarchy, with privledges for the officers, etc. Anyone in the Ukraine could take up arms against the class enemy, whereas the "Soviet" State attempted to monopolize violence.

Makhno did not have enemies killed as Lenin did. Lenin suppressed all groups opposed to his rule - including not on the right but also the Mensheviks, the left SRs, the right SRs and the Anarchists. Even Tolstoyan pacifists, who literally wouldn't hurt a fly, were not spared from the terror. Makhno didn't blindly suppress everyone he didn't like. Force was used just against those groups actively attempting to violently impose a state on the region - the whites, pogromists, imperialists and later Bolsheviks. There were many non-anarchist newspapers which were freely published in liberated areas. Makhno didn't attempt to impose his authority on the population like the Bolsheviks did, but let the peasants & workers manage their own affairs.

There is a huge difference between decentralized democratic militias like the Makhnovista and the vanguardist party dictatorship advocated by Leninists. To claim they are the same either shows ignorance or dishonesty. If they were the same Lenin would not have needed to suppress the anarchists as he did.

[elijahcraig]

Uh, there's a humungeous difference. First, the Makhnovists were not a vangaurd in Lenin's sense because they weren't lead by the intellectuals, they did not organize along the lines of democratic centralism and they did not establish a state.

They did establish territory. Democratic centralism? Makhno shot anyone in the head he thought was against the revolution, that sounds fairly similar. Or is it just Makhno as leader, and no democracy at all?


The Makhnovists did not pass decrees or boss the villagers around like the Bolshevik state. Peasants (and workers) organized their own communities free of any hierarchical power, based on village assemblies and free soviets.

Makhnovista? Naming small conquered places after yourself? Nice. Bossing the villagers around? If you are referring to the Kulaks, I care not. Shoot them all.


The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, established a state that bossed everyone around, implemented censorship and suppressed all opposition. It exploited the peasants (through grain requisitions) and the workers (through central planning).

The workers had workers' councils and small trade unions. The Kulaks were hoarding grain and fighting with the white army, they were enemies. I wonder what you think "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "suppression of counter-revolutionaries" means? Anarchists are just that: counter-revolutionary.

Central planning? Only the delusional Anarchists insult centralization.


In Anarchist Ukraine opposition groups weren't shot, nor were opposition newspapers censored like in Russia. Makhno's army didn't wage the revolution - the peasants (and workers) did. They initiated the revolution well before the militias were even formed. The militias were formed simply to destroy the counter-revolutionary armies, that is all they were to do. When entering villages militia units would often post signs that read:

"This army does not serve any political party, any power, any dictatorship. On the contrary, it seeks to free the region of all political power, of all dictatorship. It strives to protect the freedom of action, the free life of the workers against all exploitation and domination. The Makhno Army does not therefore represent any authority. It will not subject anyone to any obligation whatsoever."

I'd call shooting "counter-revolutionaries" in the forehead "authority". Nice try though.


Discipline in the Makhnovists was quite different from in the Red Army. The Makhnovista was voluntary, whereas the Red Army used conscription heavily. The Makhnovista maintained the system of soldier's councils that sprang up at the start of the revolution - the Red Army implemented a traditional military hierarchy, with privledges for the officers, etc. Anyone in the Ukraine could take up arms against the class enemy, whereas the "Soviet" State attempted to monopolize violence.

Yes they did, rightly so. The Red Army also wanted volunteers, but when the people don't volunteer to fight imperialists, conscription comes next. It's either that, or lose the revolution. All of the nonsense about "hierarchy" is the typical useless babble of Anarchists, it has no bearing on the situation. Although it is a fact that Makhno was not anywhere near as anti-authority as you say. "Makhno Army". hahha, right...no leadership there.



Makhno did not have enemies killed as Lenin did. Lenin suppressed all groups opposed to his rule - including not on the right but also the Mensheviks, the left SRs, the right SRs and the Anarchists.

If you think I care one bit for these revisionist idealists, you must be joking.


Even Tolstoyan pacifists, who literally wouldn't hurt a fly, were not spared from the terror.

You're going to have to provide some proof of this, Lenin wrote a few eulogies for Leo himself.


Makhno didn't blindly suppress everyone he didn't like. Force was used just against those groups actively attempting to violently impose a state on the region - the whites, pogromists, imperialists and later Bolsheviks.

Ah, the uneducated ramblings of an Anarchist. Suppress? Bolsheviks? Once again, what do you think "suppress counter-revolutionaries (ie anyone against the party) means"?


There were many non-anarchist newspapers which were freely published in liberated areas. Makhno didn't attempt to impose his authority on the population like the Bolsheviks did, but let the peasants & workers manage their own affairs.

"All existing conditions" means ALL existing conditions: cultural, political, etc etc etc. This cannot be done without control over the press.


There is a huge difference between decentralized democratic militias like the Makhnovista and the vanguardist party dictatorship advocated by Leninists. To claim they are the same either shows ignorance or dishonesty. If they were the same Lenin would not have needed to suppress the anarchists as he did.

I do not believe they were the same. I think Anarchists are hypocrites, why? They shout "non-hierarchal" while Makhno murders his "counter-revolutionary" officers. "Democratic militias"? Right. :lol:

[Morpheus]

elijahcraig,

Makhno did not shoot anyone he thought was against the revolution, you are making things up again. Democratic centralism is a specific form of hierarchical organizing advocated by Lenin for his vangaurd party. Non-leninists, including anarchists, generally do not use it and neither did the Makhnovista. The territory "established" by the Makhnovista was simply the areas where the invading armies had been driven out, the Makhnovists did not establish themselves as authorities over the general population.

The RIAU/Makhnovista did not name areas after themselves. They did name their army after one of the main organizer, Nestor Makno. I don't approve of this, but it's mostly symbolic. It's hypocritical for a MARXist to complain about naming movements after people. And the Makhnovists didn't conquer territory, they simply destroyed counter-revolutionary armies and allowed ordinary people to control their own affairs, organizing their own communities without power from above.

The Bolshevik state bossed just about everyone around, Kulak or otherwise. That's what a state does. In practice a "Kulak" was just a peasant who wasn't sufficiently obediant - their wealth was irrelevant. The workers' councils and trade unions were not controlled by the workers, they were controlled by the party and used by the party to control the workers. In Spring 1918 (before the civil war started) the Bolsheviks lost the Soviet elections, so they dissolved any soviet which voted the wrong way. After that the workers councils/soviets were mere puppets of the party. They took over the trade unions soon after. The workers weren't running things, the central committee was.

The use of force (even lethal force) in self-defense, to repel someone who is attempting to impose their authority on you, is not authority. It is the opposite. Rebelling against authority and using force to prevent others from forcing you to do their bidding isn't authority. This is precisely what the RIAU was doing. Your position fails to consider revolution from the working class's point of view.

The majority of peasants and workers were opposed to both the Bolsheviks & the Whites. They didn't volunteer in large numbers for either army because it they were armies that defended an exploiting class. The RIAU, on the other hand, was based on volunteers and was basically an extension of peasant/worker self-organization. Many people drafted into red or white armies deserted and formed their own green partisan bands that fought against both the Reds and the Whites, calling for "Soviets without Communists."

My source for the suppression of Tolstoyan Pacifists is "The Guillotine at Work" by GP Maximoff. It is based solely on sources from the radical left so you can't dismiss it as "bourgoeis propaganda."

You use the term "counter-revolutionary" the same way Ashcroft uses the term "terrorist" - anyone who opposes you is a "counter-revolutionary." A counter-revolutionary is someone who advocates a return to the same system that existed prior to the revolution, or something similar to it. The left-SRs and anarchists were NOT counter-revolutionaries. However, thank you for admitting that you will suppress anyone who opposes your party - such a position is called totalitarianism. Leninism is left-wing fascism. If you ever got into power most people on this board would be jailed or shot.

[elijahcraig]

elijahcraig,

Makhno did not shoot anyone he thought was against the revolution, you are making things up again. Democratic centralism is a specific form of hierarchical organizing advocated by Lenin for his vangaurd party. Non-leninists, including anarchists, generally do not use it and neither did the Makhnovista. The territory "established" by the Makhnovista was simply the areas where the invading armies had been driven out, the Makhnovists did not establish themselves as authorities over the general population.

Trotsky says different, I would believe a Bolshevik Military leader over a counter-revolutionary any day.

Democratic Centralism? It is furious debate, and acting out the majority decision. That is democracy.


The RIAU/Makhnovista did not name areas after themselves. They did name their army after one of the main organizer, Nestor Makno. I don't approve of this, but it's mostly symbolic. It's hypocritical for a MARXist to complain about naming movements after people. And the Makhnovists didn't conquer territory, they simply destroyed counter-revolutionary armies and allowed ordinary people to control their own affairs, organizing their own communities without power from above.

When did I say I disaprove of this? I am saying you are hypocritical to puke ideals of "anti-hero worship", yet you have your hero naming his army after himself. Pathetic.

We obviously rely on different sources...you on your pro-Makhno, mine on my pro-Bolshevik. It is most likely something of a mix.


The Bolshevik state bossed just about everyone around, Kulak or otherwise. That's what a state does. In practice a "Kulak" was just a peasant who wasn't sufficiently obediant - their wealth was irrelevant. The workers' councils and trade unions were not controlled by the workers, they were controlled by the party and used by the party to control the workers. In Spring 1918 (before the civil war started) the Bolsheviks lost the Soviet elections, so they dissolved any soviet which voted the wrong way. After that the workers councils/soviets were mere puppets of the party. They took over the trade unions soon after. The workers weren't running things, the central committee was.

The votes from certain parts of the country were not counted. The parties they railed against were in fact counter-revolutionary.

The rest is foundationless Anarchist drivel. Let's have some proof. A Kulak is a rich peasent. Don't pull your nonsense here, they were fighting with the White Army. They deserved death.


The use of force (even lethal force) in self-defense, to repel someone who is attempting to impose their authority on you, is not authority. It is the opposite. Rebelling against authority and using force to prevent others from forcing you to do their bidding isn't authority. This is precisely what the RIAU was doing. Your position fails to consider revolution from the working class's point of view.

Makhno shooting people in the head for disobedience is authority.


The majority of peasants and workers were opposed to both the Bolsheviks & the Whites. They didn't volunteer in large numbers for either army because it they were armies that defended an exploiting class. The RIAU, on the other hand, was based on volunteers and was basically an extension of peasant/worker self-organization. Many people drafted into red or white armies deserted and formed their own green partisan bands that fought against both the Reds and the Whites, calling for "Soviets without Communists."

More whining. :lol:



My source for the suppression of Tolstoyan Pacifists is "The Guillotine at Work" by GP Maximoff. It is based solely on sources from the radical left so you can't dismiss it as "bourgoeis propaganda."

I haven't read it, so I can't discuss it, though I can't say I will call it valid either for that reason.


You use the term "counter-revolutionary" the same way Ashcroft uses the term "terrorist" - anyone who opposes you is a "counter-revolutionary." A counter-revolutionary is someone who advocates a return to the same system that existed prior to the revolution, or something similar to it. The left-SRs and anarchists were NOT counter-revolutionaries. However, thank you for admitting that you will suppress anyone who opposes your party - such a position is called totalitarianism. Leninism is left-wing fascism. If you ever got into power most people on this board would be jailed or shot.

Anarchists and Left-SRs are idealists, thus counter-revolutionaries. Anyone who opposes the party is counter-revolutionary, and enemies of the people.

The Leninism-fascism analysis is just nonsense. The drivel pacifists puke up after sucking their masters cock.

[ONE]

Possibly because you are repeating bourgeois propaganda about anarchy. Your position isn't even a Marxist critique of anarchism, it's just the standard claptrap the media, schools, etc. put out




I am sure you would not be so oppossed to anarchism if you could relate it to something positive


The flawed assumption here is that I am inherently against Anarchy. I would like to clear this up; I am seeking a realistic system that works best for the good of humanity. I believe everyone here is searching for this same thing. Anarchy is very admirable and seeks out exactly what I personally believe in, ie equality for all in a society that believes in a mutual respect, etc... (So, Paris, I don't associate Anarchism with something negative!) However, realistically, I don't believe it (Anarchy) would work at a global scale.

I'm not claiming to be an expert on Anarchism and don't profess to have read many books on the subject. My criticism is directed at the basic principles of anarchy, mainly the concept of having a successful society that is stateless and having no rules.

The questions I’ve asked in one of my posts were aimed at extracting some thoughts about the realities of any society. My point is that you will always have some conflict in the absence of rules. Can you drive on the left of the road? What if the majority drives on the right? What if someone who drives on the left gets in to an accident, who's right? How about murder, is that allowed in a society with no rules (please correct me if I have misunderstood anarchy's definition of "rules")? How would murder be dealt with? If you say that people shouldn't kill each other, then right there, you have a rule. This violates one of the principles of anarchism. How about driving? Should people drive on the right or left? Isn't this a rule?

As the first towns and cities started forming, so did rules. This was done for a reason and out of necessity, otherwise, how would you solve even the most minor of disputes?

SOME Rules are important. Too many restrictions by the state are undesirable and unwelcome. I believe that no one extreme system is the answer, but rather a combination or blend of systems – the outcome might not be the absolute best system, but the best REALISTIC one. You have to work towards the best realistic alternative.




By the way, I have to say I like you One, as you're willing to discuss this and raise some questions. Very good!


Thank you Paris.. of course I'm willing to discuss this issue and various other ones, otherwise, what is the point of engaging in a pigheaded uncivilized exchange of posts? If I'm proven wrong in a convincing and logical way, then I will have no choice but to change my views! I'm not discussing various issues and engaging in debates for senseless egotistical reasons. I hope others would look at whatever issue at hand in an objective and logical manner as well.

... By the way, thanks for the links, I've bookmarked them!

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 02:39 AM
My point is that you will always have some conflict in the absence of rules. Can you drive on the left of the road? What if the majority drives on the right? What if someone who drives on the left gets in to an accident, who's right? How about murder, is that allowed in a society with no rules (please correct me if I have misunderstood anarchy's definition of "rules")? How would murder be dealt with? If you say that people shouldn't kill each other, then right there, you have a rule. This violates one of the principles of anarchism. How about driving? Should people drive on the right or left? Isn't this a rule?

As the first towns and cities started forming, so did rules. This was done for a reason and out of necessity, otherwise, how would you solve even the most minor of disputes?

SOME Rules are important. Too many restrictions by the state are undesirable and unwelcome. I believe that no one extreme system is the answer, but rather a combination or blend of systems – the outcome might not be the absolute best system, but the best REALISTIC one. You have to work towards the best realistic alternative.
Rules should exist but not in the burocratic type of thing we have now, with laws approved by the politicians. But I wont talk about it, that's up to the assemblies decisions.

People should decide in things like murders and the driving side, that's democracy.

Just my opinion.

[ONE]

Rules should exist...with laws approved by the politicians.


... but doesn't this go against one of the main principles of Anarchy?

And if there are rules and laws, wouldn't bureaucracy and hierarchy follow?

[Valkyrie]

No. Rules don't go against the basic principles of anarchy.

That a leader, one leader and a removed elite such as representatives and Congress or parliaments who make the rules does.

Rules- to be considered and decided by The People.

[crazy comie]

AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID ANARCHY WOULD TURN BACK INTO CAPITALISM IF THERE WAS NO PRIOR EDUCATION OF THE MASSES WICH COULD TEACH PEPOLE HOW TO ACCET AND COOPERATE WITHOUT EXPLOITATION.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 26 2003, 11:07 PM
AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID ANARCHY WOULD TURN BACK INTO CAPITALISM IF THERE WAS NO PRIOR EDUCATION OF THE MASSES WICH COULD TEACH PEPOLE HOW TO ACCET AND COOPERATE WITHOUT EXPLOITATION.
Anarchism wouldn't be implemented in the first place then, wouldn't it?

Anarchism in practice so far, has proved that anarchism will not go back to capitalism, unless the working class are defeated through military combat, of course.

[crazy comie]

what practise

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 19 2003, 02:09 PM
how do pepole think anarchy would work strate a way. surely it needs socialism as in a transition stage first for education of the mass then anarchy.
It could not work straight-away. Socialism is the transition stage for communism, it is necessary and preferable to capitalism.

It is my belief that complete homogenisation of beliefs and desires needs to be achieved for a stateless society. State control becomes internalised and this is how the state can dissappear.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 06:03 AM
... but doesn't this go against one of the main principles of Anarchy?

And if there are rules and laws, wouldn't bureaucracy and hierarchy follow?
No, I'm not talking about bureaucratic laws.

[crazy comie]

any way answear my question on when has anarchy been put into practise.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 28 2003, 07:00 PM
any way answear my question on when has anarchy been put into practise.
It would be good if you looked at the sticky topic in this forum - Making Sense of Anarchism: Anarchism for Dummies (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6421) - you would've found the answer you wanted.

Click here (http://www.anarchist-action.org/sections/anarchism/anarchistfaq/secA5.html) to go straight to the answer.

For further reading and more specifics: http://www.anarchist-action.org/sections/a...rchism/history/ (http://www.anarchist-action.org/sections/anarchism/history/)



It could not work straight-away. Socialism is the transition stage for communism, it is necessary and preferable to capitalism.


Obviously, this is incorrect, as modern anarchism has worked before.

[crazy comie]

when. becuse the paris commune was as much anarchist as state comunist .

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 28 2003, 07:38 PM
when. becuse the paris commune was as much anarchist as state comunist .
Did you read any of the links, or will you continue to ignore them?

I can't help you if you refuse to read them.

'State communist' is an oxymoron.

[crazy comie]

tell me when any reigon or town was ever an anarchist society for more than a year.

[Morpheus]

90% of human history was lived in Primitivist Anarchy. They are called hunter-gatherer societies. The medieval Communes & guilds had some close similarities to anarchism. The Sans-coulottes sections in the French Revolution were basically anarchistic. In more modern times there's the Spanish Revolution and the Ukraine Revolution. Follow the links that others posted earlier to read about them.

[crazy comie]

The hunter gathers were not Anarchist they often had one person incharge and the ones controlled by evrey one where as much comunist as Anarchist.I said reigon or town was ever an anarchist society for more than a year. Spain wasn't for more than a year neather Ukraine france.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 2 2003, 07:07 PM
Spain wasn't for more than a year.
:rolleyes:



The hunter gathers were not Anarchist they often had one person incharge and the ones controlled by evrey one where as much comunist as Anarchist.

It all depends on which example you are looking at though, isn't it? Can you provide an example?

I will provide an example of where this wasn't the case. With the Australian Aboriginals, there was no leader. Decision-making was done through direct democracy, and there were no written laws, and neither no crime or struggle between tribes, etc.

You can that "the ones controlled by everyone were as much communist as anarchist". You are half right. What you are referring to is 'anarcho-communism' -- the 'anarcho' part refers to the system of anarchism, and 'communism' as the economics. It is merely one type of anarchism.

'Anarcho-collectivism' and 'anarcho-primitivism' were also practiced in primitive days.

[crazy comie]

Okay i still don't think that it would work strate away in the western or eastern cultures becuse capitalism has been inbeded into the culture.

[Hatchet]

Hey,
Crazy Commie, your last argument excludes you from any form of leftism opposed to capitalist oppression. It also puts you in league with the ignorant fools who constantly spoute tripe about 'human nature' being opposed to socialism.

Hatchet

[crazy comie]

no i was talkin about strate away it would be possible with a dicktatorship of the prolitarian in a socialist stage for mass education of the population.