Anarchism

[Viet Minh]

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but to my understanding Anarchism would fall on the right wing, not the left as seems to be the general perception. The definition I go by here is the ideology of a controlled versus a free market, in which case Anarchy would be the ultimate expression of a free market imo. :confused: can someone explain, and please type s-l-o-w-l-y :D

[scarletghoul]

Anarchists don't support the free market, because capitalism is another form of hierarchy and oppression. Anarchy means without hierarchy, and that includes not just the state but also capitalism, patriarchy, etc etc.

There are some loons who describe themselves as 'anarcho-capitalist' but theyre pretty confused; most anarchists advocate some form of stateless socialism.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The Free Market is an ideal antithetical, and illogical from an "Anarchist" position. The Free Market creates powerful monopolies and ensures a private security firm to become top notch and with funding from monopolies, the private security firm, unless you think a capitalist's goal is to better humanity, will become the new militarist government.

It is not possible to sustain Anarchy (lack of government and hierarchy) with capitalism. Also because hierarchy does not disappear when capitalism remains.

Anarchists are more or less communists, sometimes with varying views such as sydicalism, socialism, etc. but the main goal is the elimination of class. Similar to Marxism, but lacking the transitional phase.

There is no such thing as an anarchist who is also a capitalist. That person either has no idea what anarchy is, what capitalism is, or is just looking for attention.

[Tommy4ever]

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but to my understanding Anarchism would fall on the right wing, not the left as seems to be the general perception. The definition I go by here is the ideology of a controlled versus a free market, in which case Anarchy would be the ultimate expression of a free market imo. :confused: can someone explain, and please type s-l-o-w-l-y :D

Essentially both Marxists (of all varieties) and Anarchists have the same aim. We are all Communists. We just disagree about how to reach that aim. To some up in as few words as possible the difference between Marxists and Anarchists is that Anarchist favour a more direct approach to reaching communism by starting to bring down the state as quickly as possible whislt Marxists favour achieving communism by going through a socialist stage managed by a worker's state.

No real Anarchist supports capitalism. Indeed, Anarchists are often considered to be as far left as you can go.

Your idea of the right-left divide being between a controlled vs free market it a strange one. Because by that logic Fascists, the Ancien Regime of pre-revolution France and even the Kaiserreich (a state that frequently used heavy tariffs to ensure the dominance of German heavy industry) would all fall onto the left wing of the spectrum. I hope I don't need to tell you how wrong that would be.

Generally the best way to look at the left-right spectrum is to think that the right wants to preserve the old order or even restore it if it has been toppled. The left wants to push society forward into something new.

[Kotze]

People sorting anarchism into the right side of the spectrum is a rather recent phenomenon, it's more common online than offline, and online not really a trend on the part of the web that is in German or Spanish as far as I can tell, and even among sites in English still a minority view.

The project An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ) was started with the goal to clarify that terms like "anarcho-capitalist" are rather recent and to show that this ideology has very little to do with anarchism and also to show how wrong-headed the "anarcho-capitalist" world-view is. Since then it has sprawled into other topics, you'll also get an anarchist critique of Keynesian and Marxist politics there.

Apparantly one of the famous (as in: "a very small and very vocal minority of people on the part of the internet that is in English might care about that") "anarcho-capitalist" writers (Murray Rothbard) admitted (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/rothbard-we-must-therefore-conclude-that-we-are-not-anarchists) that they have little to do with the tradition of anarchist thought. I guess the term asshole has become to mean something negative, so these guys needed a new term.

Cheers.

[Widerstand]

The "free market" is always antithetical to Anarchism, for very practical reasons. The ideal society envisioned by Anarchists and Communists is basically the same. A society of equals, where everyone has access to the resources they need and where everyone who can contributes to society. Or something like that.

In any case, equality presupposes the absence of hierarchies (or rather, the active deconstruction of all hierarchies). This means, amongst other things, the absence of wealth and power inequality (economical and political equality). The two are interconnected, because greater wealth - greater access to resources, such as the means of production - always goes along with greater political power.

It is in theory possible to have a free market that can lead to wealth equality - that means, in mathematical models. The conditions for this market are that there is no capital investment of any kind, because those lead to the rich getting richer, since they can more easily make risky but possibly rewarding investments without facing existential threats. The other condition is that there is a progressive taxing system which does the wealth redistribution. Such a taxing system requires a state to enforce it (force monopoly), including a huge bureaucratic body, etc. Very antithetical to Anarchism.

Add to that that the free market is itself unsustainable. If the driving factor is free competition, the main goal will be to defeat the competition. It has been historically observed that the best way of fighting competition is to form monopolies (refer to Lenin's Imperialism - The youngest stage of Capitalism). Monopolies are not a free market, but are a logical conclusion of the free market. To ensure a free market to be free of monopolies, you need state intervention (to actively prevent monopolization). Again, very antithetical to Anarchism.

[bricolage]

Why do you have a loyalist flag as your avatar?
... actually I just went to the website of your username;


Welcome! The Loyalist Ledger is a brand new social networking site for the British Loyalist community in the UK and beyond.Join now and create your own profile page, upload pictures, photos, video and music, chat, blog and much much more!Loyalism is bankrupt and reactionary nationalism, it has nothing to offer the working class and it has no place amongst supposed revolutionaries. Would you like to explain yourself?

[hatzel]

Loyalism is bankrupt and reactionary nationalism, it has nothing to offer the working class and it has no place amongst supposed revolutionaries. Would you like to explain yourself?

If you'd checked his other couple of posts, you'd know he's not a communist, nor a socialist, not a revolutionary, but a liberal. Admin just don't seem to have got round to restricting his sorry behind yet. But still, he'd not have to explain himself as a 'supposed revolutionary' when he's open declared that he's not one :)

Anyway, to the topic: I know plenty of anarchists who would happily say that they're not left-wing. "We're nowhere on the scale, baby, because we're not involved in these crappy bourgeois left-right politics" and all that. To be honest, I'm one of those post-left-rightists. That is to say, I don't think the left-right spectrum is really worth anything any more. The times have moved on, and it's not so simple to say what's left and what's right any more. I prefer (slightly) more descriptive terms, like 'progressive', 'conservative', 'authoritarian', whatever you want...

[bricolage]

If you'd checked his other couple of posts, you'd know he's not a communist, nor a socialist, not a revolutionary, but a liberal. Admin just don't seem to have got round to restricting his sorry behind yet. But still, he'd not have to explain himself as a 'supposed revolutionary' when he's open declared that he's not one :)
I don't really care if he is a liberal (I think there are probably more liberals than him here, they just don't say they are, but that's whole other can of worms and anyway it will probably just end up as 'IF YOU ARE NOT MAOIST YOU ARE LIBERAL!!!!!'), I do take an issue with him being a loyalist, an form of nationalism that has most prominently taken to manifesting itself in effective death squads across the north of Ireland.

[Vampire Lobster]

sorry for the offtopic but the guy seems to be interested in our cause and even though he seems to have loyalist opinions he is actually yet to spout them or to in any way disturb us. I think restricting potentially interested members who are actually yet to say anything too blatantly reactionary is kind of stupid.

[bricolage]

I agree with you. I'm not saying he should be restricted, I'd just like to hear how he thinks Loyalism is compatible with any kind of revolutionary politics. Maybe a mod could split this.

[#FF0000]

I think it's important to point out, in regard to OP's question, that anarchism, historically, has been anti-capitalist.

[bricolage]

I think it's important to point out, in regard to OP's question, that anarchism, historically, has been anti-capitalist.
Yeah I think this is a key point. Either you can take anarchism to be a vague philosophical 'anti-statism' or you can take it as a (albeit contradictory) historical trajectory of theory, practice and organisation. In terms of the latter anarchism is anti-capitalist and anarchism is, for want of any other word that really covers it, communist. If you take this bit away anarchism is just liberalism.

[hatzel]

sorry for the offtopic but the guy seems to be interested in our cause and even though he seems to have loyalist opinions he is actually yet to spout them or to in any way disturb us. I think restricting potentially interested members who are actually yet to say anything too blatantly reactionary is kind of stupid.

You know I agree with this wholeheartedly, and find the mods can be a bit too trigger-happy sometimes, when it comes to restricting people, but I know too well how this site works, so...unfortunately I find it unlikely that anybody who has openly declared 'I am not a socialist', even if they don't disturb us on the boards and show an interest in learning about our ideologies, will survive outside of OI for that long :( Luckily, enough of us frequent OI for people to be able to learn there...:) But this is all even more off-topic, oh no! To link it back in, I too would be interested in knowing about his opinions on left-wing liberal loyalism, and how this jigsaw fits together. I would second calls for a split, though part of me thinks it will just descend into an out-and-out flame war with all the republicans laying into him, irrespective of what he has to say...

[not your usual suspect]

Yeah I think this is a key point. Either you can take anarchism to be a vague philosophical 'anti-statism' or you can take it as a (albeit contradictory) historical trajectory of theory, practice and organisation. In terms of the latter anarchism is anti-capitalist and anarchism is, for want of any other word that really covers it, communist. If you take this bit away anarchism is just liberalism.

I disagree with you on some points. The first is that anarchism is not just "a vague philosophical 'anti-statism'", my understanding of anarchist thought is that it is much more than that. Historically anarchism has been against not just the state, but against hierarchy in general (which includes capitalism). Thus, I think a more accurate statement would be that anarchism is "a vague philosophical 'anti-hierarchy/anti-authority ism'" with the proviso that authority is defined in terms of power, rather than knowledge.

This leads neatly into my second area of disagreement, which is that anarchism is not, in and of it self, communist. There were a variety of anarchists who were explicitly not communists (particularly in the USA). They emphasized freedom, and thought that communism would lead to some sort of "tyranny of the majority". Whether or not they were correct (and there are hardly any of them left today), is another debate.

And finally, the word "liberal". Liberalism has historically been a statist ideology, from the very first (including Locke) through to the most recent. Liberals believe in using the power of the state to prevent infringements upon freedom by others. Anarchists believe that the state by virtue of its existence, will infringe on freedom more than it could ever prevent infringements (and could plausibly point to history as evidence of this claim).


On the notion of anarchists supporting the 'free market', as I said above, there have (historically) been anarchists who rejected communism. They, typically, liked the idea of personal property, and markets. However, the notion of property is very different to a capitalist notion. In an 'anarchist free market' (if such a thing could exist), property would not accumulate (become 'capital'), rent and interest would not be paid (a person would not receive reward for merely 'owning' something), and in most of the reading I've done, profit would also not be accumulated (things are sold for the cost of producing them).

I would like to different articles on the subject, except that I am not permitted to. Someone commented that apparently I am a suspected spammer because I have yet to accumulate 25 posts (as if such a person couldn't be discovered within three or four posts). Take a look at the Wikipedia article on "Cost the limit of price" for a good overview anyway.

[Savage]

Essentially both Marxists (of all varieties) and Anarchists have the same aim. We are all Communists. We just disagree about how to reach that aim. To some up in as few words as possible the difference between Marxists and Anarchists is that Anarchist favour a more direct approach to reaching communism by starting to bring down the state as quickly as possible whislt Marxists favour achieving communism by going through a socialist stage managed by a worker's state.
I know this isn't really the right thread for me to bother saying this but be careful with your generalizations, we (Marxists) don't all support a gloriously socialist workers state in transition to communism.

Indeed, Anarchists are often considered to be as far left as you can go.
I think left comm groups such as the ICC tend to be given the cake for 'the furthest left', but then again these groups aren't necessarily hostile towards Anarchism, and there's no point in us ultra-lefts partaking in a 'biggest dick contest' of sorts.

[hatzel]

Essentially both Marxists (of all varieties) and Anarchists have the same aim. We are all Communists. We just disagree about how to reach that aim. To some up in as few words as possible the difference between Marxists and Anarchists is that Anarchist favour a more direct approach to reaching communism by starting to bring down the state as quickly as possible whislt Marxists favour achieving communism by going through a socialist stage managed by a worker's state.I know this isn't really the right thread for me to bother saying this but be careful with your generalizations, we (Marxists) don't all support a gloriously socialist workers state in transition to communism.

And in addition to that, since when were all anarchists communists? :confused:

[Tommy4ever]

And in addition to that, since when were all anarchists communists? :confused:

Anarchists have always been Communists ....

You do understand the idea of Communism being the stateless, faithless, classless utopia at the end of the road right?

If you don't seek to achieve that then you're not really an Anarchist or a Communist.

Both Anarchists and Marxistts have always been Communists. The Anarchist-Marxist divide is probably just the earliest division within the movement which is today depressingly small and even more depressingly fractured.


I know this isn't really the right thread for me to bother saying this but be careful with your generalizations, we (Marxists) don't all support a gloriously socialist workers state in transition to communism.

I think left comm groups such as the ICC tend to be given the cake for 'the furthest left', but then again these groups aren't necessarily hostile towards Anarchism, and there's no point in us ultra-lefts partaking in a 'biggest dick contest' of sorts.

Marx supported the idea of a transitionary workers' state. I'm not sure if any Marxist group actually supports the idea of straight away abolishing the state entirely. If they do then they're not Marxists, they're Anarchists. Still Communists though. :thumbup1:

I'm not going to debate that with you, you're probably right. But some people do say Anarchists are the furthest Left, and that's all I said.

[Victus Mortuum]

^ There is such a thing as Mutualists, Individualist Anarchists, Market Socialists, etc.

(Granted these individuals are a minority nowadays, but it's important to not completely ignore them)

[Paulappaul]

Marx supported the idea of a transitionary workers' state. I'm not sure if any Marxist group actually supports the idea of straight away abolishing the state entirely. If they do then they're not Marxists, they're Anarchists. Still Communists though

From a Marxist perspective, an Anarchist isn't for right away abolishing the state. The State is equivalent to class rule. Anarchists in historical practice have been for the class rule of the workers, especially Anarcho - Syndicalists who are the majority of the Anarchist movement and have based future government around class rule.

So dare say a system of Workers' Councils come about and establish a government around themselves, that would be the State in Marxist slang, but a people's commune in Anarchist. Big difference :rolleyes:

[Joe Payne]

Well first of all to say Marx was definitively for a "worker's state" (a phrase I believe he never actually used) is a selective reading of Marx, I think. He never actually fully completed and laid out his theory on the modern state, something he himself said. SO there's plenty in Marx's writings that can also lead to anti-state conclusions. Critique of the Gotha Program I think is one good example of that.

Dude you live in Britain, just look up Anarchist Federation, Solidarity Federation, or Liberty and Solidarity to get a clue of what Anarchists actually believe. If you wanna know what actual anarchists do and believe, look them up and their organizations, don't listen to some asshole academic that has absolutely no desire to emancipate the proletariat.

And also I find the anarchist/marxist divide to be very silly. Libertarian/authoritarian is probably a more useful divide, as I mwould say there were authoritarian ideas in Bakunin, and libertarian ideas in Marx. Anarchists don't necessarily view Marxism as bad, just certain interpretations, just as there are certain interpretations of anarchism that suck (like individualism and ancap). There are libertarian strains that have developed today that emerged from both marxism and anarchism, so it's a bit useless to divide the line that way.

[Savage]

Marx supported the idea of a transitionary workers' state. I'm not sure if any Marxist group actually supports the idea of straight away abolishing the state entirely. If they do then they're not Marxists, they're Anarchists. Still Communists though. :thumbup1:

Marx knew there would be a transitional state, but he never used the term 'workers state', and as Paulappaul said before, an Anarchist approach to communism would require a transition as well (using our definition of the state). The communist left sees the state as something negative, with a conservative nature, it's not that we consider the state a useful tool in achieving communism, it's that immediate statelessness is impossible.

[Zanthorus]

Marx knew there would be a transitional state, but he never used the term 'workers state',

Acutaly he did, in The Class Struggles in France 1848-50:


On March 21 Faucher’s bill against the right of association: the suppression of the clubs was on the order of the day in the National Assembly. Article 8 of the constitution guarantees to all Frenchmen the right to associate. The prohibition of the clubs was therefore an unequivocal violation of the constitution, and the Constituent Assembly itself was to canonize the profanation of its holy of holies. But the clubs – these were the gathering points, the conspiratorial seats of the revolutionary proletariat. The National Assembly had itself forbidden the coalition of the workers against its bourgeois. And the clubs – what were they but a coalition of the whole working class against the whole bourgeois class, the formation of a workers’ state against the bourgeois state?

And in the Conspectus of Bakunins Statism and Anarchy, although here he is more sarcastically reiterating Bakunin's usage of the term:


If Mr Bakunin only knew something about the position of a manager in a workers' cooperative factory, all his dreams of domination would go to the devil. He should have asked himself what form the administrative function can take on the basis of this workers' state, if he wants to call it that.


The communist left sees the state as something negative, with a conservative nature, it's not that we consider the state a useful tool in achieving communism, it's that immediate statelessness is impossible.

To clarify, this is the position of specifically the International Communist Current, not the Communist Left as a whole.

[Paulappaul]

And in the Conspectus of Bakunins Statism and Anarchy, although here he is more sarcastically reiterating Bakunin's usage of the term:which tells us something.


Acutaly he did, in The Class Struggles in France 1848-50:what I got from this: workers' clubs = workers' state. Marx is a little weird.

[Amphictyonis]

Anarcho capitalism strikes back! We need an Anarchist jedi to bring balance back to the force and rid the world of this dark sided drivel forever. The chosen one. Maybe a person who was once an Anarcho capitalist. This 'brainpolice' guy on youtube might have some potential but I still don't like his version of mutualism.

[Widerstand]

Anarcho capitalism strikes back! We need an Anarchist jedi to bring balance back to the force and rid the world of this dark sided drivel forever. The chosen one. Maybe a person who was once an Anarcho capitalist. This 'brainpolice' guy on youtube might have some potential but I still don't like his version of mutualism.

Fuck yeah!

http://antifahs.blogsport.de/images/autonomejediritter.jpg

http://aargb.blogsport.de/images/autonomejedirittersprhschabloneppg.JPG

[gorillafuck]

Speaking of antifa, what is it with anarchists obsession with nazis and fighting fascism? I mean I understand if you're living in a country like Germany where neo-nazis have managed to take over areas, but if you think the goal of revolutionaries in Britain is to fight small fascist parties moreso than Labour, then you're out of your mind.

[Widerstand]

Speaking of antifa, what is it with anarchists obsession with nazis and fighting fascism? I mean I understand if you're living in a country like Germany where neo-nazis have managed to take over areas, but if you think the goal of revolutionaries in Britain is to fight small fascist parties moreso than Labour, then you're out of your mind.

Because every Hero needs an Anti-Hero.

[NGNM85]

Speaking of antifa, what is it with anarchists obsession with nazis and fighting fascism? I mean I understand if you're living in a country like Germany where neo-nazis have managed to take over areas, but if you think the goal of revolutionaries in Britain is to fight small fascist parties moreso than Labour, then you're out of your mind.

I think describing oneself as 'ANTIFA' is an excellent indicator of being a nimrod.

[StalinFanboy]

I think describing oneself as 'ANTIFA' is an excellent indicator of being a nimrod.

something about a pot calling a kettle black

[Victus Mortuum]

If you read Lenin's State and Revolution you will get a clear description of Marx's understanding of the state and it's relation to revolution. Upon reading it you will find (if you ignore Lenin's attacks on the anarchists) that Lenin clarifies that the "worker's state" is really not a state at all - that the primary goal of Marxists is the abolition of the state.

The divide between Marxists and Anarchists is only one in our heads. Marxism is a largely analytic system, and anarchism is a largely ethical system. They are two sides of the same coin. Briefly some "Marxists" after the split supported parliamentarism and some "Anarchists" decided to always oppose anything associated with the "state" at any time. Then both camps characterized each other as these positions and still do.

The split is stupid. I'm both an anarchist and a marxist. I'm a socialist.

[lines]

Well if anarchists don't support a free market then what sort of market do they support and in your description of this in addition to describing the sort of market on a theoretical level please also mention an example of how this market would exist in the real world. A specific example of something.

[Victus Mortuum]

I don't know if you're talking to me, but you should find the time to read this. It's really valuable:

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

[lines]

I don't know if you're talking to me, but you should find the time to read this. It's really valuable:

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

Thanks for the link I'm looking through it right now. I am having trouble finding information on what an anarchist economic system would look like but hopefully this link has the answer. My question was really directed to anyone with any input on it.

[Savage]

Acutaly he did, in The Class Struggles in France 1848-50:

Even so, he never advocated a socialist state, which was implied by 'workers state' earlier in the thread.



To clarify, this is the position of specifically the International Communist Current, not the Communist Left as a whole.

You're right, it was quite hypocritical of me to critique a generalization with another generalization, however there are many non ICC left communists who support a very similar position on the state.

[Widerstand]

If you read Lenin's State and Revolution you will get a clear description of Marx's understanding of the state and it's relation to revolution. Upon reading it you will find (if you ignore Lenin's attacks on the anarchists) that Lenin clarifies that the "worker's state" is really not a state at all - that the primary goal of Marxists is the abolition of the state.

The divide between Marxists and Anarchists is only one in our heads. Marxism is a largely analytic system, and anarchism is a largely ethical system. They are two sides of the same coin. Briefly some "Marxists" after the split supported parliamentarism and some "Anarchists" decided to always oppose anything associated with the "state" at any time. Then both camps characterized each other as these positions and still do.

The split is stupid. I'm both an anarchist and a marxist. I'm a socialist.

Theres one thing you ignore here, which is that, despite of what Lenin wrote, in Leninist (/Bolshevik) practice there never was a withering away of the state, and indeed Leninists have a hard time explaining how that is even supposed to happen, because pretty much everyone who is honest to themselves knows that a state doesn't just "wither away" and that establishing a class society doesn't destroy class society.


Well if anarchists don't support a free market then what sort of market do they support and in your description of this in addition to describing the sort of market on a theoretical level please also mention an example of how this market would exist in the real world. A specific example of something.

What sort of market do communists support?

[Zanthorus]

The divide between Marxists and Anarchists is only one in our heads.

Except Marxists and Anarchists are divided into different organisations with opposing principles.


Marxism is a largely analytic system, and anarchism is a largely ethical system.

This is not the case. Engels wrote about ethics from the standpoint of the materialist conception of history in Anti-Duhring, Marx made various comments about ethics throughout his work, Karl Kautsky wrote a book on ethics and the materialist conception of history etc. It may not be one of the most hotly debated topics by, if I may be permitted to use Loren Goldner's expression, 'hard', 'tough-minded' revolutionaries, but is clear that Marxism has an ethical component, else it would be nothing other than academic pontificating (Since politics is essentially ethics on the scale of society and institutions you can't engage in political action without some kind of ethical drive).


They are two sides of the same coin. Briefly some "Marxists" after the split supported parliamentarism and some "Anarchists" decided to always oppose anything associated with the "state" at any time.

You are ignoring the important question of centralised organisation. The Bakuninists wanted to turn the International into a federal organisation with the General Council acting as a purely statistical body, whereas Marx opposed any efforts at derailing the international co-ordination of the movement established by the IWMA. This is still an issue dividing Marxists and Anarchists today. For example, this is from the pamphlet The Role of the Revolutionary Organisation by the UK's Anarchist Federation:


The revolutionary organisation... must also be organised federally as only federalism can hinder bureaucratic degeneration and encourages active participation by all members in the organisation.http://www.afed.org.uk/publications/pamphlets-booklets/63-the-role-of-the-revolutionary-organisation.html

And this is from the final section of the Platform of the International Communist Current, an organisation which on other counts is similar to the AF on the question of unions, national liberation and so on, The Organisation of Revolutionaries:


The necessarily world-wide and centralised character of the proletarian revolution confers the same world-wide and centralised character on the party of the working class, and the fractions and groups who lay the basis of the party necessarily tend towards a world-wide centralisation. This is concretised in the existence of central organs invested with political responsibilities between each of the organisation’s congresses, to which they are accountable.http://en.internationalism.org/node/622


Even so, he never advocated a socialist state,

Agreed.


You're right, it was quite hypocritical of me to critique a generalization with another generalization, however there are many non ICC left communists who support a very similar position on the state.

I don't think so. This is from the ICT's correspondence with South Russian Bureau of the Marxist Labour Party:


It would take pages to outline all our differences [with the ICC] one by one. They range from economics (the ICC has a semi-Luxemburgist analysis of the crisis as being due to saturated markets and they cannot explain the development of the economic crisis — why markets which were saturated in 1968, or 1914 for that matter, are now “more saturated”); to the question of the state in the period of transition to communism (the ICC argues that the proletariat will not have the monopoly of power in the post-revolutionary semi-state) and the question of class consciousness and the role of the political organisation/future international party.http://www.leftcom.org/pl/node/3453

I don't think it even needs to be said what the Bordigist groups would think of the ICC's theory of the state in the period of transition.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"The ICC argues that the proletariat will not have the monopoly of power in the post-revolutionary semi-state"

Is that in reference only to the "dictatorship of the party," or is that in reference to class power itself (i.e., more or less "universal suffrage" less bourgeois elements)? Should the Marxist minimum program be flexible on this (components for a "flexible" DOTP and a rigid DOTP in the same program, such as my double negatives "disqualification" and "non-ownership")?

[Zanthorus]

Is that in reference only to the "dictatorship of the party," or is that in reference to class power itself (i.e., more or less "universal suffrage" less bourgeois elements)?

According to the ICT's FAQ:


Do you want a revolution for establishing the dictatorship of the communist party?

No. Only the proletariat has the duty of realizing the revolution and acquiring all power in its own hands; it’s up to the whole working class. “All power to the soviets”, to workers’ assemblies: this is our program and this is true democracy, proletarian democracy.

There will have to be the maximum level of democracy inside the class power organisms (which will express the will of the majority, if not of all workers) and maximum hardness (“dictatorship of the proletariat”) against those who stand outside and against (and in arms, in all probability) workers and their semi-state, i.e. the organization in councils. The semi-state which the proletariat will have to realize will be based on soviets or councils, and it will be destined to extinguish itself when the division in classes of the society will disappear. In fact, it is defined semi-state exactly because, differently from other states which succeeded in various historical epochs, it has not to perpetuate the domination of a class on another, instead it has to lead to the extinction of all classes and of itself with them.

Thus the “dictatorship of the proletariat” will consist in the exercise of strength by the whole working class, to remove the causes of the division in classes of the society. It will be the power of the large exploited majority on the exploiting minority, to deprive it of its privileges. Not the dictatorship of the party.

So I am fairly sure the ICT was criticising the ICC on the question of class power, not the 'dictatorship of the party' issue.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's a good FAQ in spite of the soviets thing and a lack of appreciation for party-movements as class power organizations themselves.

[Viet Minh]

re: Loyalism, the subject was broached in the introductions section, although if I am not restricted I will happily discuss it here as well. I will briefly reply to the comments made earlier, re 'death squads' and nationalism, although these would be better discussed elsewhere.
I assume you're referring to the UDA, whom I by no means support, just as (I assume) not all Republicans support CIRA/ RIRA etc. I have more sympathy with the UVF, I suppose you could call them death squads too, but no more so than the IRA in its various forms. And they certainly don't have the backward bigoted anti-Catholic mentality of the UDA.
As for Nationalism, I am not a Nationalist, I am a Unionist. I support Union with the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth, as long as the people of NI vote to remain as part of the UK. If they chose to Unite with Ireland I would support that too, though judging by your attitude alone its not surprising many don't want that. The last option is of Independence for NI, as advocated by the National Front among others. I don't believe this is a solution to NI's problems, as it just highlights nationalistic tendencies from both sides.

[Viet Minh]

Anarcho-Capitalists and National Anarchists are strange concepts to me, without a Government of some sort how can they police their borders, and protect their shopping malls? :D

Generally speaking though I can't get a grip of Anarchist theory. At one time no doubt humans lived in tribal or clan groupings successfully, but I don't know if thats applicable in the modern urban environment. To me it just becomes a power struggle, and survival of the fittest, which is pure Fascism. Although this is probably my bourgeois bias, and lack of imagination. In parts of Somalia which have no functioning Government for example there is less starvation than other parts, all else being equal.

Again its probably down to western propaganda, but I always viewed communism as enforced equality by an authoritarian government (which to my mind is no bad thing necessarily, if done democratically and with stringent measures against corruption).

Again I seriously don't want to offend anyones political views, my questions are due to my ignorance but genuine desire to learn.

[ar734]

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but to my understanding Anarchism would fall on the right wing, not the left as seems to be the general perception. The definition I go by here is the ideology of a controlled versus a free market, in which case Anarchy would be the ultimate expression of a free market imo. :confused: can someone explain, and please type s-l-o-w-l-y :D

Marx often described the operation of the "free market" as anarchic: "The anarchic movement, in which the rise [of prices]is compensated for by a fall and the fall by a rise, they regard as an accident... In the totality of this disorderly movement is to be found its order. In the total course of this industrial anarchy, in this circular movement, competition balances, as it were, the one extravagance by the other." (Marx, Wage, Labor and Capital, Chapter 3.)

[Paulappaul]

Except Marxists and Anarchists are divided into different organisations with opposing principles.

Except Marxists for one are divided into different organizations and opposing principles. There is little similarity for example, between those non-party marxists, stalinists and Marx the man himself.

The distinction is fictitious, in truth Marxists and Anarchists basically want the same thing. Where's the distinction most the time? In how to get there. But that's always the difference in tendencies of Socialism if you really think about it. I remember going to this ISO meeting on Anarchism a while back and this woman stood up and asked "its sounds like we're exactly like Anarchists, why do we work against them?", their response? Purely theoretical mush. Something about Russia.


This is still an issue dividing Marxists and Anarchists today.

Issues within Marxist theory are much larger then the Centralist - Decentralist dichotomy that split Marxists and Anarchists.

Centralism is a tendency of Marxism, but now something neccessarly a part of it. In the past the more radical Autonomist Marxists have espoused federalist organizing and the German theoretician Otto Ruhle advocated federalism within the KAPD and of transcending this dichotomy in AAUD-E.

Frankly, I am Marxist and I will say right now Centralism has been proven by the test of time to be no perfect organizational model, but neither has Federalism. I think there is already a tendency in transcending strict Federalism and strict Centralism.

[Joe Payne]

Except Marxists for one are divided into different organizations and opposing principles. There is little similarity for example, between those non-party marxists, stalinists and Marx the man himself.

The distinction is fictitious, in truth Marxists and Anarchists basically want the same thing. Where's the distinction most the time? In how to get there. But that's always the difference in tendencies of Socialism if you really think about it. I remember going to this ISO meeting on Anarchism a while back and this woman stood up and asked "its sounds like we're exactly like Anarchists, why do we work against them?", their response? Purely theoretical mush. Something about Russia.



Issues within Marxist theory are much larger then the Centralist - Decentralist dichotomy that split Marxists and Anarchists.

Centralism is a tendency of Marxism, but now something neccessarly a part of it. In the past the more radical Autonomist Marxists have espoused federalist organizing and the German theoretician Otto Ruhle advocated federalism within the KAPD and of transcending this dichotomy in AAUD-E.

Frankly, I am Marxist and I will say right now Centralism has been proven by the test of time to be no perfect organizational model, but neither has Federalism. I think there is already a tendency in transcending strict Federalism and strict Centralism.


Yeah I know a lot of us are moving away from the whole strict anti-centralism/pro federalism thing too.

[bricolage]

The first is that anarchism is not just "a vague philosophical 'anti-statism'",
No I don't think it is either but that is how it can be, and is construed by many people. If you reduce anarchism to this then all the weird and wonderful brands of non anti-capitalist anarchism do technically make sense. My point being if you want to deal with anarchism as actually meaning something beyond the abstract you have to treat it as more than 'against the state'.


This leads neatly into my second area of disagreement, which is that anarchism is not, in and of it self, communist.This is true but then if anarchism is not communist what is it? If you speak of anarchism in terms of this what kind of anti-capitalism can it be other than communist? In this way I think it's fair to us use anarchist, socialist, communist as interchangeable terms.

They emphasized freedom, and thought that communism would lead to some sort of "tyranny of the majority".Such an idea has been there from the beginning;


It is at this point that a fundamental division arises between the socialists and revolutionary collectivists on the one hand and the authoritarian communists who support the absolute power of the State on the other. Their ultimate aim is identical. Both equally desire to create a new social order based first on the organization of collective labor, inevitably imposed upon each and all by the natural force of events, under conditions equal for all, and second, upon the collective ownership of the tools of production...
This divergence leads to a difference in tactics. The communists believe it necessary to organize the workerspi forces in order to seize the political power of the State. The revolutionary socialists organize for the purpose of destroying - or, to put it more politely - liquidating the State. The communists advocate the principle and the practices of authority; the revolutionary socialists put all their faith in liberty.
But I mean in his distinction between 'revolutionary socialists' and 'communists' the distrust for the latter seems mainly because he associates it solely with his conceptions of what Marx/Engels were putting forward, and he was disagreeing with, at the time. When revolutionary anarchists say they are anti-communist, is this not just anti-Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist? I'd be interested to hear something otherwise.


And finally, the word "liberal". Liberalism has historically been a statist ideology,Well my point about liberalism was that if you take away class struggle but keep the ideas of 'autonomy', 'decentralisation' and the like you are essentially left with the Lib Dems.