Why I am a Communist

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Here's a brief overview of why I am a pro-state communist rather than an anarchist. I'd like to know if many people share the same type of view but I am also happy for it to be debunked by said anarchists.

The starting point for my belief in communism is the rejection of capitalism. The vehicle for the destruction of capitalism is socialism, i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat. The 'withering away' of the state comes later creating a stateless,classless society.

This is where my views get slightly more controversial. In my observation the starting point of an anarchists political belief is the rejection of the state. The destruction of capitalism seems to be secondary...

Thoughts?

[AnonymousOne]

The starting point of an anarchist's political belief is the rejection of hierarchial relations, not the state. From there, we see that both Capitalism and the State are hierarchial and seek to oppress people and need to be abolished.

[Susurrus]

We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice;
and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.
Mikhail Bakunin

[Mac]

I'm not an anarchist because in anarchy there is no order, just people running around shooting each other.

[AnonymousOne]

I'm not an anarchist because in anarchy there is no order, just people running around shooting each other.

I think you're trolling, but if you're not please read this. It provides a brief introduction to Anarchist thought:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

[La Peur Rouge]

I'm not an anarchist because in anarchy there is no order, just people running around shooting each other.

I can't tell if you're joking...

[thesadmafioso]

I'm not an anarchist because in anarchy there is no order, just people running around shooting each other.

I am by no measure to be considered an anarchist, but this is an incredibly ignorant assertion. There are far more concise and reasonable arguments to levy against anarchism than this crude misinterpretation of the theory.

[Cynic]

What always ends up happening in communist revolutions is the vanguard party substitutes the bourgeoisie as the ruling class in the false veil of "acting in the interest" of the worker. The workers although slightly better off are exploited by the government instead of the bourgeoisie.

[Lucretia]

I'm a communist because I am a human, and I enjoy seeing others reach their full potential.

[Le Rouge]

I'm a communist because there is so much wrong in this world. And communism is the exit door to get Everybody out of this hell.

(Though I still don't understand how Anarchy would survive on long term. Many uprising would happen. Non?)

[Kosakk]

Maybe I'm all wrong, but I kinda think of Communism (not the USSR, China or
any other "communist" regime) and Anarchism is basically the same thing?
A stateless society?

But the difference is that communists wants a period of transition before abolishing the state and the anarchist wants to abolish the state as soon as possible.

[Ocean Seal]

I think you're trolling, but if you're not please read this. It provides a brief introduction to Anarchist thought:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html


I can't tell if you're joking...


I am by no measure to be considered an anarchist, but this is an incredibly ignorant assertion. There are far more concise and reasonable arguments to levy against anarchism than this crude misinterpretation of the theory.

He's not trolling. He's just a new member who has some misconceptions about anarchy. Most of us have some culturally encouraged misconceptions when we start here.

[Garret]

Maybe I'm all wrong, but I kinda think of Communism (not the USSR, China or
any other "communist" regime) and Anarchism is basically the same thing?
A stateless society?

But the difference is that communists wants a period of transition before abolishing the state and the anarchist wants to abolish the state as soon as possible.
Pretty much, anarchists promote power being handed down to decentralized organizations, to give people greater decision making power in their communities. The state's job is to centralize power in few hands and is undesirable for revolution, since in a Capitalist world, wealth still is power. And corrupting influences from this world can infect any "leader", no matter how honest they may have seemed before.

[pax et aequalitas]

I'm an anarchist, because no matter how socialist a state may be, there will always be people who are more equal than others.

[gendoikari]

I think you're trolling, but if you're not please read this. It provides a brief introduction to Anarchist thought:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

what he said, Anarchists are not wishing for a mad max world, if anything they are the republicans of socialism ( I do NOT mean that as an insult, no matter how the R word might be)

To the OP I see what you mean and every day I turn a little bit more towards leninism. In all I believe the state is a mechanism that exists to sort of balance things out between everyone and sort of keep the peace. So in that I believe some from of state may always be needed, if only as a saftey net. But there will come a day when we CAN fully institute true communism. The full robotization of the workforce, leading to an extreme labor "crisis" is one of the things that marx forsaw, Probably not that it would be with computers and robots but he saw a day when technology would replace most working class people and society will have permanently shifted to a state where the total number of jobs, would be permanently only a fraction of the population.

More over the jobs that would be left would be jobs that people would do anyway, the creators, inventors, scientists and even teachers. It is in this advanced technological state that we could finally abolish once and for all the currency systems we've relied on for thousands of years and enter a peaceful near utopia like society. I like to call this line of thinking Technologist.

However, that being said there are sevearal things that need to be done before we reach that plateau. The abolition of capitalism is the first, because if that level of technology comes first, we could be looking at a hell rather than a utopia. The second obviously is Ending class war, and uniting humanity by first bringing the classes together, and finally eliminating the different classes altogether. The last would be a near dismantling of the state, and letting the local communals which would have still had great power tobegin with take full control.

[Tim Cornelis]

Freedom without socialism is privilege
socialism without freedom is slavery.
Emma Goldman.

I'm pretty sure that was Bakunin.

EDIT:

Also, much dispute between anarchists and Marxists is based on semantics rather than theory.

Marxists define the state as organised violence of one class to oppress another, in other words establishing self-governing communes and a genuine soviet republic governed by the workers which are defended by a Red Army can be defined as a state in Marxist terminology. Whilst anarchists would consider this a stateless society because there is no ruling class. So, anarchists may support a "dictatorship of the proletariat", but it depends on what you mean by that. If you mean a Soviet Republic governed by democratic communes and workers' councils, yes anarchists are for a dictatorship of the proletariat, except we would not consider it a dictatorship. If on the other hand you define a DOTP as a temporary ruling class, we disagree with the DOTP wholeheartedly. All power to the communes.

[Mac]

SORRY, damnit. I'll be deleting my account now.

[Obs]

I am on Revleft because I love to see newbies make utter fools out of themselves inventing what they think to be revolutionising catch phrases.

[Aspiring Humanist]

I'm an anarchist because every "communist" state in the 20th century has not even attempted to progress past the DoP and they continued to be authoritarian, they replaced the capitalist bourgeois with a "communist" bourgeois
Plus the state has no legitimate authority to be governing anyone, they just have the biggest gun at the moment

[Apoi_Viitor]

I am on Revleft because I love to see newbies make utter fools out of themselves inventing what they think to be revolutionising catch phrases.

There's no need for you to be an asshole.

[punisa]

Anarchism is theory, but will never be embraced by the majority of the working class.
Communism on the other hand is something else, it's a theory that can also be implemented in practice.
It has principles that are easily understood to the majority of the working class.
Anarchism refuses to accept the fact that the wast majority of workers are NOT willing to disintegrate the state.
This is similar to the militant atheists who can not understand that it's not possible to kill religion in a matter of 48 hours.

Fact that majority of revleft is dominated by anarchists and similar thinking comrades doesn't mean much to actual workers.
There is also a correlation between age and proclaimed tendency, but since I think this theory of mine will not be very welcomed, I'll just shut up :blushing:

In a perfect world this is how I see it:
1) we bring the socialist revolution
2) capitalism is overthrown
3) anarchists pursue us to hurry up with the disintegration of the state
4) everybody is happy

[Obs]

There's no need for you to be an asshole.
But who else will? You? Don't make me laugh.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Looking through the groups I notice that anarchists are by far the largest but I believe that to be an artificial minority due to the splintering of pro-state socialists/communists. I'm starting a poll to see who is the majority. This isn't intended as an attack on anarchists, I was just curious, is all.

[ColonelCossack]

Looking through the groups I notice that anarchists are by far the largest but I believe that to be an artificial minority due to the splintering of pro-state socialists/communists. I'm starting a poll to see who is the majority. This isn't intended as an attack on anarchists, I was just curious, is all.

do it now

oh wait you already did lol :p

[Tim Cornelis]

Anarchism is theory, but will never be embraced by the majority of the working class.
Communism on the other hand is something else, it's a theory that can also be implemented in practice.
It has principles that are easily understood to the majority of the working class.
Anarchism refuses to accept the fact that the wast majority of workers are NOT willing to disintegrate the state.
This is similar to the militant atheists who can not understand that it's not possible to kill religion in a matter of 48 hours.

Fact that majority of revleft is dominated by anarchists and similar thinking comrades doesn't mean much to actual workers.
There is also a correlation between age and proclaimed tendency, but since I think this theory of mine will not be very welcomed, I'll just shut up :blushing:

In a perfect world this is how I see it:
1) we bring the socialist revolution
2) capitalism is overthrown
3) anarchists pursue us to hurry up with the disintegration of the state
4) everybody is happy

And why would that be the case?

Presumably, the working class will not embrace anarchism an sich, but will participate in communes and create workers' councils, a socialism without adjectives.

[Magón]

Here's a brief overview of why I am a pro-state communist rather than an anarchist. I'd like to know if many people share the same type of view but I am also happy for it to be debunked by said anarchists.

The starting point for my belief in communism is the rejection of capitalism. The vehicle for the destruction of capitalism is socialism, i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat. The 'withering away' of the state comes later creating a stateless,classless society.

This is where my views get slightly more controversial. In my observation the starting point of an anarchists political belief is the rejection of the state. The destruction of capitalism seems to be secondary...

Thoughts?

Yeah, what about States that are Capitalist? How can wanting to bring down Capitalism, be secondary, when States are already such and bringing them down would bring Capitalism down at the same time in the State?

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Yeah, what about States that are Capitalist? How can wanting to bring down Capitalism, be secondary, when States are already such and bringing them down would bring Capitalism down at the same time in the State?

Would it? I'd argue a socialist state is needed to dismantle capitalism, classes don't disappear overnight. Obviously you reject this premise. Unstoppable force meets Immovable object lol...:laugh:

[Seresan]

I'm a communist because I believe that a society needs to be conditioned and slowly transitioned first before anarchy would work well, and what better way than to install the central beliefs through communism? I see a rather evil side of people inside of them, and that evil side is currently kept in most of the time by fear of reaction. Conditioning people to believe in equal cooperation just as the capitalists contition people to believe in competition is vital in my mind.

Plus, I love defined structure and order.

[Magón]

Would it? I'd argue a socialist state is needed to dismantle capitalism, classes don't disappear overnight. Obviously you reject this premise. Unstoppable force meets Immovable object lol...:laugh:

Capitalism isn't just a Class you know. If there was to be an Anarchist revolution, where the state they were rising up against was Capitalist, then how would those Capitalists and the system they're named after, continue to operate when there would be no capital to be gained or had for a select few? How would the Capitalist bosses, continue to own the means of production when the places they once controlled were turned into worker owned places of work?

Just look at Anarchist Catalonia for an example, and how fast the Anarchists got the means of production on their side. It didn't take years.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Capitalism isn't just a Class you know. If there was to be an Anarchist revolution, where the state they were rising up against was Capitalist, then how would those Capitalists and the system they're named after, continue to operate when there would be no capital to be gained or had for a select few? How would the Capitalist bosses, continue to own the means of production when the places they once controlled were turned into worker owned places of work?

Just look at Anarchist Catalonia for an example, and how fast the Anarchists got the means of production on their side. It didn't take years.


Fair point, but look what happened to Anarchist Catalonia. Any Anarchist regions are more or less defenceless. There will always be hostile external forces looking to fill the power vacuum or 'restore order'.

[Magón]

Fair point, but look what happened to Anarchist Catalonia. Any Anarchist regions are more or less defenceless. There will always be hostile external forces looking to fill the power vacuum or 'restore order'.

I would agree they were defenseless, but it's kind of a stab in the back when it's from your own side who you weren't even trying to defend against. The Anarchists did just fine against Franco and his forces.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

I would agree they were defenseless, but it's kind of a stab in the back when it's from your own side who you weren't even trying to defend against. The Anarchists did just fine against Franco and his forces.

I must admit that I'm far from an expert from the spanish civil war. I know there were tensions between the communists and the anarchists but had no idea the communists were ultimately responsible for the downfall of the anarchist communes. Was it actually the communists that broke up the communes? If so that's sad...

Like punisa said earlier in an ideal world we could both co-operate. Us communists would set up our dictatorship of the proletariat whilst allowing you anarchists to have your communes.

[Magón]

I must admit that I'm far from an expert from the spanish civil war. I know there were tensions between the communists and the anarchists but had no idea the communists were ultimately responsible for the downfall of the anarchist communes. Was it actually the communists that broke up the communes? If so that's sad...

Like punisa said earlier in an ideal world we could both co-operate. Us communists would set up our dictatorship of the proletariat whilst allowing you anarchists to have your communes.

Well we can start even earlier, during the Russian Revolution, with the example of the Ukrainian Free Territory, and how they ultimately fell at the hands of the Bolsheviks. So by 1937, it was nothing Anarchists were unfamiliar with.

[Dogs On Acid]

Here's a brief overview of why I am a pro-state communist rather than an anarchist. I'd like to know if many people share the same type of view but I am also happy for it to be debunked by said anarchists.

The starting point for my belief in communism is the rejection of capitalism. The vehicle for the destruction of capitalism is socialism, i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat. The 'withering away' of the state comes later creating a stateless,classless society.

This is where my views get slightly more controversial. In my observation the starting point of an anarchists political belief is the rejection of the state. The destruction of capitalism seems to be secondary...

Thoughts?


Why should Marx's 150 year old theory have to be applied exactly the same 150 years later?

It's anti-materialist to believe so. Although Capitalism has advanced very accurately to Marx's predictions, so has technology and communication. The state would basically act as a "central-hub" for the Revolutionaries, a method of organization and a body that would deal in most economic, social and political applications.

Now we can do all of that through computers, mobile phones and free access to political and economical literature. The working class today has the ability to become much more class-conscious and educated than in the middle 19th century.

The working class can literally suppress counter-revolution all by itself, as long as it knows exactly what it's fighting for.

[Tim Cornelis]

I must admit that I'm far from an expert from the spanish civil war. I know there were tensions between the communists and the anarchists but had no idea the communists were ultimately responsible for the downfall of the anarchist communes. Was it actually the communists that broke up the communes? If so that's sad...

Like punisa said earlier in an ideal world we could both co-operate. Us communists would set up our dictatorship of the proletariat whilst allowing you anarchists to have your communes.

As far as I know it were Stalinist troops, backed by the USSR. The POUM did not repress the anarchist collectives.

[Tomhet]

I'd love to be on the benefiting side of capitalism but that's not gonna go down so it makes sense for me to root for workers power because I am one.. If a "state" reflected genuine workers power, I'd be all for it..

[Scrounger]

Here's a brief overview of why I am a pro-state communist rather than an anarchist. I'd like to know if many people share the same type of view but I am also happy for it to be debunked by said anarchists.

The starting point for my belief in communism is the rejection of capitalism. The vehicle for the destruction of capitalism is socialism, i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat. The 'withering away' of the state comes later creating a stateless,classless society.

This is where my views get slightly more controversial. In my observation the starting point of an anarchists political belief is the rejection of the state. The destruction of capitalism seems to be secondary...

Thoughts?

Considering we oppose all forms of institutional hierarchy, capitalism has no less priority than the state. The state and capitalism is also relative.

[Seresan]

I'd love to be on the benefiting side of capitalism but that's not gonna go down so it makes sense for me to root for workers power because I am one.. If a "state" reflected genuine workers power, I'd be all for it..


Uh... That makes you sound like you are a wolf in sheeps clothing. If you aren't a communist for the good of the whole, rather than individual gain, I can't see you as any better than a capitalist.

[Aurora]

I haven't read the rest of this thread cause it's silly, so i'm not sure if this has been mentioned already

The vehicle for the destruction of capitalism is socialism, i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The DOTP and Socialism are completely different, the dictatorship is the proletariat taking state power to smash the capitalists and advance society towards socialism(communism), that is, a stateless classless society.
Perhaps some quotes:
"Democracy for the vast majority of the people, and suppression by force, i.e., exclusion from democracy, of the exploiters and oppressors of the people--this is the change democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to communism." -Lenin

So we see clearly that the dictatorship is a class society, of course, since we are talking about the proletariat and their suppression of capitalists and since we are talking about democracy which is a form of state and the state is primarily an expression of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms.

"And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) .... The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed." -Lenin

[Nox]

I'm pro-state.

Simply because in my opinion that's the most realistic way to reach Communism.

Some will disagree but we all have different opinions on the matter.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Well I am against anarchy too because I think it is fasistic because anarchists express their opinions with violence.

[Kosakk]

Well I am against anarchy too because I think it is fasistic because anarchists express their opinions with violence.

Some communists do that too.
As every fanatic, actually.

[anarcho-communist4]

Well I am against anarchy too because I think it is fasistic because anarchists express their opinions with violence.

you obviously know nothing of anarchism them.
This is the first time i've actually been offended on these forums, and by a fellow leftist?
Few books id like to recommend

Fields Factories and workshops - Peter Kropotkin
Conquest of Bread - Peter Kropotkin
Prison memoirs of an Anarchist -Alexander Berkman
Prison Blossoms - Alexander Berkman, Carl Nold, Henry Bower.
Now and After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism - Alexander Berkman

I don't make rash assumptions of your tendency, so don't of mine.
Also, don't just agree with people, try to form an opinion instead of going "ME TOO". Don't spout off calling people Fascists either, especially when it makes absolutely zero sense.
Its very rude, and also quite ignorant.


AB

[DarkPast]

Well I am against anarchy too because I think it is fasistic because anarchists express their opinions with violence.

Also, you don't seem to understand what fascism is. Not all violent people are fascists, and it's not just a label you apply to anyone who disagrees with you.

Have a look here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm

and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_manifesto

for a start.

[Strannik]

I see both organizational forms as necessary parts of a larger, evolving socialist society. So I can't pick just one.

[Scrounger]

Well I am against anarchy too because I think it is fasistic because anarchists express their opinions with violence.

Indeed, over 100 years ago that is. I don't see how it bothers you today as more or less all(?) anarchists have condemned propaganda of the deed.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

OK They might not be fascists but from what I've seen they are violent.There was a strike here in Greece and suddenly an anarchist attacks the police and then the peaceful strike is turned into a riot.

[Magón]

OK They might not be fascists but from what I've seen they are violent.There was a strike here in Greece and suddenly an anarchist attacks the police and then the peaceful strike is turned into a riot.

So? What's your plan, just vote in Socialism/Communism?

[Kornilios Sunshine]

So? What's your plan, just vote in Socialism/Communism?
No, start a true revolution for a true communist state.In Cyprus,AKEL was elected without a revolution and now Cyprus is on a capitalist state.

[Rooster]

I don't understand this poll at all. :confused:

[Rooster]

I'm a communist because I believe that a society needs to be conditioned and slowly transitioned first before anarchy would work well, and what better way than to install the central beliefs through communism? I see a rather evil side of people inside of them, and that evil side is currently kept in most of the time by fear of reaction. Conditioning people to believe in equal cooperation just as the capitalists contition people to believe in competition is vital in my mind.

Plus, I love defined structure and order.

I'm pretty sure you have the the wrong way around. All that stuff about being conditioned? That happens before the revolution. It's what helps make a revolution possible.

[anarcho-communist4]

OK They might not be fascists but from what I've seen they are violent.There was a strike here in Greece and suddenly an anarchist attacks the police and then the peaceful strike is turned into a riot.

a peaceful revolution?
I too live inside fairy tale books where people just ask the ruling class nicely and they just go "okay we were wrong, were done oppressing people"

In normal life, i don't like fighting because i know there is a peaceful solution, but in a revolutionary setting, against a large government, they will only respond to force. So it is necessary.

[eyeheartlenin]

I am a communist because I always admired Lenin and Trotsky, and when I was in college, the movement against the war in Vietnam, the only mass movement I have ever seen up close (except for a local mass movement in Grenada, Mississippi, where students from our school, including me, were part of a struggle by the black community there for equality in hiring, and that struggle was led by one heck of an impressive community movement) was largely organized by an ostensibly Trotskyist party, from what I could see.

For me, the problem facing anarchism would be, what do you do when a successful revolution gets attacked from outside? Don't you have to form an army to fight for the defense of the revolution? An army is surely a body of armed men, which is AFAIK the definition of a state. The Russian Revolution, 1917, survived because the Red Army defeated the interventionist European and US armies.

And even before that, surely a very high degree of organization of the workers and their/our allies would be needed in the revolution itself, the initial struggle against the exploiters, and so, a communist party would be required, I think, to provide leadership.

I'm sure my understanding is simplistic, but I do not see how you get around the need for an armed force to throw back imperialist intervention, which is inevitable. How would anarchism, for instance, have opposed the US Army's invasion of Vietnam in the 1960's, if not through highly organized armed struggle, i.e., an army, the nucleus of an emerging state? Or what about Cuba, where a revolution was made by the Rebel Army? What would anarchists have done differently to stop the murderous armed force of the Batista regime, deployed against the Cuban people?

[Madslatter]

As far as I know it were Stalinist troops, backed by the USSR. The POUM did not repress the anarchist collectives.
POUM was repressed along with the anarchists as a 'Troskyist organization aiding Franco' by the USSR lead Communist Party (PSUC). POUM stood by the anarchists in the '37 repressions.

[citizen of industry]

I'm a communist because I'm skeptical of the anarchist belief that a revolution or planned economy can be achieved without a centralized party. And I'm skeptical of the notion that a centralized party automatically becomes repressive over the workers, if a revolution occurs in a developed nation rather than a developing one that is quickly isolated. Assuming wealth is redistributed globally and everyone has a decent standard of living, I think the motive for repressing others would disappear.

But I like the anarchist work in the labor movement. They seem to devote a lot of energy there and promote direct actions. Some of the best unionists I know.

[Madslatter]

I became an anarchist largely because my main focus as a liberal was civil rights. As I moved further left I adopted an anarchist viewpoint. I think that communism is impossible unless structural hierarchies are eliminated.

[Kosakk]

I might be leaning towards anarchism in this case.
The state, power and economy must be decentralized. It's the only way to attain power to the people, imo.

[Seresan]

I'm pretty sure you have the the wrong way around. All that stuff about being conditioned? That happens before the revolution. It's what helps make a revolution possible.

I meant a multi-step process of a few generations ultimatley leading to anarchy. Personally, I think that society isn't ready or able to jump straight to anarchy safely.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Isn't anarchism a contradiction since a real revolution requires special bodies of armed men to enforce the rule of the proletariat when the use of special coercive forces is a state function?

[Tomhet]

Uh... That makes you sound like you are a wolf in sheeps clothing. If you aren't a communist for the good of the whole, rather than individual gain, I can't see you as any better than a capitalist.
Why can't we all thrive in material abundance? It's in MY best interest to support my class, the working class..

[Seresan]

Why can't we all thrive in material abundance? It's in MY best interest to support my class, the working class..
Just as it's in MY best intrest to support the bourgeoisie. I must admit I prefer moralist ideals.

[nothing but left]

First off, there is no such thing as a "communist state", that's false. Everyone who knows mere basics of marxism knows that communism is the post-revolutionary, post-socialist society without a state. in this respect, anarchy is the same as communism. Engels and Marx did write about abolishing other types of opression and hierarchy too, not just anarchists. Engels wrote about families and how they won't be any need for a close nit patriarchal families in classless society. So, it's virtually the same.
The thing we disagree at is how to organise the revolution. Remember, anarchists don't oppose vanguardism. Bakunin stated that it's only natural that there would be a group of people more aware and more educated about stuff who will start to educate other people and eventually lead them into revolution. I think that too, it's only natural, we can't develop our consciousness in the same way. But the thing, the anarchist thing is, a party must never have power over the rest of the people just because they had more awarness in the beggining and more education. Some marxists agree with this too, some don't. But all anarchist think or should think that.
Just to make something clear, I'm not talking about individualist anarchists or capitalist anarchists, i have no interest in them and I think they help the system with their ways of thinking. I'm talking about social anarchists, class anarchists.
And like people said earlier, anarchists aren't against the state in terms there would be no order and there would just be fools running around and doing whatever they want. people visciously twist this, although I must admit there are uneducated anarchists who also contributed to forming this silly notion. Anarchism is against the state in the sense that they oppose concentrated power in the hands of few. there has to be an order, anarchy is order, society would collapse without it. but why should only few people tell the rest of us how to lead our lives? shouldn't we all participate in this? we have to organize, to have order, but that doesn't mean person A should have more power and control over person B. quite the opposite, that leads to revolt. correct me if i'm wrong.