Are all communists anarchists?

[The Man]

I read somewhere that just plain Communism wants to achieve statelessness. Is this true?

[9]

I read somewhere that just plain Communism wants to achieve statelessness. Is this true?Yes. That doesn't make "all communists anarchists", though.

[Rêve Rouge]

Yes. Both communists and anarchist wish to achieve statelessness as the end goal. It's the means to get to the end goal that divides the two. Communists (in the marxist sense) see the state as a necessary (but temporary) tool to bring about statelessness. The Soviet Union would be a good example. Anarchists reject the use of the state all together, using a more "bottom-up" approach to bring about statelessness. Anarchist Catalonia would be a good example.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Communism IS a classless, stateless society. A famous phrase from Michael Bakunin was: "All anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists."
Anarchists differ from "Communists" (Marxists) in the way they want to achieve a classless society. Anarchists want to avoid the state, while Communists want to use it.

[scarletghoul]

"While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State." - Lenin

We all aim for classless stateless society, aka anarchy. In that sense we could be called 'anarchists', but really the word "Anarchism" has come to refer to the specific historical movement/tendency that attempts to reach anarchy/communism by simply destroying the state, in contrast to statist branches of communism which aim for anarchy/communism by destroying the bourgeois state and establishing a workers' state. So in terms of ideals its technically correct but because of the historical connotations its inaccurate to describe all commies as anarchists..

[NGNM85]

Absolutely not.

[Black Sheep]

but really the word "Anarchism" has come to refer to the specific historical movement/tendency that attempts to reach anarchy/communism by destroying the bourgeoisie state and establishing a system of federated workers' and citizens' councils, in contrast to statist branches of communism which aim for anarchy/communism by destroying the bourgeois state and establishing a workers' state

Fixed and bolded that for you, for counter-misinformation's sake.

But yeah,all communists are anarchists when considering both terms according to definition, and not the historical context which assigns methods of reaching the end goal to each.

[jake williams]

Fixed and bolded that for you, for counter-misinformation's sake.

But yeah,all communists are anarchists when considering both terms according to definition, and not the historical context which assigns methods of reaching the end goal to each.
I don't really see what your point is. Is "a system of federated workers' and citizens' councils" a state?

[devoration1]

Communism IS a classless, stateless society. A famous phrase from Michael Bakunin was: "All anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists."
Anarchists differ from "Communists" (Marxists) in the way they want to achieve a classless society. Anarchists want to avoid the state, while Communists want to use it.

That's a technically true but loaded way to put it. Engels put it best that the lesson of the Paris Commune was that the working class cannot take possession of the state machinery and use it for its own ends as a ready made solution. The internationalist socialists in the 2nd and the left communists of the 3rd international (as well as a number of small tendencies such as autonomism, councilism, etc) do not wish to utilize the bourgeois state, or any state. Social Democracy (followed by Marxism-Leninism) certainly do. The 'semi-state' in Marxist literature is not a state as we know it today- and do not wish to 'use' this state or be any part of it, but merely recognize that it exists as long as class divisions remain even after a successful global working class revolution. The other non-exploiting strata and classes of society will continue to exist after a proletarian revolution- the remaining peasants, the petit-

[Nolan]

It depends what you mean by anarchism. If it means "smash the state" and immediately implement what was described above then no. To paraphrase a wise man, the state is not abolished but withers away.

[NGNM85]

It depends what you mean by anarchism. If it means "smash the state" and immediately implement what was described above then no. To paraphrase a wise man, the state is not abolished but withers away.

This is a highly dubious proposition, which, as far as I know, is completely unprecedented in human history.

[Black Sheep]

I don't really see what your point is. Is "a system of federated workers' and citizens' councils" a state?
The quote's point is that scarletghoul portrayed anarchism as

the word "Anarchism" has come to refer to the specific historical movement/tendency that attempts to reach anarchy/communism by simply destroying the state

Anarchism isn't "simply destroying the state", despite the number of times marxists describe it as such.
Now, according to Marx's definition of a state( class oppression apparatus), then yes, the anarchist proposal includes a state.
According to anacrhists' definition/view(hierarchical managerial minority with an authority monopoly), no, it doesn't.

So pick your definition and go on to describe tendencies, but do mention the definition of the state you're using, or needless elaboration,misinformation and frustration are sure to follow.

[9]

I don't mean to derail the thread, but just a couple points...



Originally Posted by devoration1
Engels put it best that the lesson of the Paris Commune was that the working class cannot take possession of the state machinery and use it for its own ends as a ready made solution.Actually, unless I'm mistaken, the quote is "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes". In which case, it's referring to the state machinery already in place i.e. the bourgeois state, not state machinery 'in and of itself' as you imply.



Originally Posted by devoration1
...the left communists of the 3rd international [...] do not wish to utilize the bourgeois state, or any state.Wait, wouldn't that include Bordiga...? :confused:
Because this wasn't Bordiga's view of "any state" at all:

Originally Posted by Amadeo Bordiga
In the phase which follows the dismantling of the apparatus of capitalist domination, the task of the political party of the working class is as vital as ever because the class struggle - though dialectically inverted - continues.

Communist theory in regard to the state and the revolution is characterised above all by the fact that it excludes all possibility of adapting the legislative and executive mechanism of the bourgeois state to the socialist transformation of the economy (the social-democratic position). But it equally excludes the possibility of achieving by means of a brief violent crisis a destruction of the state and a transformation of the traditional economic relationships which the state defended up to the last moment (the anarchist position). It also denies that the constitution of a new productive organisation can be left to the spontaneous and scattered activity of groups of producers shop by shop or trade by trade (the syndicalist position).

Any social class whose power has been overthrown, even if it is by means of terror, survives for a long time within the texture of the social organism. Far from abandoning its hopes of revenge, it seeks to politically reorganise itself and to re-establish its domination either in a violent or disguised way. It has turned from a ruling class into a defeated and dominated one, but it has not instantly disappeared.
The proletariat - which in its turn will disappear as a class alongside all other classes with the realisation of communism - organises itself as a ruling class (the Manifesto) in the first stage of the post-capitalist epoch. And after the destruction of the old state, the new proletarian state is the dictatorship of the proletariat

The precondition for going beyond the capitalist system is the overthrow of bourgeois power and the destruction of its state. The condition for bringing about the deep and radical social transformation which has to take place is a new proletarian state apparatus, capable of using force and coercion just as all other historical states.http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/class-party.htm

[jake williams]

The quote's point is that scarletghoul portrayed anarchism as


Anarchism isn't "simply destroying the state", despite the number of times marxists describe it as such.
Now, according to Marx's definition of a state( class oppression apparatus), then yes, the anarchist proposal includes a state.
According to anacrhists' definition/view(hierarchical managerial minority with an authority monopoly), no, it doesn't.

So pick your definition and go on to describe tendencies, but do mention the definition of the state you're using, or needless elaboration,misinformation and frustration are sure to follow.
I'm still a little unclear. Are you saying that both support an organized body for the (presumably potentially violent) suppression of the bourgeoisie, but Marxists support the "hierarchical managerial minority with an authority monopoly" whereas anarchists do not?

[LibertarianSocialist1]

If by anarchism you mean ''stateless society'' then yes, if you mean syndicalism then no.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

To be brief, Marx and Lenin advocated a progression of society. First, they recognized that in order to attain equality there must be enough resources to go around (how can you expect peace and equality when there isn't enough food for everyone... someone must starve). They advocated for the "Primitive Accumulation of Capital" where society was driven to rapidly gain enough resources for everyone.

As wealth is accumulated, Marx saw that people demanded increasing amounts of freedom. Through an analysis of history through a process known as Dialectic Materialism, he saw that all society moved towards greater freedom. The classes that were exploited, or lower on the social ladder demanded greater equality and revolutionized their society to fit their vision of greater equality.

Society progressed: primitive slavery (egyptian)-serfdom-primitive capitalism-capitalism-advanced capitalism. At each stage individuals demanded MORE equality, and so revolutionized their society again.

Marx extrapolated that this would continue until the closest thing to perfect equality possible was attained. He called this final stage Communism- a system where government no longer acts as a force for maintaining a social hierarchy, a system where social class no longer exists, and where people live according to their own volition.

Where as anarchists advocate for reaching equality without government, Marx and Engels believed that it was necessary to have this progression, and that, over time, equality would inevitably be reached. "Class antagonism" or social tension would cause society to change... slowly but surely. And there lies the essential foundation of the Communist perspective, and the difference between Communist and Anarchist perspective.

Perhaps an Anarchist could give you a bit more insight into their theoretical basis. :cool:

[Black Sheep]

I'm still a little unclear. Are you saying that both support an organized body for the (presumably potentially violent) suppression of the bourgeoisie, but Marxists support the "hierarchical managerial minority with an authority monopoly" whereas anarchists do not?
Isn't it obvious what i mean?
Of course Marxists themselves do not call their means as "a hierarchical managerial minority.. etc".Anarchists claim that marxists' methods are such, or lead to such, or are more prone to lead to such, the latter of which is my personal view on this.

Likewise, according to marxists, anarchists propose no organization ,a revolution worldwide within a day, etc.Do anarchists claim they support this? No.

So: listen to each group's proposal, listen to each group's criticism of the other proposals, judge, research,discuss, choose your tendency anmd prepare to be criticised! :)

[Nolan]

This is a highly dubious proposition, which, as far as I know, is completely unprecedented in human history.

What is?

I could have been a smartass here. :D

[devoration1]

Actually, unless I'm mistaken, the quote is "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes". In which case, it's referring to the state machinery already in place i.e. the bourgeois state, not state machinery 'in and of itself' as you imply.

Going by the other posts in this thread, the idea that a state is 'the bourgeois state as we know it today' is commonplace.


Wait, wouldn't that include Bordiga...?

Does it include Bordiga? Well yes. But like Lenin and Trotsky, ideas advocated at different times in their lives due to different material circumstances are contradictory.

Engels term the 'semi-state' is what I'm getting at- which is an idea central to the legacy of the left socialists and communists of the transitionary period post-revolution. Bordiga after the '20s left a legacy of 'ultra-Leninism' and a confused group that imploded in the 1952-82 ICP- Damen would be a better representative of the Italian left as a whole regarding positions concerning the state (among an assortment of other points).

[9]

Does it include Bordiga? Well yes. But like Lenin and Trotsky, ideas advocated at different times in their lives due to different material circumstances are contradictory.
Could you show me where Bordiga ever 'advocated' the quasi-councilist view of the state that you've put forward in this thread? No offense, but something about your whole response comes across as being very dishonest.

[devoration1]

I'm not sure what is disingenous or dishonest about recognizing that revolutionary theorists often support contradictory positions throughout their life and work; Bordiga being among them- as recognized in this review of a book on his life during the 'inactive' period between the late '20s and early '40s:


The work starts with an introduction on Bordiga and the Russian revolution, which insists on the foreign policy of the so-called Soviet State, as factor of "the degeneration of the Russian Revolution ". At the beginning, until 1921, Bordiga was not still hostile to the German Communist Left (KAPD), and had not still dressed in Leninist costume.

http://libcom.org/history/important-book-unknown-bordiga-1926-1946-philippe-bourrinet

There is nothing councilist or semi-councilist or quasi-councilist about opposing the statism of Marxism-Leninism, or in recognizing a definition of the state that transcends the 'bourgeois states are the only states' misunderstanding, or recognizing Bordiga (at certain points of his political career- before moving to 'ultra-Leninism') as part of the legacy of the communist left which now supports the understanding of the class party and the state inherited from the left of the2nd and 3rd internationals.

The Platform of the IBRP (now the Internationalist Communist Tendency), containing the heir of Bordiga's work from his pre-'More Leninist Than Lenin' period after WWII (and the work of other leading figures of the Italian left like Damen), is full of these "quasi-councilist" ideas:



The experience of the counter-revolution also obliges revolutionaries to deepen their understanding of the problems of the relationship between state, party and class. Whilst the role played by the former revolutionary Party in the Russian counter-revolution has led many would-be revolutionaries to reject the idea of a class party altogether the question is not so simple. The class party is indispensable to the proletariat’s revolutionary struggle for the very reason that it is the political expression of class consciousness. It contains the most politically advanced part of the working class organised in defence of the programme of emancipation of the entire proletariat. By definition the revolutionary party will always be a minority of the proletariat and yet the communist programme it defends can only be implemented by the working class as a whole. During the revolution the party will aim to take the political lead by putting forward its programme in the mass organs of the working class. Just as revolutionary consciousness without a party is unthinkable, the lesson of the Russian experience is that even the most class conscious party cannot maintain a revolution in isolation from the soviets (or similar mass organs of the working class). The soviets are the expression of working class political power (the dictatorship of the proletariat) and their decline and marginalisation from political life in Russia symbolised the strangling of the infant soviet state by the capitalist counter-revolution. The power that remained in the hands of the Bolshevik commissars as they became isolated from an exhausted and decimated working class was the power of a capitalist state. In the future world revolution the international party must aim to lead the class movement exclusively through the mass class organs which it encourages to come into being. However, there are no formal guarantees of victory and the revolutionary party cannot tie its hands in advance by erecting mechanistic barriers based on the fear of defeat. Neither the party nor the soviets are in themselves insurance against counter-revolution. The only guarantee of victory is the class consciousness of the working masses themselves.

http://www.leftcom.org/en/platform

From Bordiga's letter to Karl Korsch (1926):


We share the Russian left’s positions on the state political directives of the Russian communist party. We don’t agree with the direction taken by the Central Committee, which has been backed by a majority within it. It will lead to the degeneration of the Russian party and the proletarian dictatorship, and away from the programme of revolutionary Marxism and Leninism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1926/letter-korsch.htm

If you're asking me to dig through all of Bordiga's work from the '20s until you're satisfied, please say so.

[NGNM85]

What is?

I could have been a smartass here. :D

I think it was abundantly clear I was referring to this extremely dubious tenet of Marxist dogma that you were citing. I think any study of history reveals that monolithic, entrenched power structures are naturally self-reinforcing. Now, because something has never happened, does not make it impossible. It took us several hundred thousand years to acheive sustained, low-atmosphere flight. (And only about 70 more years to put a probe on Mars.) Still, the intellectual and factual poverty of this article of faith should give one pause.