Is Anarchism Impossible?

[hsmw]

I was hoping if those opposed to and in support of anarchism can provide me with some useful information. It's a question for an essay I have to write, and what better source of information than here! I'd much appreciate your opinion to this question, thanks v. much :)

[MustCrushCapitalism]

In my opinion? Yes. Yet at the same time, it's morally superior to most other ideologies, hence, I am a Marxist, as a compromise between practicality and morality.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It is not any more impossible than communism.

[bcbm]

could be. worth giving it a good go around though

[Le Socialiste]

Anarchism, at its most basic, calls for the dismantlement of the state in favor of a stateless, classless society. Based on this, it's end goal is no different than communism's - the difference(s) lies in how this end goal is to be realized. I'd argue that no, anarchism is not impossible. Then again, I could just be biased. :D

[Rodrigo]

Tactically, practically, for "today"... Yes. Only in a very far future, when all the world is in the "first phase of communism", that "anarchism" you're talking about will be possible. But if there was a transition before, it's not anarchism, it's Marxian communism. So, yes, anarchism is impossible. :D

[Yuppie Grinder]

I don't care if it's impossible, not limiting the power of the common individual at all is a bad idea. All power needs limiting. Without a state, who is there to keep people from commiting rape, murder, and theivery?

[Tablo]

I don't care if it's impossible, not limiting the power of the common individual at all is a bad idea. All power needs limiting. Without a state, who is there to keep people from commiting rape, murder, and theivery?
You don't know what anarchism is, do you....

[Yuppie Grinder]

You don't know what anarchism is, do you....
I've read Bakunin, Goldman, and Kropotkin, and I still haven't read any satisfactory explanation of how those realistic issues would be dealt with.

[bcbm]

I don't care if it's impossible, not limiting the power of the common individual at all is a bad idea. All power needs limiting. Without a state, who is there to keep people from commiting rape, murder, and theivery?

nobody keeps them from doing any of those things now

[Yuppie Grinder]

nobody keeps them from doing any of those things now
what the fuck are you talking about?

[bcbm]

what the fuck are you talking about?

the state doesn't prevent any of those, it merely punishes for them after the fact. what makes you think an anarchist society wouldn't have its own means for dealing with anti-social actions?

[Yuppie Grinder]

the state doesn't prevent any of those, it merely punishes for them after the fact. what makes you think an anarchist society wouldn't have its own means for dealing with anti-social actions?
well what other means are there for dealing with anti-social actions?

[Zav]

A society sans hierarchy is certainly possible. It has been done, and it happens now.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

well what other means are there for dealing with anti-social actions?

Actual rehabilitation.

[Tablo]

well what other means are there for dealing with anti-social actions?
Preventing the conditions that cause them, like poverty.

[Os Cangaceiros]

IMO anarchism/"anarchy" isn't really an achievable goal, as it is a basic idea that society should move towards. I mean, I'd prefer if we lived in a society where people had mutual respect for each other. May never happen, but that doesn't make it less desirable.

Or in other words:


[Anarchism] is the ultimate ideal, to which society should continually approximate.


Not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards anarchism today, tomorrow, and always.

[Le Rouge]

the state doesn't prevent any of those, it merely punishes for them after the fact. what makes you think an anarchist society wouldn't have its own means for dealing with anti-social actions?

It's false. The thought of going in jail surely prevent many people of commiting rape/murder/whatever. The state does a lot of repression

[bcbm]

It's false. The thought of going in jail surely prevent many people of commiting rape/murder/whatever.

actually, it really doesn't (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/crime-study-casts-doubt-on-prison-as-deterrent-596623.html).

[#FF0000]

It's false. The thought of going in jail surely prevent many people of commiting rape/murder/whatever. The state does a lot of repression

People who commit a serious offense like that (or any offense) are generally not making a pro-con list and doing an in-depth cost-benefit analysis.

[Magón]

It's false. The thought of going in jail surely prevent many people of commiting rape/murder/whatever. The state does a lot of repression

Then why do people protest if the thought of going to jail is running wild in their head? The fact is, it's not something they focus on or bother to worry about, and that's why they go to do it.

Just because there's laws that say committing rape, murder, etc. is wrong, doesn't make it so if those laws were taken away, people would turn off some switch in their head, and suddenly be out there on the streets raping and murdering each other.

You know, that's the same kind of logic Republicans and other idiots use.

[DeBon]

Primitive tribes and cultures did it, so yes. I think it has to catch up with technology first.

[Blake's Baby]

Anarchism's goal - a classless communal society - is really no different to the Marxist goal. So the goal of anarchism, ie communism, is no more impossible than Marxism's goal. If you believe that a rational organisation of society is impossible - because humans are too greedy or stupid for instance - then yeah, communism (whether one is an Anarchist or a Marxist) probably is impossible. If you believe humans are resourceful and co-operative, then probably it isn't. It depends on your view of what 'human nature' is I guess.

The material means to realise this goal - ie the productive capacity of humanity - has been developed by capiytalism anyway, and we know that exists so it can't be impossible.

Anarchism - as a movement aiming towards this goal - already exists, and therefore isn't impossible from that angle.

So the thing that could be impossible is the means that Anarchism (the existing movement) uses to reach the end goal. Anarchists and Marxists have been arguing about that for 130 years (at least). I don't think anything any of us are going to say here will significantly change that. My own viewpoint is that Marxism provides a more coherent framework for understanding and thus changing the world.

Will Anarchism lead to communism? Yes. It's one of the currents that exists that will be part of the revolutionary overthrowing of capitalism. Anarchists will be taking part in the revolution and the transformation of society afterwards. But I don't think it'll be doing it on its own, I expect that Marxists will also be part of the revolution and transformation of society; and I know that if a revolution and transformation of society are to happen, an awful lot of people who don't consider themselves either Anarchists or Marxist will also be involved.

[Mr. Natural]

hsmw, You asked, "Is Anarchism Impossible?"

No, it isn't, but the capitalist system has mentally as well as physically enveloped the human species, and the left must get moving. Now. It's good you are involved.

Anarchism is nature-al. Check out a local ecosystem, which will be a differentiated unity of self-organizing beings, as are anarchism and communism. (I don't see a real difference between the two)

Check out your body, too (my old carcass won't do). Your body is an anarchist/communist formation, i.e., it is a self-organized, integrated whole that exists in dynamic interdependence with the rest of life.

Nature's living systems are self-organizing, integrated wholes existing in dynamic interdependence with each other and the physical environment. Nature's living systems, whether ants, ant colonies, a forest, or you, are a bottom-up, grassroots democracy/community/anarchism/communism.

We are natural beings living unnaturally and must learn to ecologically organize our lives. Engels: "We have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn [nature's] laws and apply them correctly."
(Dialectics of Nature)

But Engels is partially wrong, for the rest of life inherently employs the ecological integration (nature's laws) that humanity must learn. Nature's other living systems automatically enjoy "ecological mind," while humanity must learn to replicate nature's organizational relations in our social groupings.

When and if we do this, we will have created forms of community in which the "free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." (Manifesto) And whether we call these communities grassroots democracy, anarchism, or communism, we will be living naturally and well and will be in the process of realizing our human natures.

My red-green best.

[Rafiq]

I see Anarchism as just a different current of Socialist politics. Anarchism could easily just as much represent the interests of the working class.

[Fopeos]

I believe it's possible. But I believe humanity will have to pass through a process of socialization to get there. Once we have world-wide socialism, our consciousness will change. Without dog-eat-dog competition to survive, I believe our humanity will flourish. Then, with workers controlling our means of production and distribution, democratically, we won't need a "state" apparatus to force us to "behave". Without a need for it, the state will wither away. That's communism, and if i'm not mistaken, Anarchism.
May be a bit utopian, but that's what i'm hoping for.

[tir1944]

Anarchism is possible.
Capitalist Anarchism is also possible...:)

[Nox]

As has been pointed out many times before; a stateless, classless society is what all Communists aim for, the only things we disagree on are how we will reach that society.

Anarchists try to get rid of the state and go straight to Communism. Although I don't think this is unrealistic in any way, what I do think is unrealistic is achieving world revolution under such circumstances. Fair play to Anarchists though, they are very dedicated and, unlike many Marxist tendencies, aren't always caught up in stupid tendency wars.

All branches of Marxism involve using the state to achieve world revolution, then moving on to Communism.

Example: I'm a Marxist-Leninist, I have the same end goal as an Anarchist, the same political views as an Anarchist, the same economic views as an Anarchist, the same social views as an Anarchist, as you can see my political compass score is -10, -10. I am a Marxist-Leninist because I believe this is the most realistic way to achieve world revolution, the case is the same with most, if not all, Marxist-Leninists who know what they're talking about.

Hope this clears some stuff up :)

[coda]

hmm..... what do you need the state for? It's cops, military, politico system or jails????

[TheGodlessUtopian]

hmm..... what do you need the state for? It's cops, military, politico system or jails????

You're only looking at the negative.A socialist state will help organize society in that food,clothing,entertainment,housing and education will be easily available and to help educate the public.A state to make sure that no foreign invasion or fascist coup occurs.

Among other reasons.

[coda]

<<A socialist state will help organize society in that food,clothing,entertainment,housing and education will be easily available and to help educate the public.A state to make sure that no foreign invasion or fascist coup occurs. Among other reasons.>>

do you need the state to overthrow capitalism and other organs of the capitalist state?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

do you need the state to overthrow capitalism and other organs of the capitalist state?

Revolution is different from organizing (production,defense,etc) and ensuring everyone is looked after until communism.

[coda]

<<until communism.>>

by that I assume you mean Marxist's definition of a stateless society?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

by that I assume you mean Marxist's definition of a stateless society?

A stateless,classless,moneyless society.

[coda]

yes.. all three are intrinsically necessary for a communist society.

and to ensure that they need to be dismantled as soon as the working class have power.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

yes.. all three are intrinsically necessary for a communist society.

and to ensure that they need to be dismantled as soon as the working class have power.

Once the (socialist) state is no longer needed it will collapse,yes.

I see what you are doing,and no,I am not going to accept your attempt to drag this into a tendency war about vanguardism VS Anarchsim.

[Magón]

Anarchism is possible.
Capitalist Anarchism is also possible...:)

You really consider Anarcho-Capitalism, to be Anarchism?

[Misanthrope]

Capitalist Anarchism is also possible...:)

No it's not.

[coda]

<<I see what you are doing,and no,I am not going to accept your attempt to drag this into a tendency war about vanguardism VS Anarchsim.>>


starting a "tendency war"!! -- that's an amusing cop out. First off, I was addressing the post above mine.. that would be Dzhug.. whereever you decided to answer.. no one was twisting your arm!!

Anyway, I'm ac-tu-al-ly trying to trap you into admitting that the state, is not only unnecessary but more so-- incompatible with a working class revolution.

the error is this--- the state and military machine are glorified and believed to be the agent that turns all the wheels keeping society intact. No credit at all given to the workers -- the invisible ones doing all the work and providing every means for society-- all the food, housing, medicine, education, clothing, toys, electronics, services, even the guns and ammo. The state does nothing but lay out laws and legislature. That is it's purpose, intent, design and structure.

You can be sure that there is no authentic revolution, no worker liberation or working class power where workers are fully participating and shaping all aspects of society if some higher level vanguard "workers" are deciding where and how food, education and the materials of society should/how/when be distributed.

[tir1944]

No it's not.
As a movement/ideology it's possible.;)

[black magick hustla]

live communism, spread anarchy lol

in all seriousness i like how some french insurrectos approach it. among communists call yourself an anarchist, among anarchists call yourself a communist

[Tim Cornelis]

I was hoping if those opposed to and in support of anarchism can provide me with some useful information. It's a question for an essay I have to write, and what better source of information than here! I'd much appreciate your opinion to this question, thanks v. much :)

Anarchism certainly is a viable system.

Firstly, what is anarchism?

Anarchism is the absence of hierarchy and domination in social relations, or more positively it's an equal distribution of power and equality in social relations.

An equal distribution of power means one person, one vote on all social matters. In other words, it's a system of participatory democracy.

But does participatory democracy work?

Yes. The the Zapatista Army of National Liberation -- a libertarian socialistic armed group named after anarchist revolutionary Emiliano Zapata --has established a system based on a relative equal distribution of power. A system based on a confederative network of autonomous communities and popular assemblies. The area controlled by the EZLN is populated by some 500,000 people.

Furthermore, the principles of workers' self-management are central to anarchism and we know from practice that workers' self-management works.

for more information follow this link:

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

EDIT:

I would also like to point out that anarchism in practice functioned fairly well.

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

And that instead of laws passed by a legislator, as exists now, we would have customary law regulating the relations between people, meaning that things done in voluntary association are unlikely to become subject to customary law, and therefore customary law in all likeliness would exclude victimless crimes (which are an infringement on people's personal freedoms).

[Nox]

No it's not.

Of course it's possible, but it will shortly collapse.

In an Anarcho-Capitalist society what's stopping me enslaving people, building up an army and making my own nation?

[Tim Cornelis]

in all seriousness i like how some french insurrectos approach it. among communists call yourself an anarchist, among anarchists call yourself a communist

And how does that work if they are all doing it ;) ?

[Grenzer]

I think it's hard to say whether anarchism is feasible or not. I think it would depend on how the revolution takes place. If it's a regional phenomenon, then I'd be more inclined to say that anarchism is not likely to be viable. IF the revolution sweeps the world all at once(probably not going to happen) then I think it would be more viable.

[Art Vandelay]

I think it's hard to say whether anarchism is feasible or not. I think it would depend on how the revolution takes place. If it's a regional phenomenon, then I'd be more inclined to say that anarchism is not likely to be viable. IF the revolution sweeps the world all at once(probably not going to happen) then I think it would be more viable.

Why do you think that? I would of actually thought that given the historical examples of anarchists regions including up to the ELZN today that most people would think anarchism is perhaps possible in a small region but not worldwide. Truthfully I have a lot more anarchists reading to do as I was initially a marxist then a trot but have started to open up more and more to anarchism.

In my opinion is it feasible? I think it is our only option going forward to smash the state over night. Historical examples have shown what happens during the dotp and it has lead to the restoration of capitalism. What has been the end of most anarchist societies is external pressure. So I think the most important thing that must take place during an anarchist revolution is defense of the gains of the revolution. Just my 0.02$.

[Nuvem]

Yes, it's impossible. /thread.

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, it's impossible. /thread.

Thanks for that nugget of wisdom, maybe try adding something to the thread instead of just "impossible. /thread" and the left would not be in such a shitty position right now if we could actually get some discourse going.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yes, it's impossible. /thread.

Then you can't be Marxist either, or am I seeing this wrong? Because if you think anarchism is impossible so is the ultimate aim of Marxism.

[ZeroNowhere]

and to ensure that they need to be dismantled as soon as the working class have power.Perhaps the working class is to wait until we have evangelized for socialism well enough before taking power. Otherwise, I think that they might have other immediate priorities.


Then you can't be Marxist either, or am I seeing this wrong? Because if you think anarchism is impossible so is the ultimate aim of Marxism.
That's not the case, no. Marxism is not a form of utopian socialism based on moral principles of anti-authoritarianism, and as such does not have the realization of such as its final aim. Marxism, rather, is concerned with what is real and necessary.


Historical examples have shown what happens during the dotpI assume that your examples have a sample size of about one.


hmm..... what do you need the state for? It's cops, military, politico system or jails????Yes, in the same way that I need Das Kapital for hitting people on the head and water for drowning myself.

[Art Vandelay]

That's not the case, no. Marxism is not a form of utopian socialism based on moral principles of anti-authoritarianism, and as such does not have the realization of such as its final aim. Marxism, rather, is concerned with what is real and necessary.

Sorry but the goal of anarchists and marxists is identical: a classless stateless world. So it is correct in saying that if the final goal of anarchism is impossible so is the final goal of marxism. You can disagree with their opinions on how to get there but that is a different debate all together.



I assume that your examples have a sample size of about one.

No actually there are a few more than that;)

[ZeroNowhere]

Sorry but the goal of anarchists and marxists is identical: a classless stateless world. So it is correct in saying that if the final goal of anarchism is impossible so is the final goal of marxism. You can disagree with their opinions on how to get there but that is a different debate all together.
That's somewhat like saying that the goal of anarchism and of Libertarianism is identical: the abolition of unjust authority, liberty, etc. Anarchism doesn't necessarily seek a socialist world, and hence the abolition of alienated labour and class as a category of the production process, while Marxism, and modern history, may have a classless and stateless society as its goal, but not the rest of the baggage which comes along with anti-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian eternal moral principles.


No actually there are a few more than that;)Go ahead. Attempts dependent upon and seeking to emulate the Soviet Union wouldn't count. The Paris Commune was destroyed from the outside. I'm not sure that there's a lot, and trying to analyze a complex situation like the Russian Revolution in terms of 'Well, they tried the dictatorship of the proletariat and therefore they failed, because such is the necessary result whenever it is tried' is a bit ludicrous in itself.

[Tim Cornelis]

That's somewhat like saying that the goal of anarchism and of Libertarianism is identical: the abolition of unjust authority, liberty, etc. Anarchism doesn't necessarily seek a socialist world

Yeah it does. Anarchism is by its very definition socialist. The ultimate aim of every anarchist is pure communism. The aim of every Marxist is pure communism.

[Zealot]

It's a goal, but not really a very effective strategy for revolution.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Anybody here saying that anarchism isn't possible is basically outing themselves as an anti-communist, or a non-communist.

Anarchy is communism. It is society in its most naked form: stateless, moneyless, classless.

Anarchism, as a philosophy, differs from Marxism in its strategy for achieving anarchy/communism, not in the end goal.

So really, when people say 'Anarchy is impossible, the state, power, counter-revolution blah blah', just read 'I want to set up a dictatorial state, eradicate all intra- and extra-party opposition and establish a rule of the cult, of red flags and of pseudo-Marxist demagoguery.

[tir1944]

Anybody here saying that anarchism isn't possible is basically outing themselves as an anti-communist, or a non-communist.Anarchism is possible,however communists and anarchists have had quite a few "collisions" throughout history...


Anarchy is communism.No,it's the other way around.



So really, when people say 'Anarchy is impossible, the state, power, counter-revolution blah blah', just read 'I want to set up a dictatorial state, eradicate all intra- and extra-party opposition and establish a rule of the cult, of red flags and of pseudo-Marxist demagoguery. Cool story bro.:cool:

[hatzel]

The ultimate aim of every anarchist is pure communism.


Anarchy is communism. It is society in its most naked form: stateless, moneyless, classless.

People keep saying stuff like this even though they should really know better...

[Tim Cornelis]

People keep saying stuff like this even though they should really know better...

And why is that wrong? Because of individualist anarchism, fair enough. All social anarchists have pure communism as their final goal.

[hatzel]

And why is that wrong? Because of individualist anarchism, fair enough. All social anarchists have pure communism as their final goal.

Hmm...Voltairine de Cleyre says it a lot better than I would, so:


Socialism and Communism both demand a degree of joint effort and administration which would beget more regulation than is wholly consistent with ideal Anarchism; Individualism and Mutualism, resting upon property, involve a development of the private policeman not at all compatible with my notion of freedom.Clearly she was under no illusion that anarchism and communism were synonymous, with communism involving a (perhaps necessary?) compromise of anarchistic ideals; the anarchist's final goal, according to de Cleyre, would probably be to find a system more anarchistic than 'pure communism.' Admittedly she was an individualist anarchist at one point, but it's clear from the quote that her embracing anarchism without adjectives constituted a rejection of individualism. Whether she could then be called a 'social anarchist' is debatable, though, and she would have of course favoured merely 'anarchist'...

One person who most certainly could be called a 'social anarchist,' however, would be the self-declared adherent of anarchism-socialism, Gustav Landauer (who you happened to cite as an influence over here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2262275&postcount=7)), who advocated Silvio Gesell's Freiwirtschaft in 'Aufruf zum Sozialismus;'* I doubt many would consider Gesell's economic order to be remotely communistic, as we understand the term. In fact, Gesell himself said that "[w]e must either repair the defects in the old economic structure or accept communism, community of property. There is no other possibility. [...] The Natural Economic Order will be technically superior to the present, or to the communistic order." I think it would be fair to say that Gesell (whose anarchist credentials could admittedly be questioned), as well as the various anarchists who advocated his system,** were not communists, and did not see 'pure communism' as their final goal.



* the foreword to the second edition, written only four months before his death, made it clear that he was at that time still committed to the text as written, suggesting he remained an advocate of Gesell's economic system throughout his life. This assumption is strengthened by the involvement of Gesell in the Bavarian Räterepublik alongside Landauer.

** even though most of them would probably be described as 'individualist,' I could again quote Landauer in critiquing the individualist-communist divide within anarchism in 'Vom Weg des Sozialismus', in some respects preempting the "communist egoism" of 'The right to be greedy:'


We have never called upon anyone but the individuals, the egoists, the Eigenen! [...] However, the consequences that we think need to be drawn puzzle quite a few egoists. We say that no one is better suited to maintain a communist economy than true individualists. In fact, a communist economy can only be maintained by true individualists"I acknowledge that there appears to be a contradiction between this advocacy of 'communism' and his support for the non-communistic Freiwirtschaft, particularly considering the two texts in question were written within a few years of one another. I don't think this is the place to discuss this, though. The point here is that it may be sensible to avoid this solid separation between individualistic and non-individualistic forms of anarchism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Hmm...Voltairine de Cleyre says it a lot better than I would, so:

Clearly she was under no illusion that anarchism and communism were synonymous, with communism involving a (perhaps necessary?) compromise of anarchistic ideals; the anarchist's final goal, according to de Cleyre, would probably be to find a system more anarchistic than 'pure communism.' Admittedly she was an individualist anarchist at one point, but it's clear from the quote that her embracing anarchism without adjectives constituted a rejection of individualism. Whether she could then be called a 'social anarchist' is debatable, though, and she would have of course favoured merely 'anarchist'...

One person who most certainly could be called a 'social anarchist,' however, would be the self-declared adherent of anarchism-socialism, Gustav Landauer (who you happened to cite as an influence over here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2262275&postcount=7)), who advocated Silvio Gesell's Freiwirtschaft in 'Aufruf zum Sozialismus;'* I doubt many would consider Gesell's economic order to be remotely communistic, as we understand the term. In fact, Gesell himself said that "[w]e must either repair the defects in the old economic structure or accept communism, community of property. There is no other possibility. [...] The Natural Economic Order will be technically superior to the present, or to the communistic order." I think it would be fair to say that Gesell (whose anarchist credentials could admittedly be questioned), as well as the various anarchists who advocated his system,** were not communists, and did not see 'pure communism' as their final goal.



* the foreword to the second edition, written only four months before his death, made it clear that he was at that time still committed to the text as written, suggesting he remained an advocate of Gesell's economic system throughout his life. This assumption is strengthened by the involvement of Gesell in the Bavarian Räterepublik alongside Landauer.

** even though most of them would probably be described as 'individualist,' I could again quote Landauer in critiquing the individualist-communist divide within anarchism in 'Vom Weg des Sozialismus', in some respects preempting the "communist egoism" of 'The right to be greedy:'

I acknowledge that there appears to be a contradiction between this advocacy of 'communism' and his support for the non-communistic Freiwirtschaft, particularly considering the two texts in question were written within a few years of one another. I don't think this is the place to discuss this, though. The point here is that it may be sensible to avoid this solid separation between individualistic and non-individualistic forms of anarchism.

As far as I know collectivist anarchists who advocate remuneration according to contribution (thus including Landauer and Bakunin) saw communism as their ultimate goal, but doubted that communism could be implemented shortly after the revolution. For example James Gauillaume, an associate of Bakunin, wrote in Ideas on Social Organisation:

"As long as a product is in short supply it will to a certain extent have to be rationed. And the easiest way to do this would be to sell these scarce products at a price so high that only people who really need them would be willing to buy them. But when the prodigious growth of production, which will not fail to take place when work is rationally organized, produces an oversupply of this or that product, it will not be necessary to ration consumption. The practice of selling, which was adopted as a sort of deterrent to immoderate consumption, will be abolished; the communal banks will no longer sell commodities, they will distribute them in accordance with the needs of the consumers."

Collectivist anarchism was seen as a stage between capitalism and communism and thus the ultimate aim of Bakunin and his associates was indeed pure communism. But it's perhaps dubious to argue that all collectivist anarchists believed this, although in my opinion this is likely the case.

EDIT: He also said: "The problem of property having been resolved, and there being no capitalists placing a tax on the labor of the masses, the question of types of distribution and remuneration become secondary. We should to the greatest possible extent institute and be guided by the principle From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. When, thanks to the progress of scientific industry and agriculture, production comes to outstrip consumption, and this will be attained some years after the Revolution, it will no longer be necessary to stingily dole out each worker’s share of goods. Everyone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities, without fear of depletion; and the moral sentiment which will be more highly developed among free and equal workers will prevent, or greatly reduce, abuse and waste. In the meantime, each community will decide for itself during the transition period the method they deem best for the distribution of the products of associated labor."

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Anarchism is possible,however communists and anarchists have had quite a few "collisions" throughout history...

No,it's the other way around.

Cool story bro.:cool:

1. That proves me point. Communists and anarchists have historically argued over strategy and tactics, not over the goal of a moneyless, classless, stateless society. To that end, if you say anarchy is impossible, then you say communism is impossible.

2. It doesn't matter which way round it is. Communism and anarchy are one and the same.

3. You're an idiot. Instead of sitting behind your computer and uttering Stalinist crap and 'cool story bro' every time you cannot logically respond to something, why don't you read some Marx (i'll give you some Lenin next time i've got something else to use for bog roll), get involved in some activism and then come back when you've actually got some opinions other than 'STALINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN COOL STORY BRO'. :thumbdown:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

People keep saying stuff like this even though they should really know better...

How so?

[tir1944]

Communists and anarchists have historically argued over strategy and tactics, not over the goal of a moneyless, classless, stateless society. To that end, if you say anarchy is impossible, then you say communism is impossible.
La Sombra explained.
It's not a semantical issue.


Communism and anarchy are one and the same.
No.


3. You're an idiot. Instead of sitting behind your computer and uttering Stalinist crap and 'cool story bro' every time you cannot logically respond to something, why don't you read some Marx (i'll give you some Lenin next time i've got something else to use for bog roll), get involved in some activism and then come back when you've actually got some opinions other than 'STALINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN COOL STORY BRO'. :thumbdown:
No,you're a moron.
You "refuted" Marxism in two sentences and expect someone to reply seriously to that bullshit?
Nonsense...

[Nox]

communists and anarchists have had quite a few "collisions" throughout history...

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/6503/tumblrlq6m9imser1qhl197.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/52/tumblrlq6m9imser1qhl197.jpg/)

[阿部高和]

While I do not think Anarchism is impractical I do have belief that it is a most inefficient means of distributing resource and wealth to citizens.

[Искра]

This discussion is quite idiotic, not because of OP, but because of people who try to answer such question with once sentence (or worst one word) and because of people who feed the troll – and troll1944 itself.

So, I’ll try to answer to OP as good as I can.

Is anarchism possible? Nobody can answer you that. People who are ideologically anarchists believe that it is and they surely have good arguments for believing in it. Of course, presuming that by anarchism you think of classless, stateless society base on mutual aid, solidarity and direct democracy (and a lot of other stuff) and not on perfect society where everybody is good to each other.

When we are talking about anarchism people often say that anarchism is Utopia. One political thinker from ex-Yugoslavia called Laslo Sekelj wrote in his book About anarchism that people often say that anarchism is Utopia, but they are ignoring that fact that all 3 ideologies of 20th century: liberalism, anarchism and Marxism are utopistic, because they all have their own certain vision of how should society look like but nobody manage to achieve it. Also, if you want to talk about possibility of achieving anarchist society you should check up history and anarchist revolutions in which they tried to create such society. For example check Ukraine 1918-1921 or Spain 1936-1937. You can see what anarchists did, why did they did that and where did they fucked up.

In the end, when we talk about anarchism it important to say that such society never existed and that there’s no written scheme for such society.

I hope I helped.