Stalinism versus revolution from below

[Kayser_Soso]

This talk of 'militant leadership' is elitist bollocks. The working class can organise themselves and they don't need anyone to lead them..

Written on the tombstone of every attempt to create an anarchist society.

[Palingenisis]

Written on the tombstone of every attempt to create an anarchist society.

Well lets face it...Bakunin and Makano were leaders...Much better to have an official leadership that is constrained by recognized structures than an unofficial one which isnt.

[S.Artesian]

Written on the tombstone of every attempt to create an anarchist society.

And what's written on the tombstone of the former Soviet Union? On the tombstone of Chinese "communism"? On the medical chart of declining Vietnamese "socialism"?

"Through unstinting sacrifice, their sacrifice, we led the workers forward to the restoration of capitalism."

As for you comments about "singing" being frivolous-- you simply don't know what you're talking about. Ever hear of "Amandla"?

[Kayser_Soso]

And what's written on the tombstone of the former Soviet Union? On the tombstone of Chinese "communism"? On the medical chart of declining Vietnamese "socialism"?

"Through unstinting sacrifice, their sacrifice, we led the workers forward to the restoration of capitalism."



The Bolsheviks did far more for the workers of the region, and for the world, than anarchists ever have, or ever will. When your allegedly superior alternative to capitalism can actually create a large-scale, self-sustaining society with a comparable standard of living to a developed capitalist country, the workers will consider anarchism.

[Kayser_Soso]

Well lets face it...Bakunin and Makano were leaders...Much better to have an official leadership that is constrained by recognized structures than an unofficial one which isnt.

Not just a leader in Makhno's case- a dictator really. But he was a GRASS ROOTS dictator!!

[Kayser_Soso]

Get with the times, your ideology is a joke and has fuck all to do with anything occurring in the UK at the moment.
What we are instead seeing is the adoption of anarchist methods, property destruction, assemblies, occupations, and general non-hierarhical organisation by a flourishing student movement that is now being influenced by inner city gangs.

Yup, and all failure, just like anarchist methods of the past.



So, stop with your 'the workers' rhetoric, its embarassing and bares no relationship to the times we are living in.

Yeah, silly me. Fuck the workers, anarchists know best.

[nuisance]

Yup, and all failure, just like anarchist methods of the past.
Eh...what failure is there here? What we are seeing is these methods expanding throughout the social terrain, both more confrontational and frequent.




Yeah, silly me. Fuck the workers, anarchists know best.
Yeah, cos that was implied, especially when the noted people using the methods are just anarchists...
Anyway anarchists aren't the ones who bring a libertarian society about but a self-organised working class, you fucking idiot.

[Kayser_Soso]

Eh...what failure is there here? What we are seeing is these methods expanding throughout the social terrain, both more confrontational and frequent.

Capitalism still going? Anarchists haven't been able to "smash" a single state? Looks like failure to me.






Anyway anarchists aren't the ones who bring a libertarian society about but a self-organised working class, you fucking idiot.

Yeah and most of that working class doesn't give a fuck about anarchism. So far your theories have a 100% failure rate and nothing to show for it other than some rather entertaining protests.

But you just keep thinking that your drum circles have the state shaking in its boots, and the working class ready to "self-organize."

[S.Artesian]

The Bolsheviks did far more for the workers of the region, and for the world, than anarchists ever have, or ever will. When your allegedly superior alternative to capitalism can actually create a large-scale, self-sustaining society with a comparable standard of living to a developed capitalist country, the workers will consider anarchism.


This isn't an issue of Bolshevism vs. anarchism, although if I have to choose between your Bolshevism, the "Bolshevism" of a Stalin, Molotov, Vyshinsky, Yagoda, Brezhnev, Mikoyan, and the anarchists fighting the cops in London, I'm going with the anarchists simply because I know I'll actually be fighting the cops rather than supporting the cops as your "Bolsheviks" have done so many time.

This is a question of the struggle against austerity imposed by capitalism to drive wages below subsistence levels, to transfer wealth up the social ladder, to deprive any and all save the rich from access to education, information, health care.

You let your ideological requirements get in the way of your analysis, and the need or action, which shows how absolutely unMarxist your "Bolshevism" truly is.

[nuisance]

The fact that you are using strawmen arguements instead addressing the points made highlight the inadequacies of your position.


Capitalism still going? Anarchists haven't been able to "smash" a single state? Looks like failure to me.
Are you as naive as to think that social revolution will come about in the space of the recent student riots?
Anyway, as for historical examples the state and capitalism have been made redundant for periods of time, which is much more impressive than the examples you could raise where your ideology has managed to recuperate anti-state sentiments and establish your own state capitalist iniativites. Now that's pretty embarassing coming from an alledgely anti-capitalist position.



Yeah and most of that working class doesn't give a fuck about anarchism.
Who said they did? However, that's another one of positives about anarchism, not everyone has to beable to quote Malatesta or Bakunin to bring about an 'anarchist' society.


So far your theories have a 100% failure rate and nothing to show for it other than some rather entertaining protests.
:confused:


But you just keep thinking that your drum circles have the state shaking in its boots, and the working class ready to "self-organize."
What have drum circles got to do with anything....:lol:
Your mocking of self-organisation among the class only highlights your abhorrent set of values which are inherently anti-worker.

[Sasha]

Capitalism still going? Anarchists haven't been able to "smash" a single state? Looks like failure to me.






Yeah and most of that working class doesn't give a fuck about anarchism. So far your theories have a 100% failure rate and nothing to show for it other than some rather entertaining protests.

But you just keep thinking that your drum circles have the state shaking in its boots, and the working class ready to "self-organize."

Well a lot more than the worn out motions you lot want the working-class to go through, reformist syndicalism and parliamentism only support and strengthen the capitalist system you claim to fight.

Even if you want to go back to your glorious revolution (in an time and under conditions that resemble nothing like the current) the revolutionary tactics and strengths that matterd are quite anarchist. Spontaneity, insurrectionism, wildcat strikes. You can shove that centralism, authoritarianism and other bolshevic tactics that brought nothing other than the counterrevolution up your centralized arse.

[S.Artesian]

Capitalism still going? Anarchists haven't been able to "smash" a single state? Looks like failure to me.

Capitalism restored in the fSU? Never been a bigger failure in the history of working class struggle than that, has there? An actual proletarian revolution, with the conquering of power, reversed, undone, destroyed? Good work, senor "Bolshevik."

[Kayser_Soso]

Capitalism restored in the fSU? Never been a bigger failure in the history of working class struggle than that, has there? An actual proletarian revolution, with the conquering of power, reversed, undone, destroyed? Good work, senor "Bolshevik."

There are much bigger failures, failures which didn't contribute anything to the world at all. Makhno's "Free Territory" and Anarchist Catalonia come to mind.

[Kayser_Soso]

This isn't an issue of Bolshevism vs. anarchism, although if I have to choose between your Bolshevism, the "Bolshevism" of a Stalin, Molotov, Vyshinsky, Yagoda, Brezhnev, Mikoyan, and the anarchists fighting the cops in London, I'm going with the anarchists simply because I know I'll actually be fighting the cops rather than supporting the cops as your "Bolsheviks" have done so many time.

.

What you are essentially "choosing" is capitalism.

[Sasha]

There are much bigger failures, failures which didn't contribute anything to the world at all. Makhno's "Free Territory" and Anarchist Catalonia come to mind.

good analogy, just like in those historical situations the left side of capital would gladly stab us in the back if the workers ever became an threat to the state. It's very clear where their priorities lie in the end.
statists their alliance lies with the state, not with the people

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Yeah and most of that working class doesn't give a fuck about anarchism. So far your theories have a 100% failure rate and nothing to show for it other than some rather entertaining protests.


Most of that working class doesn't give a fuck about Leninism. So far your theories have a 100% failure rate and noting to show for it other than some rather entertaining state capitalist dictatorships.

In fact your ideology has consistently degenerated into a bureaucratic state which has failed to emancipate the working class. Your comments show how devoid your ideas are from the working class.

[Kayser_Soso]

Most of that working class doesn't give a fuck about Leninism. So far your theories have a 100% failure rate and noting to show for it other than some rather entertaining state capitalist dictatorships.

Incorrect. In most of the world, Leninist or Maoist parties, at least in the nominal sense, are far more popular than anarchist groups. Anarchist groups are far more prevalent in the West due to the uncritical acceptance of Cold War propaganda, which anarchists and Trots are forced to accept in order to mitigate their failure . That and people from privileged western countries love activism that is "fun" and "entertaining", and often have issues with their parents. Hence the appeal of anarchism.



In fact your ideology has consistently degenerated into a bureaucratic state which has failed to emancipate the working class. Your comments show how devoid your ideas are from the working class.

Keep wiping away those tears. There are concrete, historical reasons why Leninist states "degenerated" at times into bureaucracy. On the other hand, your glorious society has never existed, and can't exist, so basically you're asking us to choose between improving on a system that at least was able to sustain itself and actually threaten capitalism, or some system that has never been able to sustain itself, supposedly spontaneously brought about by the workers themselves, who have never done such a thing in history(in fact no revolution has been brought about spontaneously). What this amounts to, is choosing capitalism.

That is why it is alright to shoot anarchists as agents for capitalism. Repeat their lies, offer an "alternative" that can't possibly exist nor threaten capitalism = working for capitalism.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Incorrect. In most of the world, Leninist or Maoist parties, at least in the nominal sense, are far more popular than anarchist groups.

I thought you were referring to the UK. I wasn't referring to Maoism, which isn't synonymous with Leninism even if both ideologies value centralised control of the political sphere by a small minority. Just because they're more popular doesn't mean they aren't on the whole rejected by our class.


Anarchist groups are far more prevalent in the West due to the uncritical acceptance of Cold War propaganda, which anarchists and Trots are forced to accept in order to mitigate their failure .

That doesn't explain the fight for free soviets in Ukraine or Anarchist collectivisation in Spain. I don't uncritically accept cold war propaganda, I know Stalin didn't kill however many people the Capitalist media said he did and I know that the Soviet Union was a more economically equal society than any Capitalist society. It was still an abhorrent social order ran by a tiny minority.


That and people from privileged western countries love activism that is "fun" and "entertaining", and often have issues with their parents. Hence the appeal of anarchism.

What a load of bollocks third worldism. I guarantee to you the main bulk of the direct action, self-organisation, and rejection of the a-b march that has taken place at these demo's (may I remind you that these are tactics that Anarchists advocate) has been from working class youth who are NOT privileged and it is extremely fucking insulting for you to claim that.



Keep wiping away those tears. There are concrete, historical reasons why Leninist states "degenerated" at times into bureaucracy.

At times? No, not at times. EVERY TIME. What are these concrete, historical reasons? Lenin was a big fan of bureaucracy, it's not as if you can blame it on the rise of a bad egg within the party like Stalin.


On the other hand, your glorious society has never existed, and can't exist,

If yours has existed then I'm even more convinced of the bureaucratic, anti-working class nature of your ideology.


so basically you're asking us to choose between improving on a system that at least was able to sustain itself and actually threaten capitalism, or some system that has never been able to sustain itself, supposedly spontaneously brought about by the workers themselves, who have never done such a thing in history(in fact no revolution has been brought about spontaneously). What this amounts to, is choosing capitalism.

NO, state communism didn't SUSTAIN itself. It FAILED. It didn't emancipate the working class. We're not working in between terms, at least it was able to. As long as markets exist, as long as the working class as a whole isn't the governing body, as long as a whole class apart from the working class is making decisions then we CAN'T DESTROY CAPITALISM, never mind threaten it. We don't argue for spontaneous revolution, just a revolution that is organised from the bottom up, by our class as a whole rather than a small section of it.


That is why it is alright to shoot anarchists as agents for capitalism. Repeat their lies, offer an "alternative" that can't possibly exist nor threaten capitalism = working for capitalism.

Shoot Lenin for instigating the NEP then.

[Kayser_Soso]

I thought you were referring to the UK. I wasn't referring to Maoism, which isn't synonymous with Leninism even if both ideologies value centralised control of the political sphere by a small minority. Just because they're more popular doesn't mean they aren't on the whole rejected by our class.

By that logic the very idea of overthrowing capitalism is "rejected" by the working class and thus we should all stop complaining.




That doesn't explain the fight for free soviets in Ukraine or Anarchist collectivisation in Spain.

Total failures, both involved execution without trial, and authority.



I don't uncritically accept cold war propaganda, I know Stalin didn't kill however many people the Capitalist media said he did and I know that the Soviet Union was a more economically equal society than any Capitalist society. It was still an abhorrent social order ran by a tiny minority.

But it is still "abhorrent", instead of a more realistic and less emotional "needed a lot of improvement."




What a load of bollocks third worldism. I guarantee to you the main bulk of the direct action, self-organisation, and rejection of the a-b march that has taken place at these demo's (may I remind you that these are tactics that Anarchists advocate) has been from working class youth who are NOT privileged and it is extremely fucking insulting for you to claim that.

They are privileged relative to workers in most of the world.





At times? No, not at times. EVERY TIME. What are these concrete, historical reasons? Lenin was a big fan of bureaucracy, it's not as if you can blame it on the rise of a bad egg within the party like Stalin.

Please show me where Lenin shows his love of "bureaucracy", in his own words. Besides, the USSR accomplished far more than any of the anarchist societies you mentioned.





NO, state communism didn't SUSTAIN itself. It FAILED.

But it did more than anarchists have ever done, or will ever do. So whenever you talk about how much real-world socialism failed, understand that your side has not even accomplished that.



It didn't emancipate the working class. We're not working in between terms, at least it was able to.

Neither has anarchism.



As long as markets exist, as long as the working class as a whole isn't the governing body, as long as a whole class apart from the working class is making decisions then we CAN'T DESTROY CAPITALISM, never mind threaten it.

Nonsense. First off, Makhno apparently believed in markets when he told the railroad workers to see who wanted their services after they asked him who would pay them. This is known as the market.



We don't argue for spontaneous revolution, just a revolution that is organised from the bottom up, by our class as a whole rather than a small section of it.

Which cannot, and will not happen. Did the bourgeoisie do this? No. Do they do this now? No. In order to expand a revolution beyond one community, there must be some body which keeps the whole struggle coordinated. Workers cannot possibly run every aspect of their lives if they are deprived of the information necessary to make good decisions.




Shoot Lenin for instigating the NEP then.

Which he explained was a temporary measure. Was it perfect, in hindsight? Certainly not. But the problem is that your all or nothing philosophy is precisely what hampers real revolution. The capitalists understands that he needs to make concessions some time, and he does- and he succeeds.

The reality is that while you can smash the state and take political power, you cannot immediately do away with all forms of market, with money, with commodities, or a dozen other things which happen to be features within capitalism. The second you claim that the very existence of one or a few of these things in a given society means that socialism is automatically negated, you have thus removed any motive to fight for socialism and improve upon it. If socialism has already disappeared, then we might as well go right back to capitalism, because there's no use fighting for something that doesn't exist.

[Kayser_Soso]

Verbal warning to kayser_soso.

stop derailing this thread with offtopic sectarian shit.
post something like this again and you will be infracted

Wow, I'm sure this warning would have been issued just as quickly were I an anarchist or Trot attacking the "evils" of "bureaucratic Stalinism."

It is not sectarian to say that people who serve capitalism and the status quo can be tried as agents of capitalism, regardless of whether or not they claim to be anti-capitalist. If the end result of their propaganda shows itself to be useful to preserving the status quo, then they should have to answer for this.

[brigadista]

not going to post here in this thread any more sick of all this sectarian nonsense- elitist

[Sasha]

rspectfully disagreeing = fine,
verhermently disagreeing = fine
"you all nee to be shot" = sectarian flaming and will get you infracted, dont test me.
now i created an whole new thread for you to carry on this howler monkeys fest so please be so kind to go over there.

[Sean]

Don't suppose we could have an actual title to this thread thats a bit more descriptive? This forum is a learning resource as well as a bearpit.

[Sasha]

Sure, if you can tell me what this thread is actual about other than an sectarian shitfest. :closedeyes:

[Widerstand]

Don't suppose we could have an actual title to this thread thats a bit more descriptive? This forum is a learning resource as well as a bearpit.

I think sectarian shitfest pretty much describes it perfectly well.

Poor little authoritarians crying because their ideas failed countless times so they have to blame the ones they oppressed for not wanting to be bossed around.

[ZeroNowhere]

"The entire movement of history is therefore both the actual act of creation of communism – the birth of its empirical existence – and, for its thinking consciousness, the comprehended and known movement of its becoming; whereas the other communism, which is not yet fully developed, seeks in isolated historical forms opposed to private property a historical proof for itself, a proof drawn from what already exists, by wrenching isolated moments from their proper places in the process of development (a hobbyhorse Cabet, Villegardelle, etc., particularly like to ride) and advancing them as proofs of its historical pedigree. But all it succeeds in showing is that be far the greater part of this development contradicts its assertions and that if it did not once exist, then the very fact that it existed in the past refutes its claim to essential being [Wesen].

"It is easy to see how necessary it is for the whole revolutionary movement to find both its empirical and its theoretical basis in the movement of private property or, to be exact, of the economy."

[Thirsty Crow]

This "debate" on which failure was more useful is godawfully pathetic.
Fact: "socialism" failed, as well as traditionally conceived, marked by its relation to USSR, Leninism (should I say Stalinism?). One of the bigger failures of official Communist politics, if we brush aside that little issue of capitalist restoration, was the engagement in the Spanish Revolution. Yes, the millions of anarchist workers didn't succeed in their attempt at a transformation of society, but it is worthwile to note that they had "help" from the official CP and the Comintern, with their support for the bourgeoisie as a tactic of the Popular Front. From there on it's all downhill, one betrayal after another, and the abandonment of working class revolutionary politics culminates in the drift of the old Stalnist vanguards towards reformism or into oblivion.

But really, it is pathetic. Consider this:


Besides, the USSR accomplished far more than any of the anarchist societies you mentioned.Basically, you are trying so fucking hard to assert your opinion, without any evidence nor explicated methods and standards of evaluation, on something that is a matter of the past. It's all gone, and this accomplishments mean jack shit for people who live in Russia and other states once forming USSR, it means jack shit for people who work on the transformation of their societies nowadays.
It can only mean something if there was to be a solid historical analysis which could provide us with definite factors which lead to the restoration, both material and ideological.

But your kind of ill-conceived sectarianism (for example, you don't even know what "authority" entails in the anarchist discourse on power, proved by your idiot remark on executions without a trial) simply cannot be used as a means of such an analysis. It is an obstacle, it is useless and completely impotent.

I hope you enjoy your stay in the waste basket of history.

[Hit The North]

I've retitled the thread "Stalinism versus revolution from below" which seems to describe the two polar positions in this particular debate. :)

[Sasha]

Wow, I'm sure this warning would have been issued just as quickly were I an anarchist or Trot attacking the "evils" of "bureaucratic Stalinism."



yes it would, going of topic this way will get you an warning regardless of political color. And advocating the shooting of stalinists in the way you just did with anarchists will get you an infraction as well (thing is that unlike you stalinists not every seccond post made by anarcho's, leftcoms and trots is about shooting people, funny that)
dont get why authoritarians play the "im getting opressed!" card so quick and much. Maybe Freud can tell me...

[Stranger Than Paradise]

By that logic the very idea of overthrowing capitalism is "rejected" by the working class and thus we should all stop complaining.

I am applying the same logic you used to describe Anarchism's influence on the worldwide working class. I am merely pointing out that the same could be said of any revolutionary left ideology.


Total failures, both involved execution without trial, and authority.

There was authority, the Anarcho-Syndicalist workers were often ruthless in suppressing Capitalists and landowners. They were not total failures because in the short time workers control was in place (for which an end to was aided by the Communist party) efficiency significantly improved. Most reports from Anarchist territories cited the high morale and solidarity.



They are privileged relative to workers in most of the world.

Which means?



Please show me where Lenin shows his love of "bureaucracy", in his own words. Besides, the USSR accomplished far more than any of the anarchist societies you mentioned.


unquestioning submission to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of labour processes that are based on large - scale machine industry .... today the Revolution demands, in the interests of socialism, that the masses unquestioningly obey the single will (emphasis in original) of the leaders of the labour process"


the necessity of recognising the dictatorial authority of single individuals for the purpose of carrying out the Soviet idea



But it did more than anarchists have ever done, or will ever do. So whenever you talk about how much real-world socialism failed, understand that your side has not even accomplished that.

Maybe it did, as a state, achieve more than Anarchists ever have. It still doesn't get away from the fact that these achievements led only to a state capitalist bureaucratic rule.



Which cannot, and will not happen. Did the bourgeoisie do this? No. Do they do this now? No. In order to expand a revolution beyond one community, there must be some body which keeps the whole struggle coordinated. Workers cannot possibly run every aspect of their lives if they are deprived of the information necessary to make good decisions.

Who is arguing against a revolutionary organisation? It is the type of organisation we are arguing about.



Which he explained was a temporary measure. Was it perfect, in hindsight? Certainly not. But the problem is that your all or nothing philosophy is precisely what hampers real revolution. The capitalists understands that he needs to make concessions some time, and he does- and he succeeds.

The reality is that while you can smash the state and take political power, you cannot immediately do away with all forms of market, with money, with commodities, or a dozen other things which happen to be features within capitalism. The second you claim that the very existence of one or a few of these things in a given society means that socialism is automatically negated, you have thus removed any motive to fight for socialism and improve upon it. If socialism has already disappeared, then we might as well go right back to capitalism, because there's no use fighting for something that doesn't exist.

I understand that we cannot immediately form communism, but ensuring that the working class is economically and politically in control in a directly democratic fashion is not utopian or claiming to want immediate communism. It is the mere groundwork which has to be there to ensure the progression and development of a socialist society towards communism. Lenin failed to understand this. He saw revolution merely politically, that if the working class (or in his case a party speaking on their behalf) held state power then we can build towards communism.

Lenin points towards state capitalism as a superior form of rule which would be acceptable as long as the workers party held state power.


Economically, state capitalism is immeasurably superior to the present system of economy ...the soviet power has nothing terrible to fear from it, for the soviet State is a state in which the power of the workers and the poor is assured


Socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people

[Nolan]

Since people from time immemorial have been talking about how "stalinism" is reactionary and restored capitalism in the USSR, I might as well point out that there are entire branches of anarchism devoted to stateless capitalism (who see the state as crushing private property) and nationalism (who see "statism" as the cause of multiculturalism).

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Since people from time immemorial have been talking about how "stalinism" is reactionary and restored capitalism in the USSR, I might as well point out that there are entire branches of anarchism devoted to stateless capitalism (who see the state as crushing private property) and nationalism (who see "statism" as the cause of multiculturalism).

But if we define Anarchism as an opposition to the state then how do supposed "stateless" capitalists fit into this? Surely we must agree that Capitalism is heavily reliant upon the state to continue to function: it needs to be continually bailed out of disaster and ruin and that private property as a whole needs to be defended by a professional defence force which is a facet of a central state.

I think it's irrelevant to talk about these types of 'Anarchists' as no Anarchist Communist/Syndicalist or other libertarians would align with them or consider them Anarchist.

[Nolan]

But if we define Anarchism as an opposition to the state then how do supposed "stateless" capitalists fit into this? Surely we must agree that Capitalism is heavily reliant upon the state to continue to function: it needs to be continually bailed out of disaster and ruin and that private property as a whole needs to be defended by a professional defence force which is a facet of a central state.

I think it's irrelevant to talk about these types of 'Anarchists' as no Anarchist Communist/Syndicalist or other libertarians would align with them or consider them Anarchist.

Anarcho-capitalists do oppose the state. Whether or not their utopia would function at all without the state to protect property is another matter. What's important is that they oppose the state and want to create a society without it. Hence they are anarchists.

[Kléber]

That is why it is alright to shoot anarchists as agents for capitalism. Repeat their lies, offer an "alternative" that can't possibly exist nor threaten capitalism = working for capitalism.
You know, the ruling class fears something much more than a Stalin kiddie fapping about purges online, they fear Marxists and anarchists of all stripes putting aside their differences for united struggle against capital.

Maybe you can explain how the Hoxhaists of Afghanistan didn't deserve to be shot by the DRA security services in spite of the facts that they slandered the USSR, offered a vaguely-defined "alternative" and actually fought alongside pro-US reactionaries against the Soviet army.

[revolution inaction]

Anarcho-capitalists do oppose the state. Whether or not their utopia would function at all without the state to protect property is another matter. What's important is that they oppose the state and want to create a society without it. Hence they are anarchists.

no they want to privatise it, and there is more than opersition to the state to anarchism, but you know that cause your a troll

[Wanted Man]

Since people from time immemorial have been talking about how "stalinism" is reactionary and restored capitalism in the USSR, I might as well point out that there are entire branches of anarchism devoted to stateless capitalism (who see the state as crushing private property) and nationalism (who see "statism" as the cause of multiculturalism).

Yeah, but to say that they are "branches of anarchism" is like saying that Nazbols and other Third Positionists are branches of us. Which I wouldn't put beyond some "ML/Hoxhaist comrades" here. :rolleyes:

[IronEastBloc]

no matter the point or issue, the fact of the matter is that anarchists have no room to talk about the failures of communism when every attempt at a state they have attempted to create has failed or become authoritarian within the first few months or first 2 years of creation.

[Nolan]

no they want to privatise it, and there is more than opersition to the state to anarchism, but you know that cause your a troll

That doesn't make any sense. If you privatize it into private security firms it isn't a central authority any more, is it?

Let's see:


The term anarchism (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anarchism) derives from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) ἄναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers"

Meaning, state bad.

Yup, ancaps fit.

[Nolan]

Yeah, but to say that they are "branches of anarchism" is like saying that Nazbols and other Third Positionists are branches of us. Which I wouldn't put beyond some "ML/Hoxhaist comrades" here. :rolleyes:

No because we share nothing in common. Ancaps on the other hand oppose the state, which is the defining characteristic of anarchism.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

No because we share nothing in common. Ancaps on the other hand oppose the state, which is the defining characteristic of anarchism.

Well I'm sure National Bolsheviks would say they believe in Socialism, it doesn't mean they do. Just as AnCaps say they oppose the state but that doesn't mean they do either.

[IronEastBloc]

Well I'm sure National Bolsheviks would say they believe in Socialism, it doesn't mean they do. Just as AnCaps say they oppose the state but that doesn't mean they do either.

actually, I'd even argue that anarcho-capitalists are the true anarchists, since they want something with no rulers, no government regulation, no taxes, no restrictions on trade, no restrictions on what you can trade (including drugs, prostitutes etc.), everything privatized (including militias), etc.

hell, if you ask me, that sounds a bit like Somalia. but anarcho-capitalists have much more in common with anarchists then Nazbol has with regular communists (how many communists do you know that want a Eurasian empire? because that's what Nazbol wants), as both wings of anarchism want no organized government...they just want the state to play different roles.

[Nolan]

Well I'm sure National Bolsheviks would say they believe in Socialism, it doesn't mean they do. Just as AnCaps say they oppose the state but that doesn't mean they do either.

But the state is a much more clear thing than socialism. You can call anything socialism, but you can't really call anything the state, unless you want to bullshit your way to anarchy.

In what way do they not oppose the state? It's pretty clear: they desire a society without a central authority or leaders.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

hell, if you ask me, that sounds a bit like Somalia. but anarcho-capitalists have much more in common with anarchists then Nazbol has with regular communists (how many communists do you know that want a Eurasian empire? because that's what Nazbol wants)

How many regular Anarchists (actual Anarchists) want CAPITALISM?!?!?



as both wings of anarchism want no organized government...they just want the state to play different roles.

Not true, Anarchism believes in governance.

[Nolan]

actually, I'd even argue that anarcho-capitalists are the true anarchists, since they want something with no rulers, no government regulation, no taxes, no restrictions on trade, no restrictions on what you can trade (including drugs, prostitutes etc.), everything privatized (including militias), etc.

hell, if you ask me, that sounds a bit like Somalia. but anarcho-capitalists have much more in common with anarchists then Nazbol has with regular communists (how many communists do you know that want a Eurasian empire? because that's what Nazbol wants), as both wings of anarchism want no organized government...they just want the state to play different roles.

Yes, I'd say Comrade Anarchist is the only true anarchist on this forum.

As has been pointed out here before, what anarcho-communists propose is actually a state. They simply define their way out of it.

[revolution inaction]

No because we share nothing in common. Ancaps on the other hand oppose the state, which is the defining characteristic of anarchism.

No! It! Is! Not! :cursing:

go, read the anarchist faq, then talk to me about what anarchism is.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

But the state is a much more clear thing than socialism. You can call anything socialism, but you can't really call anything the state, unless you want to bullshit your way to anarchy.

In what way do they not oppose the state? It's pretty clear: they desire a society without a central authority or leaders.

Your definition of Capitalist society seems pretty skewed if you don't believe the Capitalist class to be our leaders.

[revolution inaction]

actually, I'd even argue that anarcho-capitalists are the true anarchists, since they want something with no rulers, no government regulation, no taxes, no restrictions on trade, no restrictions on what you can trade (including drugs, prostitutes etc.), everything privatized (including militias), etc.

hell, if you ask me, that sounds a bit like Somalia. but anarcho-capitalists have much more in common with anarchists then Nazbol has with regular communists (how many communists do you know that want a Eurasian empire? because that's what Nazbol wants), as both wings of anarchism want no organized government...they just want the state to play different roles.

anarchists oppose hierarchical forms of social organisation, anarcho-caps do not.

[Nolan]

No! It! Is! Not! :cursing:

go, read the anarchist faq, then talk to me about what anarchism is.

That describes anarcho-communism, which are the unrestricted anarchists on RevLeft.

[revolution inaction]

That describes anarcho-communism, which are the unrestricted anarchists on RevLeft.

no, you haven't read it or you would know that it talks about non communist anarchists too.

[Nolan]

Your definition of Capitalist society seems pretty skewed if you don't believe the Capitalist class to be our leaders.

The capitalist class is the ruling class. The bourgeois state and the ruling class are not the same thing, but two parts of the same system. This is why the ruling class is not always happy with many things the state does, namely with reforms to the workers.

[Nolan]

no, you haven't read it or you would know that it talks about non communist anarchists too.

Ok? Your point?

[Nolan]

anarchists oppose hierarchical forms of social organisation, anarcho-caps do not.

But ancaps bullshit their way out of what is hierarchical. The capitalist deserves his property in a fair, stateless society according to them and any worker is a potential capitalist.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The capitalist class is the ruling class. The bourgeois state and the ruling class are not the same thing, but two parts of the same system. This is why the ruling class is not always happy with many things the state does, namely with reforms to the workers.

So what are you saying, the Capitalist Class wouldn't act as leaders in a 'stateless ancap society' in the absence of the bourgeois state.

[revolution inaction]

Ok? Your point?

you don't know anything about anarchism

[revolution inaction]

But ancaps bullshit their way out of what is hierarchical. The capitalist deserves his property in a fair, stateless society according to them and any worker is a potential capitalist.

i'm fairly sure i've seen them claim anarchism is not against hierarchy, and even if they claim capitalism is not hierarchical this is quite obviously not true.

[Nolan]

So what are you saying, the Capitalist Class wouldn't act as leaders in a 'stateless ancap society' in the absence of the bourgeois state.

They will realize that a state is necessary to protect their position, not too unlike the workers.

Keep in mind that I know anarcho-capitalism is pure horse diarrhea. We're talking about what they propose.

[nuisance]

Ok? Your point?
Alright, as you noted anarchy comes from the Greek, to mean no leaders, hence it is not only inherently anti-statist in nature but also anti-capitalist since the existance of private property creates the conditions for leaders/rulers whatever to arise. Capitalism allows for the formation of hierarichal structures due to ownership- the privatisation of goods and the means of generating the wealth of society.
Leading from this, anarchists want to create a society in which individual freedom and economic equality are able to flourish. This necessitates communal ownership, since it is the only way to garantee this freedom and equality is gained and preserved throughout society.
Anarcho-capitalists are anti-statist, but since anarchism is not defined by its anti-statism, but more broadly anti-authority/anti-hierarchical structures, anarcho-capitalism doesn't meet the required positions to be considered part of the anarchist tradition.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

They will realize that a state is necessary to protect their position, not too unlike the workers.

So how can you argue that it is a strand of Anarchism then? Not that it matters one bit as no Anarchist would associate with them.


Keep in mind that I know anarcho-capitalism is pure horse diarrhea. We're talking about what they propose.

And the whole basis of your argument has been that they oppose a state and leaders which you have just conceded yourself isn't true.

[Nolan]

So how can you argue that it is a strand of Anarchism then? Not that it matters one bit as no Anarchist would associate with them.


Because they oppose the state.


And the whole basis of your argument has been that they oppose a state and leaders which you have just conceded yourself isn't true.

No, I didn't. There's a difference between the ancap ideologues and the capitalists. The capitalists would create a state and Comrade Anarchist would run into the forest fuming.

[Nolan]

Alright, as you noted anarchy comes from the Greek, to mean no leaders, hence it is not only inherently anti-statist in nature but also anti-capitalist since the existance of private property creates the conditions for leaders/rulers whatever to arise. Capitalism allows for the formation of hierarichal structures due to ownership- the privatisation of goods and the means of generating the wealth of society.
Leading from this, anarchists want to create a society in which individual freedom and economic equality are able to flourish. This necessitates communal ownership, since it is the only way to garantee this freedom and equality is gained and preserved throughout society.
Anarcho-capitalists are anti-statist, but since anarchism is not defined by its anti-statism, but more broadly anti-authority/anti-hierarchical structures, anarcho-capitalism doesn't meet the required positions to be considered part of the anarchist tradition.

Well said. Still, just because private property creates the conditions for rulers doesn't mean you can't create an ideology while on a date with Mary Jane that says we should get rid of leaders but leave capitalists. Ancaps will also claim that they oppose authority, like any libertarian, and will argue that capitalist property isn't hierarchical.

Doesn't this just boil down to semantics?

[IronEastBloc]

Just because anarcho-capitalists aren't Bakunin fetishists, doesn't mean they aren't anarchists. They just aren't collective anarchists. But they're still anarchists.

[Ravachol]

Just because anarcho-capitalists aren't Bakunin fetishists, doesn't mean they aren't anarchists. They just aren't collective anarchists. But they're still anarchists.

No they're not. Define Anarchism. Anarchism is the rejection of all authority, privilege and hierarchy, this necessarily implies the rejection of the authority, hierarchy and privilege inherent to private property as well as the state. There can be no espousal of private property coming from Anarchists.

[nuisance]

Well said. Still, just because private property creates the conditions for rulers doesn't mean you can't create an ideology while on a date with Mary Jane that says we should get rid of leaders but leave capitalists. Ancaps will also claim that they oppose authority, like any libertarian, and will argue that capitalist property isn't hierarchical.

Doesn't this just boil down to semantics?
Na, anarcho-capitalists believe the individual has a right to private property, which inherently means that they do not wish to create economic equality. This believe in the individual persute of property creates hierarchy since people will have access to things that will in turn restrict that access to others.
As is in the name, anarcho-capitalist, these people want no figures of authority to restrict their own existance and accumluation/what to do with their individual property in a capitalist society.

[nuisance]

Just because anarcho-capitalists aren't Bakunin fetishists, doesn't mean they aren't anarchists. They just aren't collective anarchists. But they're still anarchists.
No, individualist anarchists (none collectivist anarchos) also oppose capitalism.

[Widerstand]

Just because anarcho-capitalists aren't Bakunin fetishists, doesn't mean they aren't anarchists. They just aren't collective anarchists. But they're still anarchists.

The majority of Anarchists aren't collectivists, but rather AnSyns, AnComms or Individualists.

Anarcho-Capitalism isn't completely anti-state, as some make it out to be, as it supports the same structures we have now, except privately owned. It is further opposed to Anarchism, by promoting hierarchical structures, unjustifiable authority and private property - as was pointed out earlier.

Anarcho-Capitalism is a misnomer for Laissez-faire capitalism.

[Palingenisis]

No they're not. Define Anarchism. Anarchism is the rejection of all authority, privilege and hierarchy, this necessarily implies the rejection of the authority, hierarchy and privilege inherent to private property as well as the state. There can be no espousal of private property coming from Anarchists.

In fairness also Von Mises gave critical support to the fascists in Italy and Austria as a bulwark against Communism which wasnt very anarchist at all of him either.

[Ovi]

The Bolsheviks did far more for the workers of the region, and for the world, than anarchists ever have, or ever will.
Sure did. It is so well known to the workers that the vast majority of them don't want to have anything to do with it and would rather live in capitalism.

[Ovi]

actually, I'd even argue that anarcho-capitalists are the true anarchists, since they want something with no rulers, no government regulation, no taxes, no restrictions on trade, no restrictions on what you can trade (including drugs, prostitutes etc.), everything privatized (including militias), etc.

hell, if you ask me, that sounds a bit like Somalia. but anarcho-capitalists have much more in common with anarchists then Nazbol has with regular communists (how many communists do you know that want a Eurasian empire? because that's what Nazbol wants), as both wings of anarchism want no organized government...they just want the state to play different roles.
Anarcho-capitalists aren't against the state, but against what they consider illegitimate state, one that gets its power directly through force or which is the successor of one. Or put it in a different way, they're against a state that they can't completely buy with their money. A complete subordination of the people to the central master, aka Stalin, is nothing wrong, as long as Stalin would have gotten his authority through market bullshit. A company that is just as authoritarian as a dictatorial state is thus not only ok, but it's a good example of what anarcho-capitalists want to achieve. So, the only thing that stops anarcho-capitalists from considering the Soviet Union an anarcho-capitalist dream is their utopian view of legitimacy. If they'd view the USSR as legitimate then the Soviet Union could have been considered anarcho-capitalist, since it already had all the characteristics of capitalism and there's very little difference between strands of capitalism, such as state capitalism and anarcho-capitalism.
Fuck, how come I'm always late to these ridiculous tendency wars?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I like how some Marxist-Leninists (who probably consider themselves to be stalwarts of Marx's materialist method) define ideologies by abstract terms and labels that third parties give, rather than the shape that movements claiming those ideologies take. It would be akin to me creating my own ideology that uses dialectical materialism, yet also advocates slavery and race war, labeling it "Marxism", and then using that completely fictitous ideology to somehow denigrate actual Marxists. :rolleyes:

To put it another way:

Anarchism: A movement dating back centuries that has at times claimed millions of members (in explicitely anarchist oriented groups, not counting non-anarchist syndicalist groups)

Anarcho-Capitalism: Some people on the Internet.

[Kiev Communard]

Anarcho-capitalists merely want some kind of decentralised corporate capitalism, with the corporations playing the role of neo-feudal holdings, and their "private defense forces" the role of army and the police. I fail to see what this has to do with anarchism at all.

[ZeroNowhere]

Ultimately, anarcho-capitalists wish for most things to be decided through the signing of contracts between independent commodity producers. Of course, contracts are only actual contracts, rather than hopeful promises, when they are enforced by some means. Who is to enforce them? Certainly not one of the people signing it, as this would still mean that it wasn't a real contract, but rather simply direct coercion by one party, who can essentially enforce things however they want; compare that Monty Python sketch, for example, albeit more along the lines of:

"Five minutes are up, you'll have to pay up again to continue."
"No they aren't."
"I enforce this bloody contract, mate."
"Oh."

In other words, we have competing interests, and in fact this is the basis of commodity-producing society, where more or less everybody is a commodity seller (of labour-power or of commodity capital under capitalism, generally), and therefore require an external, neutral arbiter (of course, as labour-power becomes a commodity, the enforcement of commodity exchange becomes the enforcement of the power of capital over the labourers, and hence a bit less neutral.) Now, the anarcho-capitalists would generally have us hire private contract enforcers of some sort, presumably by signing a contract with them. That doesn't get us very far, then. The same thing applies to private armies, where it becomes even less clear how one is supposed to enforce one's will on a bloody army if they don't feel like holding up to the contract (in all likelihood, the existence of powerful private armies would lead to a coup, ultimately, especially considering that if one hires an army, one must hire a more powerful army to enforce this contract, and so on ad infinitum until you have Ideon or something).

So ultimately they're forced into 'statism'. Mind you, this applies to pretty much anybody who wishes to bring about an 'anarchist' society with generalized commodity production.

[nuisance]

There's a difference between 'libertarians' and anarchio-capitalists....Libertarians want a small State to protect property whereas anarcho-capitalists believe that the State apparatuis should be privatised, thus ceasing from being a State, since it isnot centralised nor has a monopoly on violence. Well, that is the idea, whether it descends into Statism is another thing.

[Black Sheep]

Much better to have an official leadership that is constrained by recognized structures than an unofficial one which isnt.
That would be true, if leadership was a necessary given.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It would be akin to me creating my own ideology that uses dialectical materialism, yet also advocates slavery and race war, labeling it "Marxism", and then using that completely fictitous ideology to somehow denigrate actual Marxists. :rolleyes: You mean Stalinism? Well, that's not quite fair since they don't advocate race-war.:lol:

Ok, now my serious post:


Much better to have an official leadership that is constrained by recognized structures than an unofficial one which isnt. That would be true, if leadership was a necessary given. While I don't think "socialism from above" can ever "deliver" socialism, I do think the question of leadership in working class movements against capitalism is important. Workers don't need to be "lead" like they are mindless drones that can't act or think in the absence of some official boss, but "leadership" is simply a fact of organizing. Winning people to anarchist or socialist ideas and tactics is "leadership" and if we fail to win anyone to our ideas, there are plenty of other ideas out there. If leadership in the abstract was not important, why would any of us ever read about radical history or tactics or theory... why argue about it on this website.

Spontanious actions are a fact, but they are still "lead" even if there is a loose organizing structure. If some anarchists win people in a movement to certain tactics or ideas (like lack of formal structure for coalitions) then they are in fact "leading" even if they reject the term. Wildcats are still lead even if the leading is not done by the union bureaucracy.

So I don't think the real options are top-down organizing from above on the one hand and total spontaneity on the other - to me the question is who leads, from what position, and how. If our goal is the self-emancipation of the working class, then "leadership" by radicals should be winning people to the idea of organized working class action that is conscious and independent of the liberals and conservatives and their parties.

After the revolution leadership is important too - i.e. the leadership of the whole working class (not just one party) over society in order to reshape society to be fit for humans, not profits.

[Cane Nero]

Workers don't need to be "lead" like they are mindless drones that can't act or think in the absence of some official boss, but "leadership" is simply a fact of organizing.


The problem is that Stalinists and Maoists think and act exactly this way.

If the leadership doesn´t involve any kind of privilege, then fine.
But don´t forget that sometimes power corrupts.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The problem is that Stalinists and Maoists think and act exactly this way.Oh yeah, I know.

[RED DAVE]

Fuck, how come I'm always late to these ridiculous tendency wars?Probably because you're young. :D

RED DAVE

[Nolan]

I like how some Marxist-Leninists (who probably consider themselves to be stalwarts of Marx's materialist method) define ideologies by abstract terms and labels that third parties give, rather than the shape that movements claiming those ideologies take. It would be akin to me creating my own ideology that uses dialectical materialism, yet also advocates slavery and race war, labeling it "Marxism", and then using that completely fictitous ideology to somehow denigrate actual Marxists. :rolleyes:

To put it another way:

Anarchism: A movement dating back centuries that has at times claimed millions of members (in explicitely anarchist oriented groups, not counting non-anarchist syndicalist groups)

Anarcho-Capitalism: Some people on the Internet.

I really love this attempt to bullshit your way out of it.

The issue is not what shape an actual anarcho-capitalist society would be forced to take, but the positions of anarcho-capitalists. For the most part they certainly see themselves as anarchists the same as you, and support similar so called "anti-authoritarian" politics. They oppose leaders, the state, and central authority. That is all that is implied by the component parts of the word anarchism.

And to whoever made that argument, no, it isn't a question of an "illegitimate" state. They oppose the state. You're barking at the minarchist libertarian tree.

The problem is that leftist anarchists seek a monopoly on the term anarchism and ascribe other values than that which implied by the term itself.

And by the way, anarchism wasn't always like it is now, so I don't know why you feel entitled to have only your tendency called anarchism. Ancaps fetishize people like Stirner anyway.

For your last line that Jimmie Higgins felt the need to make a dumb comment over, it simply doesn't make any sense to advocate race war and slavery and call it Marxism. Marxism is a much more specific thing, whereas anarchism is not defined by any one position other than opposition to the state.

Also no one has addressed my point about national anarchism, another form which doesn't float your boat. They would argue that the state and capitalism promote multiculturalism, and believe that without the state, , etc. people would segregate themselves.

[Ravachol]

The issue is not what shape an actual anarcho-capitalist society would be forced to take, but the positions of anarcho-capitalists. For the most part they certainly see themselves as anarchists the same as you


No they do not. Is it really that hard to get that after more than 5 posts elaborating on this?



They oppose leaders


No they do not, private property necessarily implies 'leadership'.



the state


No they do not, they merely seek to transfer it's functions from the 'public' sphere to the 'private' sphere.




and central authority.


No they do not. They don't care about centralized or decentralized authority, they desire only private authority bound by privately agreed upon contracts rooted in the right to property.



That is all that is implied by the component parts of the word anarchism.


As stated numerous times above, Anarchism is much more than that, it necessarily implies a rejection of private property and as such it cannot be Capitalist.



The problem is that leftist anarchists seek a monopoly on the term anarchism and ascribe other values than that which implied by the term itself.


Herp derp



whereas anarchism is not defined by any one position other than opposition to the state.


If you had actually read this thread, or anything about anarchism for that matter, the state is merely one of the things rejected by Anarchists. Anarchists reject ALL privelege, hierarchy and authority, not merely the state.



Also no one has addressed my point about national anarchism, another form which doesn't float your boat.


I'm not even going to elaborate on that one again. In the anti-fascism subforum there is a lengthy thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1648389&postcount=4) about it describing how national-'anarchism' isn't anarchist at all.

[Sosa]

Let's see:


Quote:
The term anarchism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anarchism) derives from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) ἄναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers"
Meaning, state bad.

Yup, ancaps fit.


Genetic fallacy there bud

[ZeroNowhere]

There's a difference between 'libertarians' and anarchio-capitalists....Libertarians want a small State to protect property whereas anarcho-capitalists believe that the State apparatuis should be privatised, thus ceasing from being a State, since it isnot centralised nor has a monopoly on violence. Well, that is the idea, whether it descends into Statism is another thing.
That's not the point, though. The point is that advocating a society based on generalized commodity production, hence a society of competing commodity sellers, means advocating a state. It's not a matter of 'descending' into statism, it's just that advocating this is advocating the state, end of. To abolish the state, you either abolish society somehow, which you can't do while maintaining capitalism because capitalism, and indeed commodity production, are based on social production, or you establish a genuine general interest, which maintaining a society dissolved into many atomized, competing commodity producers doesn't really accomplish.


The term anarchism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anarchism) derives from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) ἄναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers"
Meaning, state bad.

Yup, ancaps fit.Capitalism is based upon the rule of things, or rather people's social relations embodied in things, over people. While I would agree that there is an unhealthy level of focus by some anarchists purely on personal hierarchy, nonetheless going by etymology anarchism definitely entails the abolition of capital.

[Sendo]

If there's anything I would take from Trotsky, it's this one thing. This one thing has been referenced by followers of Lenin and of Stalin and of Mao.

Socialism cannot survive or flourish in one country alone. I believe history has proved this right. Cuba really struggled to survive in the 1990s and China and Vietnam have made unbelievable concessions to capitalism. Despite having workers' states in China and Korea, the governments have been at one time or another dominated by nationalists, autocrats, or "pragmatists"...at the very least revisionists in both countries, though Hu's "Harmonious Society" is infinitely better than the "Three Represents." After Minqi Li's analyses of world economic systems, I realized that the future does not bode well for anyone when the major resources of capital or military or financial power are in the hands of imperialists.

I know some modern Trotskyists are wrong on many points. They refuse to take any but the simplest class analysis. "We want a revolution!" "You can't" "Why not?" "Your country is too rural" "But what if we want revolution?" "Don't bother because it won't be a smooth revolution" "What should we do?" "Focus on the urban proletariat" "We don't have very many, what do you recommend?" "............"

I know the clock for survival is ticking, literally. I know not Nepal nor any other can truly achieve socialism in the near future, but whatever we get will be better! Socialism in one country may not be fully possible, but you can make some amazing achievements!

Given all of this, what does anarchism offer us? Its most cited example is Catalonia. If this anarchist experiment couldn't sweep the whole country what hope do we have?

If you think the imperialists bully and isolate the people of a workers' state, then can you even imagine what the imperialists will do to a stateless plot of land? If the middle third of Europe went anarchist, like Denmark and the Alps and Rhine and Italy, what do you think would happen? The SU was partially driven to bankruptcy in the 1980s arms race. Could you imagine how quickly they would have fallen if they never had a state to develop the AK-47? Anarchism is not a luxury we can afford for a long time.

[Sendo]

That's not the point, though. The point is that advocating a society based on generalized commodity production, hence a society of competing commodity sellers, means advocating a state. It's not a matter of 'descending' into statism, it's just that advocating this is advocating the state, end of. To abolish the state, you either abolish society somehow, which you can't do while maintaining capitalism because capitalism, and indeed commodity production, are based on social production, or you establish a genuine general interest, which maintaining a society dissolved into many atomized, competing commodity producers doesn't really accomplish.

Many anarchists want a state that is integrative, that is malleable, that has porous borders, that includes as many as possible in collective decision making, etc, but they hate to be seen with communists and hate the idea of a "state." What they advocate, no matter how wordy (a collection of tiered confederations, etc) is still, yes, a state. We need to realize that communists and anarchists should be one. The problem is that most anarchists are also are hung up on trying to formulate anocracy.

Communists want power to flow from the barrel of gun...wielded by the proletariat. Anarchists emphasize freedom from individuals' power. But both require an organization akin to a state. Ambassadors will need to be elected or appointed since there will remain bourgeois sovereign states. The only way to abolish all rule (-cracy) in the abstract is to have primitivism.

Many anarchists here base their view of a state on the Western model. They say anarchists will self-police their societies instead of having cops. Study some sociology or travel more. South Korea is a bourgeois state, but it doesn't have armed thugs making racist arrests and cuffing you because you violate reactionary norms. Sure they come down on the workers hard (but then again they have militant workers to draw that out more), but they let society police itself immensely: social shaming limits how much you can drunk or spit in public...the police don't lock you up for walking through nice neighborhoods with a brown paper bag of beer like in California or Florida.

Even the native Americans had "states." Don't romanticize the Native Americans. They had a confederacies and they had empires. They naturalized people of all colors in many cases, but not all. But they had chiefs, and they had customs, and they entered into agreements and treaties with other tribes.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The issue is not what shape an actual anarcho-capitalist society would be forced to take, but the positions of anarcho-capitalists.

OK. You still lose, though.


For the most part they certainly see themselves as anarchists the same as you, and support similar so called "anti-authoritarian" politics.

Wrong. Anarcho-capitalists most certainly do not see themselves as being in the same tradition as "class-struggle anarchists", with perhaps one or two exceptions (such as Roderick Long).


They oppose leaders, the state, and central authority. That is all that is implied by the component parts of the word anarchism.

LOL. *sigh* OK, I guess that I'm going to have to give the same speech that I've given many, many times on this website.

Anarchism as an egalitarian movement is defined by an opposition to illegitimate authority, as well as hierarchy in a more general sense. The opposition to capitalism and the state stems from this and was cemented into the anarchist tradition with a history of struggle dating back to the First International. Anarcho-capitalists do not see hierarchy as a bad thing (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard31.html). I can cite any number of examples, from Rothbard's "racial realism" to Hans-Hermann Hoppe's endorsement of monarchism over democracy to Walter Block's slave contracts. What they are opposed to is what Mises refered to as "distortions in the market"...they believe that a better society would function if market forces took over the state's role. Whether or not they consider themselves to be anarchists is irrelevant, as all Rothbard did was selectively interpret the writings of Benjamin Tucker and then apply the "anarcho" label to his new ideology.

In regards to "property", one of the key intellectual foundations of anarcho-capitalism:


This analysis [Malatesta's, Kropotkin's and Reclus'] suggested that the right to property-even as possession-would always generate inequalities and, therefore, the existence of class division, supporting exploitation and government.


The problem is that leftist anarchists seek a monopoly on the term anarchism and ascribe other values than that which implied by the term itself.

I think that Ravachol addressed this quite well. :rolleyes:


And by the way, anarchism wasn't always like it is now, so I don't know why you feel entitled to have only your tendency called anarchism. Ancaps fetishize people like Stirner anyway.

You don't know what you're talking about. Some anarcho-capitalists have been known to fetishize Tucker, who was an intellectual disciple of Max Stirner's, but not Stirner himself. Max Stirner never was an anarchist. Stirner never labelled himself as an anarchist. In fact, Stirner bashed anarchists! I like Stirner personally, but calling him an anarchist is completely incorrect. It certainly makes a lot more sense to trace anarchism's developement to modern day orgs like the current CNT, SAC in Sweden and NEFAC in the United States, rather than draw some kind of convoluted path ending in anarcho-capitalism.


Marxism is a much more specific thing

The most important thing that Marx left humanity was his method, not the economic minutae of Das Kapital or anything else (this has been pointed out by everyone from Bookchin to Negri to our own Devrim, when I asked him if he thought that Marx made any mistakes). It's his method that enables Marxism to continue to remain relevant, because events will always continue to happen and they can always be analyzed by using it. And historical/dialectical materialism can (and has) been used by non-communists.


whereas anarchism is not defined by any one position other than opposition to the state.

Y'know, I read this and I wonder if you simply ignore all anarchist posts. That's the type of comment I'd expect from someone new to this site.


Also no one has addressed my point about national anarchism, another form which doesn't float your boat. They would argue that the state and capitalism promote multiculturalism, and believe that without the state, , etc. people would segregate themselves.

http://barsupplies.com/images/fat-straws.jpg

Feel free to continue grasping.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I really love this attempt to bullshit your way out of it.

Really? Your whole line of argument is based on bullshit, you haven't acknowledge one poster who has clearly explained that Anarcho-Capitalism is not part of the class struggle tradition and isn't even a coherent movement. Anarcho-Capitalists don't consider us to be Anarchists, why are we being lumped in with them?


The issue is not what shape an actual anarcho-capitalist society would be forced to take, but the positions of anarcho-capitalists. For the most part they certainly see themselves as anarchists the same as you, and support similar so called "anti-authoritarian" politics. They oppose leaders, the state, and central authority. That is all that is implied by the component parts of the word anarchism.

Do they though? In their own terms:



Anarcho-capitalism is the political philosophy and theory

1. that the State is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished,
2. and a free-market private property economic system is morally permissible.

They don't mention no leaders and authority. Their opposition to a state is based purely on economic concerns. They advocate a system which cannot work due to Capitalisms reliance on a state.



Also no one has addressed my point about national anarchism, another form which doesn't float your boat. They would argue that the state and capitalism promote multiculturalism, and believe that without the state, , etc. people would segregate themselves.

Why do you think they haven't? No of us here consider them Anarchists because they don't believe in a society of absolute equality. That's what any of us here believe. So what does it really matter what AnCaps say or think when we believe their ideology to be based on exploitation and wage slavery. It doesn't matter one bit to the tradition and movement of Class Struggle Anarchism so it doesn't really matter, we're talking about working class emancipatory ideologies on this board and all of us here want to build such a movement and struggle, AnCaps have no relation to this.

[Rafiq]

This is stupid.

You know what the whole Idea of progress is? Creating things that didn't exist before.

Stop using this utter bullshit argument "ANARCHISM HAS FAILED" because anyone can use the same ignorant talk against the Soviet Union.

Fact is Vangaurdism doesn't work, and everywhere where it was put into place, the leaders corrupted and brought back Capitalism.

Nobody has ever attempted to bring Anarchism in one country, however, Vangaurds were put in place several times, and they failed.

You can't put too much power into one single group, history has shown that.

But no, the ML's and Maoists are so proud of their glorious history, they want to reinstate Vangaurds, probably knowing they will corrupt and fail.

That's what I call reactionary.

[malthusela]

It appears obvious to me that any revolution cannot succeed without public support, unless the revolutionary leaders want to instate an even more authoritarian state than the previous one.

So sure, having a leading group 'works' for seizing power, but it falls short in just about everything else.

[Thirsty Crow]

Stop using this utter bullshit argument "ANARCHISM HAS FAILED" because anyone can use the same ignorant talk against the Soviet Union.This is absolutely correct.
I've repeated numerous times, it is pathetic and ineffectual to cling on to a social and political formation which belongs to the past by means of stubborn insistence on its "good aspects" (when arguing fiercly against another attempt at abolishing capital).
On the other hand...

Fact is Vangaurdism doesn't work, and everywhere where it was put into place, the leaders corrupted and brought back Capitalism. ...this is not true. Or rather, this argument does not and cannot take into account some of the most important reasons for capitalist restoration - real, concrete material relations, includiing the dynamics of global capitalism.
In other words, it is not "vanguardism" per se that can be atributed the position of the primary cause for capitalist restoration. It is not a matter of corrupt leaders only, but also of material conditions (which are crucial)). Consider the necessity for rapid industrialization in early USSR and the ensuing productive and social relations, as well as overall political framework. Here, one can easily, and correctly, establish the relationship of correlation (if not causation - material necessity being the cause).


Nobody has ever attempted to bring Anarchism in one country, however, Vangaurds were put in place several times, and they failed.Spanish anarchists would beg to differ (if they were alive). But the point is that internationalism (and by internationalism I do not mean forming an "international" organization which would function as an organ of a country's/regime's hegemony), as a political force, should function as a vital link in various national proletarians' struggles.


You can't put too much power into one single group, history has shown that.
Absolutely.


But no, the ML's and Maoists are so proud of their glorious history, they want to reinstate Vangaurds, probably knowing they will corrupt and fail.
That's what I call reactionary.I don't think you are beinbg fair here. It seems tha this is generalization which would not hold in all cases possible.

[Zanthorus]

The most important thing that Marx left humanity was his method, not the economic minutae of Das Kapital or anything else

This is bullshit, what use is Marx's method if all the conclusions he came to using it are invalid? Marx himself certainly didn't think that the method was particularly important, he remarked in one of his letters that long before him bourgeois historians had analysed the struggle between classes, and bourgeois economists the relations that engendered their existence. His unique contribution was advocacy of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the transition to a society without classes. If you read his letters to Engels he is constantly going on about the varous discoveries he made with regards to surplus-value, the twofold nature of labour and so on. If the conclusions are invalid then Marx is pretty much finished as a thinker. Really, this looks like another one of those lame attempts to 'save' Marx for those who think that his conclusions or political positions are wrong or outdated for one reason or another. And citing Bookchin, Negri and Devrim isn't exactly going to help your case here.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This is bullshit, what use is Marx's method if all the conclusions he came to using it are invalid?


If the conclusions are invalid then Marx is pretty much finished as a thinker.

I don't agree with that. I think that one can look positively on his contributions to a specific view of historical change without buying into every bit of muddled math that he formulated in his books. If that's the most important aspect of his works than I doubt that you're the expert on Marx that you seem to portray yourself as.


Really, this looks like another one of those lame attempts to 'save' Marx for those who think that his conclusions or political positions are wrong or outdated for one reason or another.

I think it's kind of idiotic to assume that Marx forsaw everything that would happen in the world. He couldn't have and didn't.

[Zanthorus]

I'm not sure exactly what 'muddled math' is being referred to here. If we're talking about the 'muddled math' that occurs throughout the three volumes of Capital, the 'muddled math' that provides hypothetical examples of Marx's theories about how capital produces and reproduces itself, then yes the 'muddled math' is a very important aspect of Marx's work. I'm also not sure where I suggested that 'Marx foresaw everything that would happen in the world'. What I'm assuming is that Marx's analysis of the production and reproduction of capital was and is fundamentally correct and that this analysis is the real point on which Marx's work stands or falls. So far you've given us no reason to suppose that there is any point on which this 'minutae' and 'muddled math' falls down apart from dogmatically asserting that the 'method' is more important than the supposed math muddling.

[ZeroNowhere]

Presumably they are referring to the fact that Marx's arithmetic was admittedly not flawless. In other words, his method of arithmetic was flawed. I'm not sure it makes sense to talk of Marx's 'method' independent of his actual applications, though. If a conclusion derived from the application of a method is false, then the method is flawed. Marx's 'method' may not stand or fall with every proposition and prediction made by him, but it does stand or fall with an awful lot of them, inasmuch as Marx did tend to apply Marx's method quite often, hence it being Marx's method. This includes a large amount of minutiae.


If that's the most important aspect of his works than I doubt that you're the expert on Marx that you seem to portray yourself as.They are, though. That, in case it remains a mystery, is also why they are a communist.