Communism and Anarchism, allies?

[Ya Stal]

I don't really know a lot about communism, or anarchism. And I am by no means saying that they shouldn't fight capitalism together, but don't communism and anarchism clash on a basic level. Communism wants more government control and anarchism wants no government, right?

[The Douche]

Communism opposes the state.

[Andropov]

Both ideologys essentially want the same final outcome but they differ over application.

[revolution inaction]

I don't really know a lot about communism, or anarchism. And I am by no means saying that they shouldn't fight capitalism together, but don't communism and anarchism clash on a basic level. Communism wants more government control and anarchism wants no government, right?

The way this question is written, it makes no sense, most anarchists are communists, and many communists who don't consider them selves anarchists would be opposed to government in the way you appear to be using the word.
if you replace "Communism" with Leninism then you are right, it does fundamental contradiction with anarchism, but also with communism.

[Aesop]

The way this question is written, it makes no sense, most anarchists are communists,

I think you are talking about communalists rather than communists


if you replace "Communism" with Leninism then you are right, it does fundamental contradiction with anarchism, but also with communism.

So the SP, SWP and other trotskyist organisations are not ultimately striving for a classless and stateless society?

[Burn A Flag]

Well, both groups definitely should be allies. Unfortunately it's a bit more complicated and sectarian than that.

[La Peur Rouge]

Communism wants more government control

It's not really about government control, it's about worker's control of the means of production.


and anarchism wants no government, right?

Anarchists oppose the state, not necessarily government.

But the same could be said for communism.

[revolution inaction]

I think you are talking about communalists rather than communists

no, i am talking about communists



So the SP, SWP and other trotskyist organisations are not ultimately striving for a classless and stateless society?

"striving" for something when you actions are in the most part useless or contrary to what you claim to be aiming for does not mean a lot.

[Misanthrope]

The two only differ in how they bring about communism. Communists prefer a state to lead the working class while anarchists prefer a decentralized group or the workers themselves to lead the revolution. In short, yes we are allies.

[Savior]

Anarchist do not oppose government, can anbody tell me what the diffrence between a state and goverment is?

[Misanthrope]

Anarchist do not oppose government, can anbody tell me what the diffrence between a state and goverment is?

A state is an institution of class rule. It exercises what it views as the only legitimate force in a given territory, it relies on the threat of death and propaganda to control its citizens.

Government is just a governing body.

[Aesop]

no, i am talking about communists

Interesting, don't get me wrong i know anarchists and communists have the same aim, however i have never met an anarchist that would refer to themselves as a communist.A anarcho-communist yes, a communist? no.



"striving" for something when you actions are in the most part useless or contrary to what you claim to be aiming for does not mean a lot.

This is just empty diversionary rhetoric.

So for example

Supporting strikes
Attending picket lines
Holding educational classes
Intervening in LGBT marches
Going out on the streets with the community against fascists
Opposing cuts to the welfare state
advocating for british(and nato) troops to leave Afghanistan
Showing solidarity with the asylum seekers put in prison
Adovocting internationalism and socialism.
Being visable for the streets with stalls to engage with new people(not saying anarchists don't do this, however in all my life i have never seen a AFED stall on the streets)

These are are all acts with work against the interest of communism?

I am interested to know what the AFED does which works in the interest of eventually bring communism in comparison?

[ZeroNowhere]

It exercises what it views as the only legitimate force in a given territory
Wait, what about the Pinkertons?

[Pretty Flaco]

The only reason most of the left is not in agreement is because of the disagreements of those that came before us. Looking at actual ideology, there is very little difference between an anarchist and a communist. Many of us focus too much on rhetoric instead of focusing on bringing about legitimate change.

[Vendetta]

Wait, what about the Pinkertons?


What about them? They were hirelings of the state.

[revolution inaction]

Interesting, don't get me wrong i know anarchists and communists have the same aim, however i have never met an anarchist that would refer to themselves as a communist.A anarcho-communist yes, a communist? no.

have you met any anarchists?




This is just empty diversionary rhetoric.

So for example

Supporting strikes
Attending picket lines
Holding educational classes
Intervening in LGBT marches
Going out on the streets with the community against fascists
Opposing cuts to the welfare state
advocating for british(and nato) troops to leave Afghanistan
Showing solidarity with the asylum seekers put in prison
Adovocting internationalism and socialism.
Being visable for the streets with stalls to engage with new people(not saying anarchists don't do this, however in all my life i have never seen a AFED stall on the streets)

These are are all acts with work against the interest of communism?

I see leininsts suporting unions rather than workers and promoting illusions in them despite the fact that they are infective at defending workers interests and in many cases act directly against to them.
I have nothing against this
Education in what though?
what kind of intervention though?
Going standing in a pen for hours, handing anarchists over to the police, trying to get them arrested, lieing to people about where the fascists are so as to trick people to attend there talks instead of actually opposing the fascists.
Telling people to vote labour, forming front groups whos principle function is recruitment and allowing there party to dominate the struggle.
Again forming front groups which render the struggle against the war ineffective and only really seem to act as recruiting tools.
Not sure what form this takes
It seems to me that leninsts actually advocate nationalism of other nations, and the socalism they advocate is a complete load of shit that rarely goes beyond advocating nationalisation.
Afed and solfed do this.




I am interested to know what the AFED does which works in the interest of eventually bring communism in comparison?

i cant be bothered to answer this right now

[Savior]

A state is an institution of class rule. It exercises what it views as the only legitimate force in a given territory, it relies on the threat of death and propaganda to control its citizens.

Government is just a governing body.

But wouldint the governing body have to enforce those laws? in A communistic society how would those laws be enforced without a police?

[dernier combat]

Anarchist do not oppose government, can anbody tell me what the diffrence between a state and goverment is?
A state is an entity of centralised political power that helps maintain class rule by defending the mutual interests of the ruling class (eg. the capitalist state defends private property). One core aspect of this (the centralisation of political power, not in terms of centralisation on a class as a whole but on a small number of individuals) renders it inherently incompatible with the mass decision-making mechanism that is direct democracy (which is one requirement of social equality). A government is any body - whether it be a few hundred members of a state's parliament, a group of tribal elders, the residents of a commune or millions of individuals - that makes laws and decisions that affect the population and co-ordinates society. By that definition, Marxists and most Anarchists are for government.

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't really know a lot about communism, or anarchism. And I am by no means saying that they shouldn't fight capitalism together, but don't communism and anarchism clash on a basic level. Communism wants more government control and anarchism wants no government, right?

In short, yes they are allied ideologies.

Anarchism and Communism both seek the same end, a classless stateless society. They also both seek to place the means of production in the hands of the working class.

What they differ on is how to do these things although sometimes their methods are quite similar.

- August

[Pravda Soyuz]

The main fundamental difference between communism (Marxist) and anarchism is that Marxism has a transitional stage between capitalism and anarchy, which wiould weed out the borgeoisie class.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Both ideologys essentially want the same final outcome but they differ over application.

Are you sure about that ? Look at what "revolution inaction" said about leininsts, which you are by being a M-L.


have you met any anarchists?

I see leininsts suporting unions rather than workers and promoting illusions in them despite the fact that they are infective at defending workers interests and in many cases act directly against to them.


There is a reason why Marx never called himself a anarchists. Thought it does not stop them from claming him thought. It funny thought this help prove my case that anarchists are anti-union.

[Magón]

Are you sure about that ? Look at what "revolution inaction" said about leininsts, which you are by being a M-L.



There is a reason why Marx never called himself a anarchists. Thought it does not stop them from claming him thought. It funny thought this help prove my case that anarchists are anti-union.

That's funny. Where did you get this idea in the first place that Anarchists are anti-Union? ML propaganda?

[Comrade_Stalin]

That's funny. Where did you get this idea in the first place that Anarchists are anti-Union? ML propaganda?

All you have to do is READ revolution inaction.

You know the part were he said.

"I see leininsts suporting unions rather than workers and promoting illusions in them despite the fact that they are infective at defending workers interests and in many cases act directly against to them. "

The only propaganda here is that anarchist be clamed to be pro-union by you while you clame that unions are anti-worker, and that why you are against it.

[Magón]

All you have to do is READ revolution inaction.

You know the part were he said.

"I see leininsts suporting unions rather than workers and promoting illusions in them despite the fact that they are infective at defending workers interests and in many cases act directly against to them. "

The only propaganda here is that anarchist be clamed to be pro-union by you while you clame that unions are anti-worker, and that why you are against it.

Now-a-day union's kinda have sold out, and aren't what they used to be. Now they just kinda sit there with the thumbs up their asses.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Now-a-day union's kinda have sold out, and aren't what they used to be. Now they just kinda sit there with the thumbs up their asses.

Is that right-wing propaganda I hear, about how union are no longer useful? That they are evil and that we should take them down? That they waste worker money? Would you like to fill in the rest for us?

You know I find it funny that you found it to be Stalinist propaganda try say that anarchist are anti-union when you just used the same type of anti-union line that the right always use. Also your statement was just before revolution inaction which also had "unions hate workers" line.

[Magón]

Is that right-wing propaganda I hear, about how union are no longer useful? That they are evil and that we should take them down? That they waste worker money? Would you like to fill in the rest for us?

You know I find it funny that you found it to be Stalinist propaganda try say that anarchist are anti-union when you just used the same type of anti-union line that the right always use. Also your statement was just before revolution inaction which also had "unions hate workers" line.

LOL Nice try, but I didn't even infer or mention any such things in my post. You're grasping at something that isn't there, but you're trying to put it there. Maybe next time, you should say, Unions aren't what they used to be, they're sell outs to a degree, but Anarchists aren't opposed to a proper Union. If Anarchists were opposed to unions, do you think they'd be in the IWW, CNT, just to name a couple big Unions in the world.

I don't think so. I never said any of what you tried to say I was "meaning" or "inferred", but nice try. Maybe next time think reasonably on what I'm saying, rather than grasping at air. ;)

[jediknight36]

The main fundamental difference between communism (Marxist) and anarchism is that Marxism has a transitional stage between capitalism and anarchy, which wiould weed out the borgeoisie class.

Most of the anarchists I know are the types to sit on their rears and just "let things happen". Communists want the door to be painted red and are mixing the paint. Anarchists wait for us to paint the door, the point and say "see, told ya it would happen" and call it black.

That's just in my experience anyway. YMMV.

Posted using my ossim EVO 4G and Tapatalk.

[red cat]

Question : How are anarchists and orthodox Marxists different from each other ?

[Ovi]

Interesting, don't get me wrong i know anarchists and communists have the same aim, however i have never met an anarchist that would refer to themselves as a communist.A anarcho-communist yes, a communist? no.

Obviously, many anarchists, myself included, won't refer to themselves simply as communists to prevent from being associated with leninists who've hijacked the work to mean some sort of stalinist dystopia.


This is just empty diversionary rhetoric.

So for example

Supporting strikes
Attending picket lines
Holding educational classes
Intervening in LGBT marches
Going out on the streets with the community against fascists
Opposing cuts to the welfare state
advocating for british(and nato) troops to leave Afghanistan
Showing solidarity with the asylum seekers put in prison
Adovocting internationalism and socialism.
Being visable for the streets with stalls to engage with new people(not saying anarchists don't do this, however in all my life i have never seen a AFED stall on the streets)

These are are all acts with work against the interest of communism?

None of these are exclusive for a stateless society. A liberal would agree with that as well.


I am interested to know what the AFED does which works in the interest of eventually bring communism in comparison?
Anarchists for one, don't believe in any state withering away. The direct result of an anarchist revolution would be a classless society.

All you have to do is READ revolution inaction.

You know the part were he said.

"I see leininsts suporting unions rather than workers and promoting illusions in them despite the fact that they are infective at defending workers interests and in many cases act directly against to them. "

The only propaganda here is that anarchist be clamed to be pro-union by you while you clame that unions are anti-worker, and that why you are against it.
Around here, the proportion of unionized workers has dropped bellow half from almost full unionization a decade ago. The reason is the nature of the union leaders who are too easily corrupted by the bosses and/or government and it creates apathy among workers. I remember a friend of mine who works as a teacher and decided with his colleagues to go on strike once the cuts were announced. They were individually told by their superiors that if they go on strike, they get fired. End of story. The present labor unions don't do shit to empower workers, that's a valid criticism.

[WeAreReborn]

Well I personally view Communists as comrades, just like I view every left wing Anarchist a comrade. I think the only way to gain ground or actually create a successful revolution would be through some sort of pan leftism.

[Andropov]

Are you sure about that ?
Yes of course, both ideologys want to create a classless world where private capital is destroyed, where the working class hold the means of production and their own destiny and where oppression is but a historical matter.

Look at what "revolution inaction" said about leininsts, which you are by being a M-L
Yes he is clearly a trendy leftist poser but im not going to bother commenting on his drivel, anybody can see what his politics are.
Dont judge the whole Anarchist movement on one Political Poser, there are plenty of Anarchists here who are capable of formulating a cohesive arguement.

[Obs]

Dont judge the whole Anarchist movement on one Political Poser, there are plenty of Anarchists here who are capable of formulating a cohesive arguement.
This, pretty much. Where's AMKsurgency when you need him?

[revolution inaction]

Is that right-wing propaganda I hear, about how union are no longer useful? That they are evil and that we should take them down? That they waste worker money? Would you like to fill in the rest for us?

You know I find it funny that you found it to be Stalinist propaganda try say that anarchist are anti-union when you just used the same type of anti-union line that the right always use. Also your statement was just before revolution inaction which also had "unions hate workers" line.

I don't represent any anarchists apart from my self btw :)

But it is vary obvious that unions are general useless for workers or serve to contain and control struggles.

[revolution inaction]

Yes he is clearly a trendy leftist poser but im not going to bother commenting on his drivel, anybody can see what his politics are.
Dont judge the whole Anarchist movement on one Political Poser, there are plenty of Anarchists here who are capable of formulating a cohesive arguement.

if you hate my politics i'm probably doing something right :)

[Zanthorus]

...Anarchists aren't opposed to a proper Union. If Anarchists were opposed to unions, do you think they'd be in the IWW, CNT, just to name a couple big Unions in the world.

Anarchism is not a homogenous current. The UK Anarchist Federation, which revolution inaction is a member of, argue that the nature of trade-unions makes them (As well as 'revolutionary' syndicalist unions) antithetical to the struggle against capitalism:


Unions by their very nature cannot become vehicles for the revolutionary transformation of society. They have to be accepted by capitalism in order to function and so cannot play a part in its overthrow. Trades unions divide the working class (between employed and unemployed, trade and craft, skilled and unskilled, etc). Even syndicalist unions are constrained by the fundamental nature of unionism. The union has to be able to control its membership in order to make deals with management. Their aim, through negotiation, is to achieve a fairer form of exploitation of the workforce. The interests of leaders and representatives will always be different from ours. The boss class is our enemy, and while we must fight for better conditions from it, we have to realise that reforms we may achieve today may be taken away tomorrow. Our ultimate aim must be the complete abolition of wage slavery. Working within the unions can never achieve this.http://www.afed.org.uk/organisation/aims-and-principles.html

[Palingenisis]

Working class anarchists yes.

Peado-loving radical liberals and anarcho-capitalists no.

[Aesop]

have you met any anarchists?

:lol:




I see leininsts suporting unions rather than workers and promoting illusions in them despite the fact that they are infective at defending workers interests and in many cases act directly against to them.

Not sure about the other organisations like workers power,swp etc(because i am not part of them), however what you the SPEW supporting unions instead of the workers wrong.

No one is trying to say that unions are perfect and the leaders do make concessions with is against the interest of the workers, and we will support the rank and file workers over any trade union bureaucrat. However to completely write them off is counter-productive seeing as they have a vast amount of resources and a membership which could potentially be utilised and also it is for many workers the only means of defending their pay and conditions.


I have nothing against this

At least there is something you agree on.


Education in what though?

Where should i start?

Like the causes of the current crises, Marxist economics, Marxist philosophy, the history of working class struggles's, the issue of racism, sexism and other forms of bigotry and how it links to capitalism.........the list could go on.

Don't the AFED have such discussions?



what kind of intervention though?

Do i really have to tell step by step?

Going standing in a pen for hours, handing anarchists over to the police, trying to get them arrested, lieing to people about where the fascists are so as to trick people to attend there talks instead of actually opposing the fascists.

Your terrible.
So now leninists= UAF


Telling people to vote labour, forming front groups whos principle function is recruitment and allowing there party to dominate the struggle.

Did the SPEW tell people to vote for labour in this general election, if so why did we put up candidates in labour dominated seats.

Get your facts right.


Again forming front groups which render the struggle against the war ineffective and only really seem to act as recruiting tools.

What front group has the SPEW created to 'render the struggle against the war ineffective'?

Please tell me.



It seems to me that leninsts actually advocate nationalism of other nations

Nationalism and national liberation are not the same. So do you not agree with countries having their independence?
Remember international will work only when the workers decide that nation- states are pointless and they have more in common with workers in other nation-states.

So far you have used leninists to lump different trotskyists organisations as the same, as well as different stalinists groups.

If you don't believe in independence for nation-states then ironicly you are no better than the ardent stalinists who don't believe in independence, yet you have no cheek to lump every 'leninist' group as the same.


the socalism they advocate is a complete load of shit that rarely goes beyond advocating nationalisation.

You really don't deserve a response


Afed and solfed do this.


I have seen solfed and a range of local anarchist groups, but not afed.

Maybe Afed are too busy having meetings talking about how great makhno tried to defeat the evil bolshies.:)


i cant be bothered to answer this right now

No i really want to know, considering what the SPEW is doing is effectively working against communism, i feel that i might learn a lot.

[Aesop]

Obviously, many anarchists, myself included, won't refer to themselves simply as communists to prevent from being associated with leninists who've hijacked the work to mean some sort of stalinist dystopia.

Okay then, so why is it that your fellow anarchist 'revolution inaction' asked if i have ever met an anarchist, when i said i have never came across an anarchist calling himself a communist?


None of these are exclusive for a stateless society. A liberal would agree with that as well.

I don't really remember obama or nick clegg adovacting such things(i can only imagine the likes of fox news telling the population that liberals advocate socialism and internationalism).

[Misanthrope]

But wouldint the governing body have to enforce those laws? in A communistic society how would those laws be enforced without a police?

In communism I believe the government would be very decentralized and would make up of working class people no one would be forced to be apart of it but it would definitely benefit you.

Police =/= state, there will most likely have to be a law enforcement group (call it a police I don't care) but most crime is due to economic problems and that will not be the case in communism.

You're just arguing semantics, argue the actual theories.

[revolution inaction]

:lol:





Not sure about the other organisations like workers power,swp etc(because i am not part of them), however what you the SPEW supporting unions instead of the workers wrong.

No one is trying to say that unions are perfect and the leaders do make concessions with is against the interest of the workers, and we will support the rank and file workers over any trade union bureaucrat. However to completely write them off is counter-productive seeing as they have a vast amount of resources and a membership which could potentially be utilised and also it is for many workers the only means of defending their pay and conditions.

The spew members i have met are vary clear that they believe it is impossible for the workers to take action independently of unions and advocate people join unions in all circumstances regardless of the behaviour of the unions or whether the workers would benefit from being in a union. There solution to unions not calling strikes etc is to campain for unions to do so, no mention of workers.



Where should i start?

Like the causes of the current crises, Marxist economics, Marxist philosophy, the history of working class struggles's, the issue of racism, sexism and other forms of bigotry and how it links to capitalism.........the list could go on.

i am not convinced that the spew perspective on these things is necessarily beneficial.



Don't the AFED have such discussions?

we have discussions about lots of things




Your terrible.
So now leninists= UAF

the whole time i have been talking about leninsts in general, and anywayyou decided to defend the swp here
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1965347&postcount=5








Quote: Originally Posted by revolution inaction http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1965307#post1965307)
The way this question is written, it makes no sense, most anarchists are communists,
I think you are talking about communalists rather than communists

Quote:
Originally Posted by revolution inaction http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1965307#post1965307)
if you replace "Communism" with Leninism then you are right, it does fundamental contradiction with anarchism, but also with communism.
So the SP, SWP and other trotskyist organisations are not ultimately striving for a classless and stateless society?







Did the SPEW tell people to vote for labour in this general election, if so why did we put up candidates in labour dominated seats.

Get your facts right.

i cant actual remember what the spew said about labour in the last election but not everything is about you, the swp which i remember was part of tusc with you did advocate voting labour.
And standing your own candidates is not really any better than telling people to vote labour.




What front group has the SPEW created to 'render the struggle against the war ineffective'?

Please tell me.

i cant remember if spew has an anti war front or if thay where involved with stwc or what ever it was called, but not everything is about spew




Nationalism and national liberation are not the same. So do you not agree with countries having their independence?
Remember international will work only when the workers decide that nation- states are pointless and they have more in common with workers in other nation-states.

So far you have used leninists to lump different trotskyists organisations as the same, as well as different stalinists groups.

If you don't believe in independence for nation-states then ironicly you are no better than the ardent stalinists who don't believe in independence, yet you have no cheek to lump every 'leninist' group as the same.

I don't support countries existing, how could i support the independence of this or that country?

If you suport nationalism then you suport nationalism, it doesn't matter if its and "oppressed nation" or some other such bullshit, it is still nationalism and still reactionary and still opposed to the workers interests.





You really don't deserve a response

all the spew i've meet really like nationalisation don't you have some kind of demand to nationalise the top 200 companies or something?




I have seen solfed and a range of local anarchist groups, but not afed.

are you in brighton?
afed doesn't have a huge number of members, and they are not evenly distributed, and it is up to each group to decide how best to spend there time.





Maybe Afed are too busy having meetings talking about how great makhno tried to defeat the evil bolshies.:)

fuck off




No i really want to know, considering what the SPEW is doing is effectively working against communism, i feel that i might learn a lot.
you clearly have no intention of learning, and i really cant be bothered



Okay then, so why is it that your fellow anarchist 'revolution inaction' asked if i have ever met an anarchist, when i said i have never came across an anarchist calling himself a communist?

one anarchist doesn't represent all anarchists so this what about when anarchsits x said y is a load of crap.
but anarchists who call them self anarchists-communists are calling them self communists, and its not that uncommon for them to refer to themselves as communists while point out that they are not like Leninist communists, i never said that anarchists would call themselves communist without any qualification.



I don't really remember obama or nick clegg adovacting such things
obama and nick clegg do not represent all liberals, there are plenty of liberals that support that stuff.

[Magón]

Anarchism is not a homogenous current. The UK Anarchist Federation, which revolution inaction is a member of, argue that the nature of trade-unions makes them (As well as 'revolutionary' syndicalist unions) antithetical to the struggle against capitalism:

http://www.afed.org.uk/organisation/aims-and-principles.html

Yeah, I understand that, but you see, I don't always agree on what other Anarchist groups say about this or that. I have my own ideas, and sometimes they are compatible with what other Anarchists and Anarchist groups think/say. Some of them may disagree, but if I followed what every Anarchist group, or a specific Anarchist group said about something, that would make me more of a follow than an individual, now wouldn't it?

So whether unions are a means to revolution or not, that's up to who you speak with. Personally I see unions as a means to help workers (if they're a proper union), and a way to organize for a revolution when the workers come to them.

[ZeroNowhere]

I think that Zanthorus' point was that there is no single anarchist viewpoint on the union question.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

There is a reason why Marx never called himself a anarchists. Thought it does not stop them from claming him thought. It funny thought this help prove my case that anarchists are anti-union.

I don't think any communist should have illusions that trade unions are vehicles for revolution. What Anarcho-Syndicalists advocate is vastly different from the organisation and goals of current trade unions. In my opinion what Syndicalist Anarchists and anti-union Anarchists envisage in terms of organisation in a revolutionary situation is not much different. A revolutionary union is rank and file controlled and isn't integrated into the state.

Do you see bureaucrat-led social democrat-esque trade unions as potentially revolutionary organisations?

[Thirsty Crow]

If the question is if there is a possibility of an "alliance" between various communist and anarchist organizations...I do think there is such a possibility.
Though, the fact is that much of 20th ct. history has produced a layer of specifically "historicized" sentiments (along doctrine lines) which could potentially sever the "organic" ling between these two, which are, it must be noted, esentially pro working class ideologies, both advocating the abolition of capital, by means of a global revolution.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Aye, as is evident in this thread, an anarchist and a communist are as likely to disagree with another anarchist or communist (or a Communist), as they are to disagree with one another.
I'd say this is especially true since the popularization of insurrectionary currents of both schools of thought. Seriously, half the people I know who used to call themselves anarchists are now weird autonomous communists or some shit.
It's also pretty situational - I probably have more common ground with Common Cause than with the Parti Communiste Revolutionaire in many ways, but when it comes to fighting the police, the PCR are masked up and ready to throw down.
And, I mean, I'm probably more into sex with skids than with people of any particular capital-P Politics.

The real question facing us: Punx and hippies - natural enemies?

[Comrade_Stalin]

LOL Nice try, but I didn't even infer or mention any such things in my post. You're grasping at something that isn't there, but you're trying to put it there. Maybe next time, you should say, Unions aren't what they used to be, they're sell outs to a degree, but Anarchists aren't opposed to a proper Union. If Anarchists were opposed to unions, do you think they'd be in the IWW, CNT, just to name a couple big Unions in the world.

I don't think so. I never said any of what you tried to say I was "meaning" or "inferred", but nice try. Maybe next time think reasonably on what I'm saying, rather than grasping at air. ;)

What bare you brain dead? Can't you read your own post? Let me re-state it for you


Now-a-day union's kinda have sold out, and aren't what they used to be. Now they just kinda sit there with the thumbs up their asses.

Your own words point to the fact that you see unions as "sold out" That they "aren't what they used to be" the same thing I get from people on the right.

The real "LOL Nice try" here is that you tryed to re-write your own words to make anarchists pro-union, which goes agaisnt what you and the others said. It not longer after you are anti-party, for you to be anti-union. Hell look at your own statement. That you are part of big unions that as you put it, " Now-a-day union's kinda have sold out, and aren't what they used to be. Now they just kinda sit there with the thumbs up their asses."

[Comrade_Stalin]

Around here, the proportion of unionized workers has dropped bellow half from almost full unionization a decade ago. The reason is the nature of the union leaders who are too easily corrupted by the bosses and/or government and it creates apathy among workers. I remember a friend of mine who works as a teacher and decided with his colleagues to go on strike once the cuts were announced. They were individually told by their superiors that if they go on strike, they get fired. End of story. The present labor unions don't do shit to empower workers, that's a valid criticism.

And this does not prove my case that anarchist are anti-union how Nin?Look if you guy thing that unions are anti- mworker , then state your case for it, but don't go around saying that unions are "too easily corrupted" and then saying that you are for them.

[Comrade_Stalin]

I don't represent any anarchists apart from my self btw :)

But it is vary obvious that unions are general useless for workers or serve to contain and control struggles.

I don't know how a group build by workers can be useless to it, but please state your case.

[Thirsty Crow]

It only takes a bit of reason and a firm dedication to workers' power too see the existing "official" unions for what they are - hierarchically structured organizations, integrated into the capitalist system as the third party of the Fordist social contract, completely reformist and even totally disempowered nowadays, when austerity hits the ground, when it comes to defensive fights against the capitalists and the cuts enacted by various governments.
Yeah, it's logical and quite easy to be anti-union nowadays - that is, if you support worekrs' revolution. Or if you are not an idiot.

[Comrade_Stalin]

I don't think any communist should have illusions that trade unions are vehicles for revolution. What Anarcho-Syndicalists advocate is vastly different from the organisation and goals of current trade unions. In my opinion what Syndicalist Anarchists and anti-union Anarchists envisage in terms of organisation in a revolutionary situation is not much different. A revolutionary union is rank and file controlled and isn't integrated into the state.

Do you see bureaucrat-led social democrat-esque trade unions as potentially revolutionary organisations?

Then what is the vehicles for revolution? It can't be the party, no that to "bureaucrat", no. What about trade unions? No not them they are "social democrat". Then what? Please name for us the vehicles for revolution.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Yes of course, both ideologys want to create a classless world where private capital is destroyed, where the working class hold the means of production and their own destiny and where oppression is but a historical matter.

.

This is only ture for anarchist on the left, we have another group of them on the right called "anarcho-capitalist", which I would like to know is what is the view of an anarchist on the left on them.

Now those on the left are for "classless world where private capital is destroyed", but when has "oppression" to any system been a "historical matter"?



Yes he is clearly a trendy leftist poser but im not going to bother commenting on his drivel, anybody can see what his politics are.
Dont judge the whole Anarchist movement on one Political Poser, there are plenty of Anarchists here who are capable of formulating a cohesive arguement.

Have you read the other post here, not on this one post but other ones? He not the only one, form there side with this view, hell look at what Zanthoris posted about taht in reaction to Nin.

[Comrade_Stalin]

It only takes a bit of reason and a firm dedication to workers' power too see the existing "official" unions for what they are - hierarchically structured organizations, integrated into the capitalist system as the third party of the Fordist social contract, completely reformist and even totally disempowered nowadays, when austerity hits the ground, when it comes to defensive fights against the capitalists and the cuts enacted by various governments.
Yeah, it's logical and quite easy to be anti-union nowadays - that is, if you support worekrs' revolution. Or if you are not an idiot.

Is this the same group of "totally disempowered" unions that still get there workers a 20% higher wage then non-union workers? Is this the same "integrated into the capitalist system as the third party of the Fordist social contract" group that people like Gleen Beck keep on attack, because he see them as "corrupted"?

Unions were made to help workers' and still do today with strike funds. Are they powerful? No they are not, because they are not united at all. You may find on at one factory but not any were else. Don't take there lack of power to mean that they are anti-worker. They are for workers revolution and not idots for being for it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Is this the same group of "totally disempowered" unions that still get there workers a 20% higher wage then non-union workers? Is this the same "integrated into the capitalist system as the third party of the Fordist social contract" group that people like Gleen Beck keep on attack, because he see them as "corrupted"?

Unions were made to help workers' and still do today with strike funds. Are they powerful? No they are not, because they are not united at all. You may find on at one factory but not any were else. Don't take there lack of power to mean that they are anti-worker. They are for workers revolution and not idots for being for it.
Can I have some evidence which would support your ridiculous notion that ordinary, state sponsored (capitalist states), official unions are in fact revolutionary organizations?

And as far ad the wage differential is concernede, that in fact proves the total integration of these institutions into the capitalist framework, since it presupposes a vital, "monopoly" sector which could have (and sometimes still can) afford to pay higher wages than employers in other sectors in which it is notoriously difficult for workers to organize. Unions do help and they do fight for reform, but that does not make them revolutionary in themselves.
And I fail to see how someone can deny the simple fact of the integration of most of the unions into the state-capital system...They are state sponsored (or alternatively by means of fees) and they participate in tripartite bargaining (state officials-capitalists-union representatives). More oftne than not high union officials are paid very nicely (as far as I can recall, the biggest differential between a high union official and a rank-and-file worker were 1:3, or even more).
I could even provide you an example of outright antiworker measures underaken by the leadership of several unions here where I live. And I will have to deal with the famous flexibilization of labour which they were more than happy to accept (after a period of spectacular struggle and threats of referendum).

But to return...which unions are active supporters of the revolutionary cause? And more importnatly, how many of them do function in this way?

[Comrade_Stalin]

Can I have some evidence which would support your ridiculous notion that ordinary, state sponsored (capitalist states), official unions are in fact revolutionary organizations?


This is from Lenin



Lenin saw the trade unions as schools for communist management. In a decree on the trade unions (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/30.htm) and their role in NEP published on January 12, 1922, Lenin said, "Being a school of communism in general, the trade unions must, in particular, be a school for training the whole mass of workers, and eventually all working people, in the art of managing socialist industry (and gradually also agriculture)."


And this is form a right wing person I was figthing with.



SEIU Local 1199, based in New York City, is one of New York's most powerful and militant labor unions. With more than 300,000 members, it is the world’s largest union local. Sixteen years after its 1932 founding, it was investigated by the House Un-American Activities Committee for Communist "infiltration."

At a March 2007 meeting, Local 1199's executive vice president Steve Kramer spoke enthusiastically about the role which the Communist Party USA played in building up his union. When the Communist Party split in 1991, several Local 1199 officials took many comrades into the breakaway group, Committees of Correspondence. One of those officials, Rafael Pizarro, also went on to help found the New Party, a Marxist organization that Barack Obama joined in Chicago in 1995.

From 1972 to 1994, the late Merrilee Milstein -- a hard left activist who was married to Communist Party member Brian Steinberg -- served as Local 1199's vice president.

SEIU has extensive ties to the community organization ACORN. Between 2005 and 2008, the union spent $9 million on ACORN training programs and organizing services. Moreover, SEIU hired ACORN founder Wade Rathke to lead the union's national organizing programs.







And as far ad the wage differential is concernede, that in fact proves the total integration of these institutions into the capitalist framework, since it presupposes a vital, "monopoly" sector which could have (and sometimes still can) afford to pay higher wages than employers in other sectors in which it is notoriously difficult for workers to organize. Unions do help and they do fight for reform, but that does not make them revolutionary in themselves.
And I fail to see how someone can deny the simple fact of the integration of most of the unions into the state-capital system...They are state sponsored (or alternatively by means of fees) and they participate in tripartite bargaining (state officials-capitalists-union representatives). More oftne than not high union officials are paid very nicely (as far as I can recall, the biggest differential between a high union official and a rank-and-file worker were 1:3, or even more).
I could even provide you an example of outright antiworker measures underaken by the leadership of several unions here where I live. And I will have to deal with the famous flexibilization of labour which they were more than happy to accept (after a period of spectacular struggle and threats of referendum).

Here try answering this, if unions are so "useful" to the capitalist framework, then why are people like Gleen Beck against them. If you are right then he should be for them.




But to return...which unions are active supporters of the revolutionary cause? And more importnatly, how many of them do function in this way?

You are right if you only count the US. Right now no US Union supports any communist party here int eh US, but this is not ture for Russia where one communist party is supported by unions and there workers.

[Alf]

There can be an alliance between revolutionaries and internationalists who define themselves as marxists and revolutionaries and internationalists who define themselves as anarchists, despite their differences. Recently my group, the ICC, which is part of the left communist tradition, has worked jointly with anarchist groups in France, Mexico, Peru and elsewhere. We have more in common with the kind of outlook put forward by Revolution Inaction's posts on this thread (eg, on the unions) than those put forward by members of Stalinist and Trotskyist organisations, which defend a programme of nationalism and state capitalism.

[Kaze no Kae]

All you have to do is READ revolution inaction.

You know the part were he said.

"I see leininsts suporting unions rather than workers and promoting illusions in them despite the fact that they are infective at defending workers interests and in many cases act directly against to them. "

The only propaganda here is that anarchist be clamed to be pro-union by you while you clame that unions are anti-worker, and that why you are against it.
He's referring to traditional bureaucratic unions, which usually have collaborationist upper and mid-level officials. Which is often better than nothing, but Leninists (and Stalinists, which isn't the same thing) usually ignore workers' self-action and only support union-initiated or -endorsed action. Union officials have been known to actively undermine wildcat action, as have Stalinists (who have an eerie tendency to have the participants arrested and/or shot).

I doubt he was including revolutionary unions like the IWW or CNT in his rejection of unionism

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Then what is the vehicles for revolution? It can't be the party, no that to "bureaucrat", no. What about trade unions? No not them they are "social democrat". Then what? Please name for us the vehicles for revolution.

The revolutionary union which I described in my post is in my opinion the ideal organisation.

[Aesop]

The spew members i have met are vary clear that they believe it is impossible for the workers to take action independently of unions

The SPEW does not state that it is impossible for workers to take action independently of the unions.

Please provide evidence.


and advocate people join unions in all circumstances regardless of the behaviour of the unions or whether the workers would benefit from being in a union.

What is wrong with people joining unions, in no way am i saying that unions at the moment a beacons of revolutionary spirit, however they are an important means of defending workers at the workplace and help building confidence among workers. I can't see how workers not being part of an union being more beneficial.


There solution to unions not calling strikes etc is to campain for unions to do so, no mention of workers.

This is borderline insulting.
It would be nice if you could provide evidence rather than offer up such spurious claims.


i am not convinced that the spew perspective on these things is necessarily beneficial.

Thats because for some reason you have a great personally dislike for leninists as it seems. Also, to be honest i don't really care.


the whole time i have been talking about leninsts in general, and anywayyou decided to defend the swp here
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1965347&postcount=5

So the fact that i mentioned the SWP as staing that they are leninists i am defending their wider actions:confused:




i cant actual remember what the spew said about labour in the last election but not everything is about you,

Aesop=SPEW:lol:

Well seeing that i am in the SPEW my defence of 'leninism' with unsurprising involve SPEW.



the swp which i remember was part of tusc with you did advocate voting labour.

So now as a 'leninist' i am responsible for every action that the SWP does, even though i am a member of SPEW!


And standing your own candidates is not really any better than telling people to vote labour.

:rolleyes:




i cant remember if spew has an anti war front or if thay where involved with stwc or what ever it was called, but not everything is about spew

Well seeing that i am in the SPEW my defence of 'leninism' with unsurprising involve SPEW.

Just out of interest what were the AFED do, in regards to the iraq war?


I don't support countries existing, how could i support the independence of this or that country?

Cause in real life you have to deal with the concrete. Of course socialists want internationalism and not nation-states.
However, in the real world we support the self-detrmination of oppressed nations. So do you think that lenin should have not offered Finland and the Baltic states independence?


If you suport nationalism then you suport nationalism

National liberation and nationalism is not the same thing.


it doesn't matter if its and "oppressed nation" or some other such bullshit, it is still nationalism and still reactionary and still opposed to the workers interests.

Of course, socialists don't want to see more nation-states and more divisions within the working class. However, all you are trying to do is paint nationalism of all sorts as the same.

'While nationalism itself is ultimately divisive it has two quite distinct aspects which cannot be lumped together. The nationalism of a fascist demanding a new Reich is not the same as the nationalism of a Palestinian in a refugee camp striving for a homeland for his or her people.'

Are you telling me that you believe that they are as both as reactionary as each other?

The former is entirely reactionary, while the latter represents an elementary yearning for freedom and for a better life. One is a brake on history while the other, in the form of mass national liberation movements has been one of the greatest engines of historical change in this century.


all the spew i've meet really like nationalisation don't you have some kind of demand to nationalise the top 200 companies or something?

It is called a transitional demand




are you in brighton?

No. However, surely that is not a brilliant reflection if you can only cite brighton.



afed doesn't have a huge number of members, and they are not evenly distributed, and it is up to each group to decide how best to spend there time.

Fair enough. Although i was not trying to take the piss out of AFED i was just stating a fact.





fuck off

Your the one who wanted to play silly remember, two can play at that game.




you clearly have no intention of learning, and i really cant be bothered

No, i am generally interested.




one anarchist doesn't represent all anarchists so this what about when anarchsits x said y is a load of crap.

I am well aware that you do not represent all anarchist. Using your logic why were you so surprised when i said that i have never met an anarchist who called themselves a communist?


but anarchists who call them self anarchists-communists are calling them self communists,

No, they are calling themselves anarcho-communists.



obama and nick clegg do not represent all liberals, there are plenty of liberals that support that stuff.

Funny how you come out and say obama and clegg do not represent all liberals, but you have no problem using the blanket term leninists*sigh*

However, seeing that Obama and clegg are the most famous liberals and call themselves liberals i would say that it was a safe bet to cite obama and clegg. Who would you have citied?

[revolution inaction]

The SPEW does not state that it is impossible for workers to take action independently of the unions.

Please provide evidence.

I don't tape my conversations.




What is wrong with people joining unions, in no way am i saying that unions at the moment a beacons of revolutionary spirit, however they are an important means of defending workers at the workplace and help building confidence among workers. I can't see how workers not being part of an union being more beneficial.

I don't object to people joining unions in all cases, in some cases it may be beneficial, but advocating people join unions regardless of whether people will benefit or not is idiotic.




This is borderline insulting.
It would be nice if you could provide evidence rather than offer up such spurious claims.

in all circumstances spew members i have met advocate joining unions, and tell everyone they should support unions, they never seem to mention workers directly unless someone else mentions them.




Thats because for some reason you have a great personally dislike for leninists as it seems. Also, to be honest i don't really care.

i don't really dislike (on a personal level) any of the spew members i have met so far but I think leninist politics are shit, so naturally I am not incredibly excited about people being educated in these politics.



So the fact that i mentioned the SWP as staing that they are leninists i am defending their wider actions


you said



So the SP, SWP and other trotskyist organisations are not ultimately striving for a classless and stateless society?


to which i responded
"striving" for something when you actions are in the most part useless or contrary to what you claim to be aiming for does not mean a lot.



This is just empty diversionary rhetoric.

So for example

Supporting strikes
Attending picket lines
Holding educational classes
Intervening in LGBT marches
Going out on the streets with the community against fascists
Opposing cuts to the welfare state
advocating for british(and nato) troops to leave Afghanistan
Showing solidarity with the asylum seekers put in prison
Adovocting internationalism and socialism.
Being visable for the streets with stalls to engage with new people(not saying anarchists don't do this, however in all my life i have never seen a AFED stall on the streets)

These are are all acts with work against the interest of communism?


it sounds like you are saying there is something worthwhile about the activity of the swp and other trotsky organisations, since i was initially talking about leninsts in general and you never said you where not.






Aesop=SPEW

Well seeing that i am in the SPEW my defence of 'leninism' with unsurprising involve SPEW.


if i am criticising leninism in general then the fact that the spew doesn't do something doesn't change my criticism of those leinists that do.






So now as a 'leninist' i am responsible for every action that the SWP does, even though i am a member of SPEW!

you were part of a coalition with them.




Just out of interest what were the AFED do, in regards to the iraq war?

I wasn't a member when the iraq war started, so you will have to ask someone else, i would think that afed members tried to promote direct action, obviously this was not massively successfully since the anti war movement did not really move beyond peaceful a-b marches.





Cause in real life you have to deal with the concrete. Of course socialists want internationalism and not nation-states.
However, in the real world we support the self-detrmination of oppressed nations. So do you think that lenin should have not offered Finland and the Baltic states independence?

lenin should have never been in a position to be offering countries independence.




National liberation and nationalism is not the same thing.

Of course, socialists don't want to see more nation-states and more divisions within the working class. However, all you are trying to do is paint nationalism of all sorts as the same.

'While nationalism itself is ultimately divisive it has two quite distinct aspects which cannot be lumped together. The nationalism of a fascist demanding a new Reich is not the same as the nationalism of a Palestinian in a refugee camp striving for a homeland for his or her people.'

Are you telling me that you believe that they are as both as reactionary as each other?

The former is entirely reactionary, while the latter represents an elementary yearning for freedom and for a better life. One is a brake on history while the other, in the form of mass national liberation movements has been one of the greatest engines of historical change in this century.

did i say all nationalism is equally reactionary?
but it is not the business of revolutionaries to support the less reactionary reactionary.







It is called a transitional demand

i know what transitional demands are, i also know that members of your party support nationalisation, and tell me that nationalised businesses are closer to socialism than privately owned ones.




No. However, surely that is not a brilliant reflection if you can only cite brighton.

wtf do you mean here? i thought you might be in brighton because that is one of the places in the country where there are more solfed than afed, and also independent anarchists.




Your the one who wanted to play silly remember, two can play at that game.

where did i "play silly"?






No, i am generally interested.

afed encourages workers to self organise in defence of their interests, against capitalism, sexism, racism, homophobia nationalism, militarism etc, and for solidarity, mutual aid, internationalism etc.
We do this thorough a variety of means such as showing solidarity and arguing for our ideas at marches, pickets, occupations etc.
we produce propaganda to promote this like resistance, we hold public meetings, show films etc.
you can find out more on our web site, on the websites of our local groups and in our publications.



I am well aware that you do not represent all anarchist. Using your logic why were you so surprised when i said that i have never met an anarchist who called themselves a communist?

No, they are calling themselves anarcho-communists.

if some one calls them self a anarcho-communist then they are calling them self a communist, how could this not be the case?




Funny how you come out and say obama and clegg do not represent all liberals, but you have no problem using the blanket term leninists*sigh*

However, seeing that Obama and clegg are the most famous liberals and call themselves liberals i would say that it was a safe bet to cite obama and clegg. Who would you have citied?
i call leninists leninists, but i don't expect every leninist to agree with every other leninst about everything. you have only shown that some liberals don't support those things while the person you where arguing against was saying there are plenty that do.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't object to people joining unions in all cases, in some cases it may be beneficial, but advocating people join unions regardless of whether people will benefit or not is idiotic.

If you don't join the union in your workplace it isolates you from workers who are in the union. Joining unions shouldn't be about thinking these organisations are possible of being 'hijacked' by the rank and file but for chances to agitate with other workers.

[revolution inaction]

If you don't join the union in your workplace it isolates you from workers who are in the union. Joining unions shouldn't be about thinking these organisations are possible of being 'hijacked' by the rank and file but for chances to agitate with other workers.

well that could be a case where it makes sense to join a union

[bricolage]

Where I work there are some unionised workers, most are not, I am not because I am only a temporary worker and there isn't much unions could offer me. None of this stops me interacting and engaging with other workers. I think we are more isolated by the intra-worker hierarchies that are formed, by the pitting of temporary workers against contract workers, by literal spatial divisions, by shift patterns etc than unionised vs non-unionised workers. Maybe this would be different if there was some kind of strike action or something similar going on but as it stand I don't really see it.

[Zanthorus]

Please name for us the vehicles for revolution.

I'm not an Anarchist, and I don't reject the party as a vehicle of revolution, but I can sort of answer this question. The concept championed by certain members of the German 'Council Communist' movement to replace the trade-unions was the 'unitary organisation', first theorised by Fritz Wollfheim in 1917. The basic idea is that of a single organisation which combines the functions of the political party and the trade-union, and the Arbeiter-Unionen movement which emerged in the immediate aftermath of the First World War provided some examples of this. The Port and Shipyard Workers Union of Hamburg had a programme which included solidarity with the Russian revolution. Although actually I'm unsure as to what extent this model could be appropriated by Anarchists, since one thing that distuinguished the Arbeiter-Unionen from the Syndicalists was it's willingness to affiliate to the Comintern, Comintern affiliated parties like the KPD, and later the KAPD. The Partito Comunista Internazionalista has a similar idea, their method is to organise groups of workers' around an anti-capitalist banner within the workplace and in opposition to the trade-unions.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I'm not an Anarchist, and I don't reject the party as a vehicle of revolution, but I can sort of answer this question. The concept championed by certain members of the German 'Council Communist' movement to replace the trade-unions was the 'unitary organisation', first theorised by Fritz Wollfheim in 1917. The basic idea is that of a single organisation which combines the functions of the political party and the trade-union, and the Arbeiter-Unionen movement which emerged in the immediate aftermath of the First World War provided some examples of this. The Port and Shipyard Workers Union of Hamburg had a programme which included solidarity with the Russian revolution. Although actually I'm unsure as to what extent this model could be appropriated by Anarchists, since one thing that distuinguished the Arbeiter-Unionen from the Syndicalists was it's willingness to affiliate to the Comintern, Comintern affiliated parties like the KPD, and later the KAPD. The Partito Comunista Internazionalista has a similar idea, their method is to organise groups of workers' around an anti-capitalist banner within the workplace and in opposition to the trade-unions.

This organisation sounds similar to my idea of the revolutionary union. Obviously minus support for the comintern but thats irrelevant now anyway.

I think it's important to note that an Anarcho-Syndicalists idea of a revolutionary union differs wildly from the organisation and strategy of current trade unions. I don't know about other syndicalists but I believe this organisation is born out of a revolutionary situation, a period of heightened class militancy. It isn't something similar to the current IWW. In fact I believe that it isn't much different to something non syndicalist Anarchists advocate. I think our differences are mainly over how we get to this stage. A mini version of the authoritarian/libertarian communist schism on the path to communism.