Sell Anarchism To Me

[IrishLefty]

I am a 17 year old Democratic Socialist who was brought to the left (from the right) though the works of individuals such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, and since have developed quite an interest in Anarchism and the idea of an Anarchist society.

However, I have not been completely convinced of the effectiveness and practicality of an Anarchist society, and thus have not come to affiliate completely with Anarchist schools of thought. Because of this, I was wondering if any Anarchists on this forum could prove to me how any branch of Anarchism would be the best form of governance, superior to all other ideologies.

[Искра]

How can we sell you anything? We are not AK Press.

You should write your concerns, questions and toughts here, because they would provide some kind of a core for this discussion. Without that people will just write more crap that with it. You could start with defining your problems with an anarchism.

[Nox]

17GHgkjLP-k

'Nuff said

To answer your question, Anarchists and Marxists share exactly the same end goal, they just disagree on how to get there, so if you believe the end goal of Marxism works, then Anarchism also works. :)

[ВАЛТЕР]

Anarchists strive for the same society that Communists strive for. Except by different means.

Communists believe that communism should be achieved by way of a revolution which leads to a phase of transition called socialism, until gradually the state withers away and we have the end result: communism (a stateless, classless, society).

Anarchists would rather skip the whole phase of socialism and do away with the state immediately. Reaching the state of communism as quickly as possible, allowing little room for a state of transition.

[Manic Impressive]

However, I have not been completely convinced of the effectiveness and practicality of an Anarchist society
There is no difference between an anarchist society and a communist society or a socialist society. The only differences are the tactics used in bringing about said society. So are you asking about the benefits of an Anarchist/Communist/Socialist society or are you asking if anarchists tactics are correct?

[ZeroNowhere]

For how much?

[Rafiq]

Sorry but "The Idea of an Anarchist society" is a waste of time. We aren't dreamers or Utopians, Blue printers or fortune tellers.

I hate a major distaste for both Chomsky and Howard Zinn, Zinn though, has contributed almost nothing to the left, other than trying to make himself seem more appeasing toward mainstream bourgeois politics.

Read Marx. Hell, read Bakunin. Read Makhno, or Lenin if you like. But hell, don't get too caught up with those two unsophisticated sharts.

[Tim Cornelis]

For 'all' your questions:

www.anarchyFAQ.org

[RedZezz]

I have some extra anarchism for $29.99.

Do you have Paypal?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

The only thing about anarchism that appeals to me above M-L is the lack of a vanguard party and all... for some reason, that's always bothered me about Marxism-Leninism. Unfortunately, it's terribly unrealistic.

[thefinalmarch]

What actual difference in "tactics" exist between anarchism in general and more-or-less orthodox Marxism? I can think of no other tactic to "achieve" communism than that of the seizure of the means of production, the abolition of wage-labour, and the seizure of political power by the working class. The use of unions as a vehicle for revolution, for example, has had its ups and downs at various points. The only differences I really see are those differences in analysis, such as the nature of the state.

P.S. Yes, anarchists, your societies formed in revolution will be manifestations of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", and "workers states"* by technicality.
*nothing to do with the USSR, et al.

[EvilRedGuy]

Anarchism is expensive bro.

[Nox]

. Unfortunately, it's terribly unrealistic.

That's what held me back from Anarchism for years.

Then I realised it wasn't unrealistic at all

[MarxSchmarx]

Come on everyone, let's try to engage the poster seriously although there are some good laughs here.

I'm not quite an anarchist, but I think in essence it comes down to two things. First, whether you think those affected by decisions should be making those decisions. Second, whether our praxis should embody this ideal - both as a matter of principle and as a promising means for creating a new society out of the shell of the old.

The critique of state based, top-down approaches (e.g., "democratic socialist" movements like Die Linke or IU to cite two prominent examples) is that these organizations proclaim to create a more democratic society by decree, cops, and bureaucracies with their legitimacy as certified by bourgeois elections rather than creating the conditions for allowing the new society to emerge from the bottom-up. Substitute "bourgeois elections" for "military victory" by some (most?) leninist groups and the critique is basically the same.

Of course, most groups at a minimum talk about organizing the grass roots, but the goal of installing themselves as rulers isn't that far off in most of these group's minds and often this "organizing" is merely a means towards that goal. In my experience, this is particularly the case with democratic socialists and leninists are a little (though not much) less obsessed with taking state power.

As an aside, there are groups that see a place for both, but put creating democratic institutions before electoral or military victory and treat the latter almost as after thoughts. De Leonists are probably the most famous among the "democratic" left, perhaps to some extent certain Maoist movements, particularly in South Asia, embody some of this.

[Killforpeace]

I hate a major distaste for both Chomsky and Howard Zinn, Zinn though, has contributed almost nothing to the left, other than trying to make himself seem more appeasing toward mainstream bourgeois politics.


I believe any fight for class equality is a contribution to the left, to say Zinn has done nothing for the left seems unreasonable. To expose the truth of wars, to protest wars, fight for civil rights, I mean he was sacked from his job for encouraging his black women students to protest and fight to end their segregation in universities wasn't he? It's not groundbreaking commie stuff, but its contribution to the left in my eyes, big enough not to distaste him. He also brought the OP to the left. Care to elaborate on your distaste?... just curious