Anarchism

[BornOfRevolution]

I am personally am an anarchist, but i thought I would drop in on this board and ask what you guys thought of anarchism. I am interested to get a communist's perspective on anarchism (if you aren't a communist i still want your opinion!), seeing how communism is such a controvesial subject among anarchists. I have heard many communists say that they support anarchism, but when I look back on history i see Lenin offering an alliance to anarchists, and then betraying and killing thousands of them because they didn't meet his work quota. In NO WAY, however, am I trying to take a shot at communism or marxism, but I do however hate Lenin. So please, give me a communists perspective on anarchism, and also state whether or not you believe an alliance between the two of us is possible.

[redstar2000]

Well, to be honest, the old antagonisms die hard.

The quarrels between Marx and Engels on one side and Proudhon and Bakunin on the other were bitter ones, personally as well as politically.

On this board, you will find communists who reject the Leninist paradigm altogether...as well as those who still defend it.

Putting 19th century personalities aside, the central question is what happens after the proletarian revolution?

Does the working class proceed at once to the establishment of a classless society or "must" there be an interregnum, a transition period--usually called "socialism"--between capitalism and communism in which most of the characteristics of class society continue to exist?

In the 19th century, Marx and Engels were clearly ambiguous about this...you can find "quotations" that go both ways.

It's my opinion that the ambiguity is no longer required. The development in the means of production over the last century should be sufficient for a more or less immediate transition to communism.

I also think that the closer we actually get to proletarian revolution, the more the communist and anarchist positions will merge...at least with regard to those currents in anarchist theory that clearly identify with proletarian revolution.

But be advised that there are those here who vehemently disagree with that.

Incredible as it may seem. :D

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[apathy maybe]

I think that 'pure' communism (as I understand it) and 'pure' anarchism (also as I understand it), have no chance of standing alone. Each however, has some great ideas and so a merger of these would produce something not only workable, but also somewhere where someone would want to live.

Each has a fundemental belief at heart that all people are equal. That is what should unite both of these two.

[BornOfRevolution]

Well, I guess my biggest question, is after seeing anarchists betrayed in the past by anarchists, do you guys think that an alliance between us would last or would it end in a battle, crippling us once again?

[Mazzen]

here's what I think. I believe that Anarchists, most of which I have encountered don't believe in revolution, want to whine and ***** about everything that sucks, but don't want to do anything about it...i.e.--revolution. I don't know what to think about them. Hey...anarchist guy..have you ever heard of a band called One Minute Silence?...they're anarchist and I love them. Their shit is so hot! Chau.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

Well as Mazzen kinda illustrated, "most of which I have encountered don't believe in revolution, want to whine and ***** about everything that sucks" i dont like most anarchists, simply because there messed up kids. However i have had 1 or 2 good friends who have been "proper" anarchists and we can put our differences aside and accept the many similar traits.

[The Feral Underclass]

It is true that young people use Anarchism as a form of rebellion...Nirvana loving grungey punks wear the Anarchist A symbol proudley on their clothes and bags and of course "whine" about how everything is shit with little or no perspective on how to change it, 'One Minute Silence' being a prime example!...this however can not be a generalization of Anarchists.

Anarchists and Communists [Leninsts] share many similar principles. Marx's theory on history and alienation, of economics and his final conclusion on how to change society. On these principles we can unite...

But we can not stand united with these people in order to create a classless society. The Anarchist way to organize and fight a revolution is for federated groups of educated workers leading themselves against the bourgeoisie. Leninists believe in a so called revolutioanry vanguard to lead the workers and then overthrow one state to implement another all in the name of the prolateriate....Anarchists are Libertarians in all it's form...we advocate the abolishment of all States, whether they proclaim to be in the interests of the workers or not...State is the mechanism which creates class and anyone who wishes to preserve such a machine is and has to be, always, an enemy to Anarchists.

It may be necessary to unite with them on certain platforms to advance our revolutionary agenda and come the revolution most of these people will see that it is not necessary to have such a system of government, one hopes. But it is also important to remember that Leninists and Stalinists are our ideological enemies, so there is only so far we can go in calling them comrades...I would have no quarm with putting a bullet in the head of a die-hard Leninist/Stalinist anymore I would a fascist or a copper who is smashing a workers barricade, for me they are the same :ph34r:

[sc4r]

The real truth is that Anarchism has as much in common with Capitalism as it has with Socialism. What it has done is taken the unworkable bits from each idea and combined them with a huge dollop of spite and resentfulness to create a self pitying mess supported by posy but bitter people.

Communists (in the sense of supporters of the communist movement, those who want to see Socialism implemented, perhaps so that it can grow into communism, not Communists in the sense of utopian 'straight to communism') and Anarchists really have only one strong point of aliance, they are both very minor movements in the western world and are both opposed to the major ideology (liberal democracy). In other word it is merely an alliance of convenience based upon what they dont want, not what they do want.

Personally I see alliance with Anarchists as damaging the socialist movement. Because they talk twaddle and are divisive self obsessed people.

Almost Every political movement (including Capitalists, Fascists, Conservatives, Liberals) SAYS it stands for freedom, justice, individual liberty, wealth, happiness, etc. The questioj is not whether it says this, but whether it would actually produce it. Anarchism would not.

[The Feral Underclass]

Your such a happy man!

[sc4r]

Did you have something to contribute ?

Given that in your prvious post you stated quite clearly that you did see Socialists as youir enemies and that you personally would 'put a bullet in their heads'; it's hard to see where you fundamentally disagree with the gist of what I was saying.

If you think I'd be stupid enough to 'ally' with someone who has already admitted that once I'm no use to him he will dispose of me, then you must be as hopelessly separated from realism as your ideology is.

I expected disagreement from other Anarchists. basically because they are confused people. I expected disagreement from Socialists, because quite a few of them are confused too. I cannot see what you have to disagree about.

[The Feral Underclass]

I was merely making an observation.....

Did you have something to contribute ?

no!

Given that in your prvious post you stated quite clearly that you did see Socialists as youir enemies and that you personally would 'put a bullet in their heads'; it's hard to see where you fundamentally disagree with the gist of what I was saying.

I fail to see how your rhetoric about the fatality of anarchism has anything to do with the ideological differences between Communists and Anarchists...you have taken what I said and completely destorted it to suit your argument, dont expect anything less from this guy comrades he's a reformist....much older and wiser than us all he will not doubt go onto remind us...!

What I actually said was "...I would have no quarm with putting a bullet in the head of a die-hard Leninist/Stalinist anymore I would a fascist or a copper who is smashing a workers barricade, for me they are the same." and I said it in the context of those Leninists who wished to undermine an anarchist revolution that was set to succeed. As for stalinists, those people who wish to claim this man as some glorious leader, those stalinist deniers who would have us live under some personality cult regime, I have to quarms with killing, in a revolutionary situation, which was what I was talking about.

If you think I'd be stupid enough to 'ally' with someone who has already admitted that once I'm no use to him he will dispose of me, then you must be as hopelessly separated from realism as your ideology is.

Such the egotist...I was talking about an anarchist movement allying itself with marxist-leninist/communist movement, both of which ideologies you claim you are not apart off. Why thenwould you think I was talking about you. Your reformist twaddle has no relevance on a revolutionary agenda, even if the movement deicded to ally itself with a movement you belonged to, why then would they bother wasting time, effort and a bullet, traking you down and shooting you. Your not that important.

expected disagreement from other Anarchists. basically because they are confused people. I expected disagreement from Socialists, because quite a few of them are confused too...

If there is one thing you have mastered it is the art of arrogance! I suppose Bakunin, Proudhan, Kropotkin, Maltasta, Goldman etc where all just confused....if only they had met you, maybe then they could have been shown the error of their ways.

... I cannot see what you have to disagree about

Your right...it is hard to disagree with an argument that has all the substance of a dehydrated cucumber. :ph34r:

[sc4r]

Oh! I see you are yet another one who thinks that denouncing me as a reformist is a valid response to anything.

Whether I am, or am not (I'm not as it happens) has bollox all to do with whether what I say is correct or not. That question is decided by the words in the argument, not by your assessment of what particular personal insult to hurl.*

I have my doubts about whether anyone with more than half a brain will be so seduced by you instrction to 'ignore this reformist, comrades' that they actually will do it just because you ask them to.

I also find it monumentally amusing that the first thing any Libertarian does when faced with opposition is immediately appeal to the sheep like group mentality of his pals for support in a rather ironic contradiction of the very individuality they are supposedly so keen on.

I am in fact more or less a leninist in approach. Not a 1917 Leninist relating my views of how to achieve progress (how, and what, to fight in other words) to the conditions in Czarist Russia, but one living in a Liberal Democracy in the 21st century.

Your specific statement about gunning people down most certainly applies to me, That you are saying you would do it immediately post 'revolution' seems to have little bearing on whether I'd want you as an ally. I would not want an ally who has declared his intention to become immediately treacherous should we win any more than I'd want one who says it would be at some other time.

That you explictly said 'I would have no quarm with putting a bullet in the head of a die-hard Leninist/Stalinist' given that you had earlier said 'But it is also important to remember that Leninists and Stalinists are our ideological enemies' and 'anyone who wishes to preserve such a machine[the state] is and has to be, always, an enemy to Anarchists.' merely makes me think that you'd define 'die hard' as meaning anyone who disagreed with anarchism. It dont make me think that any Socialist would be immune. How many Socialists (as opposed to utupian 'straight to communism'ists', who are Anarchsist in all but name anyway) would not fit pretty much into these categories? Answer none at all.

Not that it matters in practise. The idea that Anarchists would be in power after a revolution is laughable. The treachery you so obviously contemplate would not be something you'd ever be in a position to carry out.

*Is it the insult of last resort BTW? Is it what you say when you find someone who disagrees with you but about whom you cannot find an excuse to call Fascist, Nazi, Sytalinist, Cappie, Imperialist, or whatever rather than tax your poor Anarchist brain with having to actually find a genuine answer?

[The Feral Underclass]

Whether I am, or am not (I'm not as it happens) has bollox all to do with whether what I say is correct or not. That question is decided by the words in the argument, not by your assessment of what particular personal insult to hurl.

Anyone who wishes to use 'Liberal Democracy' or any kind of market, someone who does not wish to end wage slavery in my mind is a reformist! It was not an insult, it was a statement of fact.

I am in fact more or less a leninist in approach. Not a 1917 Leninist relating my views of how to achieve progress (how, and what, to fight in other words) to the conditions in Czarist Russia, but one living in a Liberal Democracy in the 21st century.

A Leninist living in a liberal Democracy...what does that mean...so the material conditions are different, but capitalism and exploitation still exists, just as they existed in Tzarist Russia. Whats your point?

Your specific statement about gunning people down most certainly applies to me, That you are saying you would do it immediately post 'revolution' seems to have little bearing on whether I'd want you as an ally. I would not want an ally who has declared his intention to become immediately treacherous should we win any more than I'd want one who says it would be at some other time.

You seem hell bent on missing the point....

That you explictly said 'I would have no quarm with putting a bullet in the head of a die-hard Leninist/Stalinist' given that you had earlier said 'But it is also important to remember that Leninists and Stalinists are our ideological enemies' and 'anyone who wishes to preserve such a machine[the state] is and has to be, always, an enemy to Anarchists.' merely makes me think that you'd define 'die hard' as meaning anyone who disagreed with anarchism. It dont make me think that any Socialist would be immune. How many Socialists (as opposed to utupian 'straight to communism'ists', who are Anarchsist in all but name anyway) would not fit pretty much into these categories? Answer none at all.

Yes I said I would have no quarm with shooting a die-hard leninist or a stalinist because I would not. In the right context. It is important to understand that Leninists and Stalinists are ideological enemies. If an anarchist revolution was going to succeed most leninists would jump on the band wagen but if some leninist or stalinist faction attempted to undermine it, i would have no quarms shooing them, just as Comrade RAF or others would have no quarm shooting me if needs be.

Secondly, those socialists who want to have state controlled production through reformist methods are irrelevant. Come the revolution there politics will be unimportant. If however, the organized rto undermine the revolutiuon, they would become enemies.

As for killing anyone who disagrees with anarchism is just a complete misunderstanding of revolutionary politics. I am not a sectarian, I am more than willing to work with others, I accept other oppinions, but. If the workers had organized themselves and had fought for an anarchist revolution and won and then some crack pot tries to undermine them, the mass of workers, the millions of workeing class people, then of course they would be an enemy and would have to be dealt with.

Not that it matters in practise. The idea that Anarchists would be in power after a revolution is laughable. The treachery you so obviously contemplate would not be something you'd ever be in a position to carry out.

That's a matter of oppinion. :ph34r:

[sc4r]

Oh Purrleze!! thats almost too silly for words. Talk about evasion, thats practically a definitive example of it.

If you have just fought in a revolution allied to anybody (Lenists, Stalinist, Reformists, or Monster Raving Loony party'ists) then it is not exactly a fair assumption that they, for some inexplicable reason, have awarded it to you. It's not in that case YOUR revolution to do with as you please.

Which would make it the height of arrogance (and treachery) for you to declare, having won as a team, that all bets were off and start shooting them in the head if in your view they were not supportive enough of your goals.

Not that anybody would genuinely ally with so treacherous a friend anyway.

I can understand that you would now wish to distance yourself from your earlier rhetoric. I would too. It dont exactly make for goodwill to declare that you would turn on people who had worked with you, and like a spoilt child demand, on pain of death, that you be given exactly what you wanted , does it? especially as it would be, probably, half of this board.

I think though to distance yourself properly you'd need to actually retract it, rather than simply insist that it was the bad reformist Scar who was mis-interpreting you.

"Anarchists are Libertarians in all it's form...we advocate the abolishment of all States, whether they proclaim to be in the interests of the workers or not...State is the mechanism which creates class and anyone who wishes to preserve such a machine is and has to be, always, an enemy to Anarchists."

Seems to leave little doubt that anyone who is not an an Anarchist is considered a pretty definite enemy (except rather ironically actual Capitalists hehehehe).

Care to retract?

I have no idea what all the twaddle about querying the idea of Leninists living in the 21st Century was supposed to be about. If (as it seems to be doing) it is saying that in your eyes leninist can only exist in 1920's Russia, then WTF were you doing saying that you would shoot them after the revolution? When you said 'die hard' I did not realise you meant 'really old'. I did not guess it was euthanasia you were advocating. {sarcasm off}

And finally: "Anyone who wishes to use 'Liberal Democracy' or any kind of market, someone who does not wish to end wage slavery in my mind is a reformist! It was not an insult, it was a statement of fact." Is not, in fact, a fact. It is, in fact, completely uninformed BS. On the one hand some of those people would, for example, be called Repuplicans; while on the other hand I neither wish to use Liberal democracy in any sense other than accept that it is there and use the weaknesses it offers to overturn it (are you going to try and ignore it?), nor support 'wage slavery' in any form or at any time (fairly obviously).

You , me little friend, have not got a bloody clue what 'any form of market' even means. You are parroting words which relate to 'THE MARKET' (which means the capitalist market), and assuming that because you are too ignorant to grasp that there are other sorts which share some features but not others, you can generalise. Your bloody allocation of workers referred to in another thread is a form of market, you just dont actually know it.

And dont give me any fucking rubbish about 'reformist' not being intended as a derogatory insult. Thats crapola and you know it. What other purpose did it serve? It had absolutely nothing to do with anything that was actually being said, and you used it while calling for 'your comrades' to ignore me. Of course its intended as an insult; and except that I am learning to develop immunity to insults delivered by twats I'd find it insulting.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 04:25 AM
I believe that Anarchists, most of which I have encountered don't believe in revolution, want to whine and ***** about everything that sucks, but don't want to do anything about it...i.e.--revolution. I don't know what to think about them.
They are not anarchists. Anarchists shouldnt just complain, I believe those Anarchists you encountered are just middle-upper class rich punk kids who pretend to be rebel.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 10:59 AM
The real truth is that Anarchism has as much in common with Capitalism as it has with Socialism. What it has done is taken the unworkable bits from each idea and combined them with a huge dollop of spite and resentfulness to create a self pitying mess supported by posy but bitter people.
Do not say bullshit. There is NO third position, it is:
1) The current leading and ugly system, called Capitalism
2) The one who hates it, called Socialism



Almost Every political movement (including Capitalists, Fascists, Conservatives, Liberals) SAYS it stands for freedom, justice, individual liberty, wealth, happiness, etc. The questioj is not whether it says this, but whether it would actually produce it. Anarchism would not.

That includes "your" socialism, then, or you are one of those excepcions? Then it seems your perfect society does not give freedom, justice, individual liberty, wealth and/or hapiness. And why Anarchism wouldnt? Give me a good reason.

And please stop thinking Anarchism "won't work" because it seems you believe it will be implemented in a fascist-capitalist-conservative-reactionary society.

[BornOfRevolution]

OK, to start off, I would really like it if everyone here could stop behaving like ageists and quit implying that teenagers are stupid.

The second thing I would like to point out to sc4r is that anarchists were writing of revolutions long before the idea of communism even existed. If you will take a look at the world right now, the anarchist movement is trying a hell of a lot hard the the communist movement to put together a revolution. Communism and anarchism are on the same side, but it's people like you who stereo type anarchists and lead to a further period of time in which we will hate each other. The real question is communism ready to to accept anarchists as people who don't need government to create a classless society.

[The Feral Underclass]

sc4r....mate.....love bug........i take back everything i say........ i would shoot you.....not in the head....not straight away anyway....in the knee caps first.....then maybe pistol whip you a litle.....then i'd use razer blades to cut open ya japs eye and poor salt into the wound, then id smoke a fag, read the paper, then shoot you in the head...............

only joking! as if I could do that to you.......how old are you out of interest? seriously though, im really bored of you.....your not really teaching me anything.....you know.....i made those statements because it's what i think....if you dont like it.....well.....take out a mortgage on your hourse, get the best lawyer you can, and sue me! otherwise, you can just go fuck yourself....it would probably be cheaper..........

Some people, they give arguments.....they make quotes......they try and progress the minds of these "naive" young whipper snappers....their intellectual....challanging......you......well, your just boring.......im here, open to new things....open to learning, to accepting that maybe, just maybe, im wrong......but everything I read of yours, you just rant about the inadequcies of what i say. it just fills me with hate....it dosnt attempt to change my oppinion just ridicule it.......your a sad old man.

anyhoo, maybe when you have got that chip of your shoulder and dusted yourself down, given the ball back to the kids across the road, chizzled your teeth down, brushed you hair, maybe then you can come out of your pit and play with the nice people....until then, happy festering!

[sc4r]

Listen up tosser.

No-one forces you to read a word I say. If you dont want to argue with me then simply do not do so.

Is that so very hard for you to understand.

All I'm doing is not allowing you to present your nonsense unchallenged and uncorrected. You seem to be in effect demanding that you be allowed to do so. Tough, you wont be.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Oct 15 2003, 01:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Infiltr(A)do @ Oct 15 2003, 01:21 AM)
[email protected] 14 2003, 10:59 AM
The real truth is that Anarchism has as much in common with Capitalism as it has with Socialism. What it has done is taken the unworkable bits from each idea and combined them with a huge dollop of spite and resentfulness to create a self pitying mess supported by posy but bitter people.
Do not say bullshit. There is NO third position, it is:
1) The current leading and ugly system, called Capitalism
2) The one who hates it, called Socialism



Almost Every political movement (including Capitalists, Fascists, Conservatives, Liberals) SAYS it stands for freedom, justice, individual liberty, wealth, happiness, etc. The questioj is not whether it says this, but whether it would actually produce it. Anarchism would not.

That includes "your" socialism, then, or you are one of those excepcions? Then it seems your perfect society does not give freedom, justice, individual liberty, wealth and/or hapiness. And why Anarchism wouldnt? Give me a good reason.

And please stop thinking Anarchism "won&#39;t work" because it seems you believe it will be implemented in a fascist-capitalist-conservative-reactionary society. [/b]
There are literally thousands of positions. You regulary see doxens on this board.

I you claim that it is either &#39;us&#39; and &#39;them&#39; all you are doing is creating antogimism in the same simplistic and self centred manner that good ol GWB did when he used it. It is not true. I&#39;m not with &#39;you&#39; assuming you are an anarchist; and I&#39;m not with &#39;them &#39; assuming you mean capitalists. That put me in a third position, its that simple.

Of course my socialism also claims to be for all the things cited. Why would you think it might not?

I&#39;ve already in half a dozen thread given what seem to me excellent reasons for saying why Anarchism wont work. Whats your point ? are you merely saying that I have not convinced you? so what? Am I expected to regard this as complete vindication for you? why should I? all it means it that one of us is wrong. NO shit.

I do not &#39;believe[it will be implemented in a fascist-capitalist-conservative-reactionary society.&#39; (by which I assume you mean I believe that you think it will be) I&#39;ve never said any such thing. I dont nonsensically think it will be implemented within a society which is already Anarchist though (which is what your arguments require). Obviously not. How could that idea even make sense?

What I have said is that the mechanism and attitudes you imply as being necessary for anarchism to work wont exist unless the anarchist society already exists. Which is what makes it impossible that such an idea could ever become reality.; it would require a sort of time travellers paradox to make it so.

And if if by some mircale of space time distortion it could be brought into existence it would, unless you also assume people have aquired superhuman powers of both empathy and calculation, spiral downwards into a materially very very impoverished society. Why? because the wealth of our society is created in large measure by the very organisation and co-ordination systems Anarchists wish to get rid of.

I think the problem is that most Anarchists dont really grasp the concept of cause and effect. It is somewhat futile to argue with them given this.

[BornOfRevolution]

Well, you&#39;ve both done a great job of making asses of yourselves.

[Morpheus]

Sc4r is a blithering idiot who spouts nonsense about things he doesn&#39;t understand. And anarchy worked quite well in the Spanish & Ukrainian revolutions.

[sc4r]

Anarchy was not implemented in either case. So it neither worked well or badly.

All that you can possibly say in either case is that some success in a fight was achieved by people fighting under the Anarchist Flag. Thats it. But on that measure we can comfortably put America, Nazi Gemany, Imperial Japan, Even Saddam, ahead of Anarchy. It says nothing very interesting about anything.

You are all consistently confusing the achievements of Anarchist society (which has never existed on a large scale) with the Anarchist movement. Its not the same. Sucess for the Anarchist movement unless it results in a sustained Anarchist society* says absolutely flat zero about whether an Anarchist society is possible.

* and t would have to be an Anarchist society in substance not just in name. The name does not always convey the reality.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 05:06 AM
Sc4r is a blithering idiot who spouts nonsense about things he doesn&#39;t understand. And anarchy worked quite well in the Spanish & Ukrainian revolutions.
Tell me have you read any George Orwell? If you have then you certainly havent read "Homage to Catalonia".

Everyone knows that the Anarchists were betrayed by the totalitarians during that revolution and where left in the shit.

Now who&#39;s the Blithering idiot?

[sc4r]

Know what Enigma. I&#39;m highly tempted to alter my net handle back to Scar. It is actually embarrassing for me to think that anyone might feel i&#39;m associated in any way with these idjits. I orignially chose sc4r to indicate that I had quite a strong streak of regard for Anarchist attitudes. But at that time I had hardly any notion how dumb and dogmatically opinionated most of them seem to be.

To be labelled a &#39;blithering idiot&#39; by a teenage anarchist seems to me almost a compliment. It says &#39;hey this guy thinks nothing like me&#39;. Thank God for that.

The truth is I&#39;m fast running out of patience with them entirely. There are only so many times I&#39;m prepared to try and put together a coherent explanation of things which are vastly beyond their grasp only to have them seize on some completely irrelevant claim as &#39;proof&#39; that they are right and then get into a personal slngfest with them (which is admittedly my fault - I do have a bad temper, and intolerance for both intolerance and stupidity)

I think a break from this forum is called for. I think I&#39;m achieveing nothing useful.

[The Feral Underclass]

:)

[Cassius Clay]

Anarchism.

Good for kids throwing rocks and playing football with Fascists but nothing much more. Especially building Communism.

[The Feral Underclass]

too fucking right. especially not the stalinist dictatership you&#39;d have us all oppressed under.

[Cassius Clay]

Glad we got that straight then (about the Fascists).

As for &#39;stalinist dictatorship&#39;, unfournatly Stalin wasn&#39;t remotly tough on Anarchists and there ilk. Just ask Alexander Zinoviev, he was a Anarchist in 1930&#39;s USSR, who quote &#39;passionatly read&#39; the works of all the Anarchists. He even formed a group which obtained rifles and grenades to go and kill Stalin, Kaganovich, Molotov, Vorroshillov etc, etc on May-Day. He was only given a year in prison.

Now he see&#39;s the truth and is fighting for genuine Socialism against Capitalism. He&#39;s also revealed how the more &#39;dissidents&#39; lied about Stalin the more they were paid and hailed as genuises by the CIA.

You Anarchists fucked up in the Civil War in Spain, you acheived nothing in history and you still dont take into account materialism. All this &#39;get rid of the state&#39; overnight is completly stupid, it&#39;s like a overwieght man getting thin without going on a diet.

It&#39;s true the state machinery of the Capitalist state will be smashed in a revolution. This is a essential task, but the workers building Socialism will require their own state, a prolertariat Socialist state. As we saw in the USSR before 1956 and in Albania the state did begin to &#39;wither away&#39;, beuracracy was fought against and got rid of, taxes were abolished and the society still had free healthcare, education, etc.

Anarchy has acheived nothing and it never will because it&#39;s a mess of contradictions and has no concrete scientific basis to base itself on.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 02:57 AM
Putting 19th century personalities aside, the central question is what happens after the proletarian revolution?

Does the working class proceed at once to the establishment of a classless society or "must" there be an interregnum, a transition period--usually called "socialism"--between capitalism and communism in which most of the characteristics of class society continue to exist?

But be advised that there are those here who vehemently disagree with that.

Incredible as it may seem. :D

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Personally I agree with the anarchists on the bassis of violence being inherint in the system. But times have changed incredibly since anarchism was created, and I believe that the majority of modern people are stubborn and stuck to some aspects our current society.

I believe that socialism is an important step towards either anarchism, or communal living.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

TAT, you seem to think that because we&#39;re not keen on destroying the state immediately after a revolution, that we&#39;re reformists. What we seek to do, mate, is to end the bourgeoisie&#39;s oppression of the working class by making the working class the ruling class through the use of a powerful workers&#39; state. Once the working class is the ruling class and the bourgeoisie and its means of subjugation and dominance are suppressed, then there is no need for a state as a tool of class oppression. If you reason progressively from capitalism towards communism, then this is the only logical and significant way of achieving equality and democracy. As long as classes exist, there must be a leading class, and in order for classes to dissappear, then the working must have power, as it is the only class that can possibly benefit from equality. It is also the only class that will benefit from a suppression of the bourgeoisie, and thus the only class will suppress the bourgeoisie. It is only in the class interest of the bourgeoisie to perpetuate oppression among classes. Untill the bourgeoisie is destroyed, it is impossible, without chaos, to create a classless society. Classless society can only be achieved through the emancipation of the working class. And classless society is the only way in which democracy and equality can exist.

You are the one who is useless in the class struggle for a classless society.

[redstar2000]

What we seek to do, mate, is to end the bourgeoisie&#39;s oppression of the working class by making the working class the ruling class through the use of a powerful workers&#39; state.

Promises, promises. <_<

When Leninists actually had "state power", they did not "make the working class the ruling class".

In the end, they made themselves into a new capitalist ruling class.

So why should what you "seek to do" be of any interest to anyone save a psychiatrist?


Until the bourgeoisie is destroyed, it is impossible, without chaos, to create a classless society.

The proletarian revolution does destroy the bourgeoisie. What do you think a revolution is?

Do you think we just get up one morning, occupy the seats of government, pass some laws nationalizing private property, and go home???

If the Russian Revolution (February 1917) and the period immediately following is a fair example, the members of the old ruling class will be quickly hunted down and shot...or forced to flee the country.

People do not "fool around" in revolutionary situations; proletarian revolution is deadly serious and aims for the liquidation of the capitalist class or else.

Or else what? Or else it is defeated and the workers are slaughtered like cattle.

Your "powerful workers&#39; state" is unneeded.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Redstar says nothin other than that the Leninist expereince in the USSR was unsuccessful. Hardly a relevation. He does not analyse why, which would perhaps make his post of some use.l

He then says that a proletariat revolution will destroy the bourgeoise. But does not say why the Leninist revolution should not be counted as a proleraiat revolution ( in which case by his notions he has proved hinself wrong).

he explains nothing. He simply asserts. Anyone can assert anything. I can assert that the moon is made of gongonzola cheese and that lovely clangers live there. IT DONT MAKE IT SO.

Not even if random words are highlighted

[Bradyman]

Personally, I believe that socialism and then communism is a giant step towards anarchy.

I don&#39;t believe that we can go about one day with a large state government and the next day no government and everyone to work "mutualy."

Frankly, I think, that first you have to instate a government after the revolution to ensure that the Communist system works, ensuring that people work communally, instead of how it is under capitalism. This way you basically condition the society to work together. After years of such conditions, the power of the government would diminish because there would be no such need.

Then, after such transformations, Anarchy should prevail.

[sc4r]

And that, although I dont agree with your evaluation of what is likely to happen, makes sense. If yiou can by some miracle develop the abilities and attidtides that would make an Anarchist soceity possible then its for sure desirable. I dont think you ever could. But if you could, great.

But as you say the next step is to a workable, susainable, Socialism. Sufficient opposition to this (from capitalists, or anechists, or commnists., or ;libetrals, or anyone else) will make Anmarchism totally unachievable. Yoiu definitely iaint going from here to anarchy without any intermediate steps.

all the best mate.

[Bradyman]

I completely agree sc4r.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 05:19 PM
Tell me have you read any George Orwell? If you have then you certainly havent read "Homage to Catalonia".

Everyone knows that the Anarchists were betrayed by the totalitarians during that revolution and where left in the shit.
Yes, I&#39;ve read Homage to Catalonia and yes they were betrayed by the totalitarians. That does not change the fact that anarchy was implemented and worked fine before the totalitarians destroyed it. If they hadn&#39;t made the stupid mistake of allying with the totalitarians things might have gone very differently.

Sc4r:
It&#39;s pretty hypciritcal for you to call others dogmatic. It&#39;s pretty strange for you to claim you have sympathy for anarchism when you repeatedly regurgitate the same authoritarian nonsense about it &#39;not working&#39; and obviously don&#39;t even understand it. Your&#39;e also an ageist bigot; I&#39;m not a teenager. And yes, anarchy was implemented in both Ukraine and Spain. Are you seriously arguing that there were no collectives in Spain, that State power did not collapse following July 19th, 1936? Are you seriously claiming there were no free soviets or communes or village assemblies in the Makhnovist regions of Ukraine? Pretty much every professional historian who&#39;s written on the subject in any depth has discussed these things. Two examples:

Nestor Makhno in the Russian Revolution by Michael Malet
Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War by Robert Alexander

Both of these were written by non-anarchist historians, both support my claim that anarchy existed for a brief period before period before people like you drowned them in blood. Your&#39;e just another ignoramous who spouts nonsense about things he doesn&#39;t understand and hasn&#39;t bothered to research in depth. You didn&#39;t even understand what "federating" means in anarchist theory until I explained it to you. And anarchy has existed in many societies, not just these two modern examples. The immense majority of human history was lived in anarchy. Most hunter-gatherer societies, and some agrarian ones, were anarchist. Humanity has been around hundreds of thousands of years, yet the state has been around for less than 10,000 years. But then, I doubt you are really interested in facts - you seem very attached to your ignorant & ageist dogma.

[Bradyman]

Morpheus, you&#39;re exactly right in your claims, and that just further proves that Anarchy cannot come directly after capitalism.

As we have seen in history, through the Ukraine and Spain, power-hungry totalitarians betrayed the countries and instated an oppressive government far from the true ideals of anarchy.

Thus, the only way to achieve true "anarchy" is to ensure that there are no such people that are power hungry. After a violent revolution to destroy capitalism, there would indeed be people still concerned about power and the need to be better than others. But, as I have already said, if you condition the people, over a set of generations, there would be an absence of power-hungry citizens. Of course, this sort of conditioning cannot occur without the help of a strong government, against the beliefs of anarchists.

But, as time wears on and the cruelty of the past fades, a new sort of man would be created, a man bent on working for each other, working mutually.

If this progression continues, there would be no need for the government to condition the people because as Marx said, "conditions determines conscious" and the conditions of that day would instill a conscious that is pro communal.

Alas, you have anarchy.

[Guest1]

Right... the power hungry presiding over a powerful state will work to create a society without a powerful state or... the power hungry.

Let&#39;s trust the Capitalists to create a society without Capitalists too.





As for Sc4r. Man... please. You&#39;re giving me a headache. Every post I&#39;ve seen you post here seems to be either intentionally misinterpreting what people said and attacking a strawman, or misinterpreting and then calling them liars when they try to explain. Relax man. Yeah, alright, now I can take a breath and actually be useful :)

Except for certain personal attacks following yours, I really don&#39;t see anything wrong with what Anarchist Tension said.

You accuse everyone of attacking you, but in reality, you often adopt a view of someone and block off anything that might influence you to change it. You complain of not being heard, when really, alot of the time you are the one not listening.

Please don&#39;t take this as a personal attack, I have much respect for you and your ideas, it&#39;s just a constructive criticism on how you could get better response with it and more consideration: give others the same.

Don&#39;t argue symantics man. Just don&#39;t, it&#39;s not right. We don&#39;t all have the time or are in the state of mind to write perfect essays with perfect clarity. Some of us have to deal with University. Others have to deal with a mother with breast cancer being admitted to the hospital today who thinks she is still at home and will likely die within a few weeks.

You can understand the gyst of their arguments, do with that. Go back to RedStar&#39;s post and reread it, it&#39;s really not as off as you make it seem.

Most of your problem is how you express disagreement. Instead of saying:


But does not say why the Leninist revolution should not be counted as a proleraiat revolution ( in which case by his notions he has proved hinself wrong).

why don&#39;t you argue about what he said, instead of what he didn&#39;t say? :huh:

besides, he does say why it shouldn&#39;t be counted as a proletariat revolution, you might not agree with what he said, but he does say it:


Promises, promises.

When Leninists actually had "state power", they did not "make the working class the ruling class".

In the end, they made themselves into a new capitalist ruling class.

So why should what you "seek to do" be of any interest to anyone save a psychiatrist?

Yeah, so tone down the sarcasm, and try to disagree without making it personal, and you&#39;ll notice people will give you the same respect.




And just to help you out here:

Sc4r IS NOT A REFORMER

I hope you&#39;ll consider what I said as what it is, some observations from a friend, and a comrade as all these others are if you allow us to be :)

[sc4r]

Its not really that hard mate. If I do misrepresent someone it means I&#39;ve misunderstood them. What you do to correct it is to correct it. It could of course just be that they aint made themselves clear in the first place, or it could be that I&#39;m not misrepresnting them, but whatever it is you dont resolve it by saying that &#39;Sc4r is wrong&#39;.

Same sort of response to your &#39;strawman&#39; accusation. I&#39;m certainly not aware of doing any such thing. But it dont make it impossible that I have. But to establish that you&#39;s have to actually show where and explain why. I dont see much of that.

I have (with two exceptions, and in fact I didnt quite do it even then, but the implication was clear enough I&#39;ll grant you) NEVER called anyone here a liar. If I did so I&#39;d expect to have to absolutely prove it. Where I come from to call someone a liar is about as insulting as spitting in their face. I would not do it at all lightly.

I have not taken what you have said as a personal attack it isn&#39;t. It was your perspective, and clearly stated as such. The only problem with it is that you seem to think I&#39;ll regard it as a valid perspective. I dont.

As to arguing with what RS does not say : Can you really not see from context that I am in substance arguing with what he does say. He quite clearly contrasts &#39;proletariat revolution&#39; (a self evident good thing almost bound to succeed in his view) with &#39;Leninism&#39; (a failure in his view). It is not remotely academic to ask why he does not consider the Russian revolution a proletariat revolution. I&#39;m not arguing with something he did not say, I&#39;m arguing about the apparent discrepancy between two things he did say.

He did not remotely explain why the Russian revolution was not a proletarian one. He explained why the Leninist state was not a proletarian ruled one. Thats not the same thing at all. And it matters. Bcause he is calling for a specific type of action, and claiming that this action will have a positive result. He cant then point to a negative result and say it proves the action he is proposing is valid. It proves no such thing, and in this case it is worse because the actual action that led to the result he is saying is negative was preety much the same action he is saying wont do.

Could this be explained away? Are there differences between the sort of &#39;proletariat revolutions in each case?&#39; Yes it could be so perhaps. But it wasn&#39;t explained. Thats the point.

You cant simply take isolated lines of thought and demand that people evaluate them in isolation. Thats not what reasoning and discussion is about except at a childish level.

[ernestolynch]

Self-styled Anarchists are all middle-class rich kids acting &#39;tuff&#39; until they become Liberal-Democrats, or until they leave university...

[The Feral Underclass]

wow&#33;&#33;&#33; ernestolynch you amaze me. Your insightfully substantial critique of anarchism has had such a profound effect on me I think I might just burn my statism and arnachy book and go and join Charles Kennedys campaign...if only I could have spoken to you earlier....

I am forever indebted to you...thank you&#33;

:lol:

[The Feral Underclass]

You Anarchists fucked up in the Civil War in Spain, you acheived nothing in history and you still dont take into account materialism. All this &#39;get rid of the state&#39; overnight is completly stupid, it&#39;s like a overwieght man getting thin without going on a diet.

You hypocritcal bastard... When the CNT had control of the Barcelona phone exchange did the stalinists come and support us...no, you attacked us [may 1937]. When we had built collectives with support of the workers and farmers who was it who came and smashed us? The fucking stalinists. instead of killing fascists you pigs went around killing anarchists and communists opposed to stalin. Instead of uniting to fight franco you crushed the revolution, first by destroying the work the CNT and FAI had done, and then to top it all off, the cominturn, effectibly run by stalin withdrew all support...It was not us who fucked up the spanish civil war, it was the authotarian bitter and spiteful leadership of the soviet state. How can you destort history so much.

I suppose it isnt to be suprised coming from you crazy fucking stalin loving atrocity denying fascists&#33;

[sc4r]

Has it occured to you that the aggessive action taken against the Anarchists just might be connected to something the Anarchists did or something they were suggesting they were going to do?

What I see here from many anarchists (most especially including you) is an utter refusal either to compromise or to listen to others. This is coupled with a willingness to get very offensive indeed if they dont get their own way.

So what you have here is a micro version of what could very possibly have happened before do you think? It goes like this :

Anarchist : blah blah blah
Critic : No, that wont work because...
Anarchist ; It will because.....
Critic : No, that because is inconistent with what you said earlier. This... would be bettter
Anarchist : You are a Fascist / Capitalist pig and I&#39;ll shoot you in the head as soon as we defeat our common enemy (this BTW is almost word for word what you have said about me).
Critic : I think not prick; lets fight right now if you feel like that.
Anarchist : WE WILL WIN
THE WORLD : errrrr, it seems you lost.

You&#39;ll always lose because you have a knack for creating enemies. In my view this knack is connected to the fact that actual anarchists are not anything remotely approaching as tolerant of individuality as their ideology suggests people should be. I reckon that Anarchist principles are so obviously unworkable, without a conformance to an unattainable ideal, that no genuinely tolerant or flexible individual with enough smarts to understand it would want to be part of it. It can be made to &#39;work&#39; only in the sense that if some of it is imposed then that part may work (for a short while). Which of course attracts people who by nature like to impose things. I&#39;m sure they dont see themselves as totalitarians only paying lip service to anything else; but to my eye thats what many are.

[Bradyman]

"Right... the power hungry presiding over a powerful state will work to create a society without a powerful state or... the power hungry." Che y Marijuana

If you are a communist or a socialist, then you would obviously appeal to some form of government. Yes, it is true that in many cases, those given the power to uphold the people&#39;s rights take advantage of their power. BUt, I would like to know how you would set a government? Prehaps those in power would be workers themselves as many labor unions opperate today.

Now I never suggested for an oppressive government, even though some of those ideas do lead to one. But under the right set of conditions and limitations, I believe that a government can exist to support the people rather than work at odds with them.

"Let&#39;s trust the Capitalists to create a society without Capitalists too."

Who the hell said this? I understand the implications of having a strong central government and how that can impact the lives of the people for better or worse. But I clearly don&#39;t want to entrust capitalists to lead the government. You didn&#39;t see the King of England in the legislative branch of America when it won its independence. When the revolution comes around, I hope that it will get rid of these capitalists.

[redstar2000]

But under the right set of conditions and limitations, I believe that a government can exist to support the people rather than work at odds with them.

Well, we haven&#39;t seen it yet.

It seems to me that "at its best", a strong central state would be paternalistic...it would do for the people rather than permit them to do it themselves.

Such an arrangement, even presuming the government was genuinely sincere in its objectives, would generate an attitude of passive dependency among the people...making them "ripe" for the re-introduction of new forms of exploitation.

What we want is for people to be actively engaged in public life...and such institutions as we establish must serve that purpose.

Otherwise, whether we like it or not, we just end up preparing the ground for a new ruling class.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas