Shortfalls of Communism/Anarchism

[xub3rn00dlex]

Alright, so I was doing some thinking. I want to know what you guys think are the shortfalls of what communism/anarchism are, and are trying to achieve. What do you guys think will be the most difficult obstacles to get over? What do you think needs to be done to get past obstacles, and are there things you think need to be revised? What are some points you guys think may not work, and how would you go around changing applications to make them work? Also, what are some short term and long term goals/ideas you would be willing to change or abandon for the greater goal of achieving a classless, stateless society?

I hope this post is making sense, ask further questions if it is not!

For example, one of the things I think is a big hurdle to get across is national identity. I don't believe in nationalism in any sense of the word, and don't even identify myself as from Poland or the US. When asked about my nationality I say I have none, and while it does confuse the fuck out of people they are intrigued as to why I say it. The way I see it, there are people who don't think about nationalism on a daily basis ( save for maybe international soccer tournaments! ) but somehow get offended at the thought of not being able to identify with their nation. This is fucking bizarre to me, and I can't understand why. Would you guys be willing to focus on eliminating nationalism more long term than short term? Would it be easier to establish a classless, stateless society first and then work on tearing apart national identities? I don't mean tearing apart cultures at all, I love observing the customs ( especially the foods ) of different cultures, but I don't see why a national identity is essential to preserve this.

Sorry for the long post, I know I'm not really anything close to an intelligent poster on this forum, but I want a thread that could promote some debate and help me understand things better!

Thank you revlefters! :D

[Nox]

Communism is a perfect, flawless society that has no shortfalls.

Anarchism is a perfect, flawless way to reach Communism.

[Koba1917]

Communism is a perfect, flawless society that has no shortfalls.

Anarchism is a perfect, flawless way to reach Communism.

'Perfection' doesn't exist. No society will EVER be perfect or flawless. This is why I find it hard to take Anarchists serious.

[Nox]

'Perfection' doesn't exist.

Yes it does, it's called Anarcho-Syndicalism

[Koba1917]

The simple idea of Perfect is incoherent. If you could please define 'Perfect' for me.

[Nox]

If you could please define 'Perfect' for me.

Perfect: "Make (something) completely free from faults or defects, or as close to such a condition as possible."

Sounds like Anarcho-Syndicalism

[Koba1917]

Perfect: "Make (something) completely free from faults or defects, or as close to such a condition as possible."

Sounds like Anarcho-Syndicalism

Well I could go into how faults and defects can be seen as Subjective, but If you think any Economic/Political System is without its faults, then you're being Utopian.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The reordering of the means of production seems pretty sticky to me, tbh. Collectivization, communalization, etc. all seem to be the devil in the details.

Or that might just be my own ignorance.

[Tim Cornelis]

Well I could go into how faults and defects can be seen as Subjective, but If you think any Economic/Political System is without its faults, then you're being Utopian.

Doh, I'm pretty damn sure Nox is sarcastically exaggerating the benefits of anarchist communism (I hope).

[Nox]

Well I could go into how faults and defects can be seen as Subjective, but If you think any Economic/Political System is without its faults, then you're being Utopian.

An Anarcho-Syndicalist society is the very definition of a utopia.

[Koba1917]

So you're a Utopianist?

[Tim Cornelis]

The greatest problem of communism is distribution and allocation, the assessment of available resources, acquiring them, its distribution to syndicates (in what quantity? and is there enough?).

The production of consumer goods and their distribution are easy in comparison. The problem is material abundance, if there is enough raw materials for all goods there is no problem but if there is scarcity for some goods it requires rationing. This wouldn't be such a problem, but since communism is non-hierarchical all people have to be consulted for the allocation of scarce goods (which is time consuming, and rather boring).

But this problem can be overcome I'm sure.

[Rafiq]

Communism, if ever existing will have a shit ton of problems (just less). As for Anarchism, even more.

And Anarchism isn't really a society. It is a moralistic current of Socialist politics.

[Tim Cornelis]

Communism, if ever existing will have a shit ton of problems (just less). As for Anarchism, even more.

And Anarchism isn't really a society. It is a moralistic current of Socialist politics.

Here we go again, Mr. Pessimistic and his "anti-moralism" attitude.

[hatzel]

This thread somehow reminds me of that discussion between Chomsky and Foucault...which you can surely find online somewhere...given the whole "I really like anarcho-syndicalism" "I see problems with this system"-thing we've got going on...watching that may prove insightful, actually...

[Rafiq]

Here we go again, Mr. Pessimistic and his "anti-moralism" attitude.

I actually would have supported a lot of Anarchist movements in history.

Anarchism is just another current of socialist politics for the working class to follow.

It is moralistic, but it is not Bourgeois-Moralistic.

[Rafiq]

Egoist anarchism is about maximizing the freedom of the self to do whatever it wants (therefore abolishing any and all who seek to rule over the self - 'anarchism') - this may or may not be expanded into a particular social system the ego sees as most beneficial to live in


Moral anarchism is about maximizing the benefit of some ideological entity (humanity, life, the earth, etc.) with a sort of self-ruled/equally co-ruled society (called 'anarchism') simply being the system that will satisfy that most effectively


There are several sub-types of moral anarchism based on what ideological entity is pursued - I'll try to outline those real quick.


'Humanist' anarchism: For the maximal benefit of all humans present and future (with the definition of benefit ranging from meaning freedom to happiness et cetera – most tradition social anarchism fits here)
'Animal' anarchism: For the maximal benefit of all animals present and future (Veganarchism would be in this category)
'Life'/'The Earth' anarchism: For the maximal benefit of all life on the planet/for the maximal benefit of the ecosystem of 'the earth' (Primitive anarchism and Green anarchism would fit here)

As for particular social systems that some anarchists have proposed the two thought processes outlined above lead to several different systems:


There are three strands of egoism I've seen: - Firstly, the form that has little or no concern for making a social structure around the ego (usually not seeing such a change as viable or in the interest of the ego to waste time on), but rather seeking how to use/manipulate the existing system best for themselves (here would go some of the post-left anarchists as well as stirnerites) - Secondly, egoism will often lead to a philosophy of self-defended absolute personal property. Sometimes this will expand to a desire of this attitude/model for all - individualized control over as much of the world as each individual can defend (including the self) from others. That is the core of most individualist and free market systems of anarchism (here fits late Tuckerism) - Thirdly, some egoists see the self as too weak or see the above isolated system as unsatisfying to the social desires of the ego and not allowing an abundant material or social life. In this circumstance rather than individual defense of plots of resources, they advocate group defense of plots of resources with the group collectively having control of the resources according to the rules of the group, agreed to for the egoistic benefit of all the members. This will usually be some sort of equal power system based in tribes/democratic assemblies (egoist variants of the systems listed below fit here)


Of the moralists, there are all sorts of systems. However, they almost always are a moral rather than egoist version of the third type of egoist system. That is, control of resources is based on collective self-defense/communal property. - First comes exchange systems. This would be where the local community technically still democratically owns all the resources, but agrees to a system of very liberal individually distributed control of pieces of the total pie – which can then be exchanged and labored upon for personal benefit of the possessions. Usually in these systems, if any of the communal resources are unused/left unattended for a period of time they reenter the public domain and are redistributed to those in need. - Next are the communist systems. Basically, the local community would defend whatever group is using a set of resources to be the democratic controllers of that resource as long as they are using it effectively in what the community thinks is in its interest (so households control homes while workers control workplaces etc). As above, any unused resources are obviously redirected back toward the community to redistribute.


Syndicalism is simply a strategy of revolution advocated by a specific subset of anarchists based on a large anarchist labor union using a general strike to force the hand of the state and capitalists.


TL;DR: You're wrong. There is egoistic anarchism too.

Anarchism is a current of socialist politics in which deems most 'Authority' and hierarchical structure's as inherently evil. Tell me if that is not on the verge of ethical absolutism.

[Azraella]

Fine whatever, but please don't lump egoist anarchists into that category. They are anarchists out of self-interest.

[not your usual suspect]

anarchism isn't moralistic. it's simply fuck authority and hierarchy. (anyone who says it isn't really against authority or hierarchy is either not an anarchist, misunderstands what anarchism is, or is playing with words. yes authority in bootmaking is all well and good. but it is not political authority. not that political authority is all that is meant by authority in that frist sentence..)

anarchism therefore has no shortfalls. sure some peeps might overly profinicate about human nature or some bullshit. but it's all bullshit. ok maybe the only shortfall is the people with guns who object to loosing their power.

[ZeroNowhere]

Anarchism is a current of socialist politics in which deems most 'Authority' and hierarchical structure's as inherently evil. Tell me if that is not on the verge of ethical absolutism.
I think that their point was ultimately that anarchism is not always a current of socialism, although it is of course ultimately moralistic.

[Azraella]

anarchism isn't moralistic.

Interesting and simplistic analysis.

Some anarchists are moralistic in their thinking(I certainly am). It is not simply "fuck authority and hierarchy" for these people.

[Rafiq]

anarchism isn't moralistic. it's simply fuck authority and hierarchy. (anyone who says it isn't really against authority or hierarchy is either not an anarchist, misunderstands what anarchism is, or is playing with words. yes authority in bootmaking is all well and good. but it is not political authority. not that political authority is all that is meant by authority in that frist sentence..)

anarchism therefore has no shortfalls. sure some peeps might overly profinicate about human nature or some bullshit. but it's all bullshit. ok maybe the only shortfall is the people with guns who object to loosing their power.

But on what basis? On a Moral basis. And if the basis of Anarchism is "Fuck Authority and Hierarchy" than the basis of Anarchism is an ethical one.

[not your usual suspect]

you might have a 'moralistic' (or ethical) reason to want anarchism. but even if every anarchist had a moralistic or ethical reason to want anarchism, that doesn't make it moralistic. just like marxists say that their socialism is scientific and therefore not moralisitic, even if many marxists are opposed to capitalism on moralistic grounds.

the idea of anarchy is simply a free society. no reason to that. so therefore no moralistic reason. anarchism is a movement for a free society. so might want it because they object on ethicial grounds to capitalism. i want anarchism because i want to be free. and i can't be free in a hierarchical society.

so to others. anarchism as a whole does not say that hierarchy is evil. though many anarchists do. some anarchists don't buy into the whole good and evil shtick.

[Rafiq]

I think that their point was ultimately that anarchism is not always a current of socialism, although it is of course ultimately moralistic.

Well, I thought the term Anarchism was always intertwined with the workers movement.

I thought all of the other strands like "Anarcho Capitalism" were kind of like the National Bolsheviks or National Socialism.

[Rafiq]

the idea of anarchy is simply a free society. no reason to that. so therefore no moralistic reason. anarchism is a movement for a free society. so might want it because they object on ethicial grounds to capitalism. i want anarchism because i want to be free. and i can't be free in a hierarchical society.


But why do Anarchists want a free society? Why do they think a Free Society will be better off for the masses?

Why do you want to be free? And, why don't you just try to become rich if you want freedom?

[OHumanista]

I can name the biggest one problem for both (as both have the same ends, communistic stage is essentialy anarchy) and that problem is...GETTING THERE!:D
We will though, capitalism sucks, and we have all time in ther world to keep trying (unless greedy capies destroy the whole planet either by exploiting resources or nuking or something else)

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, I thought the term Anarchism was always intertwined with the workers movement.
Well, Proudhonism, individualist anarchism, etc., do seem to be counted among forms of anarchism by most anarchists, and generally support capitalism.


anarchism isn't moralistic. it's simply fuck authority and hierarchy.
Some anarchists are moralistic, other anarchists are moralistic and also 5 years old.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Communism is a perfect, flawless society that has no shortfalls.

Anarchism is a perfect, flawless way to reach Communism.

Uhhh. Communism is a society where the means of production are owned by the workers together. That doesn't mean that every problem is out of the way and we can go around singing kumba ya and having fun. Communism isn't flawless, it's a better way to organise labour and society.

[Azraella]

Well, Proudhonism, individualist anarchism, etc., do seem to be counted among forms of anarchism by most anarchists, and generally support capitalism.

These aren't capitalist. It's right here in the FAQ (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secG1.html)

[Jose Gracchus]

Yes they are. They preserve and extend generalized commodity production (certainly Proudhon and neo-Mutualists like Kevin Carson).

[ZeroNowhere]

These aren't capitalist. It's right here in the FAQ (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secG1.html)
Yes, I'm perfectly aware that Ian McKay is not a Marxist.

[Azraella]

Yes they are. They preserve and extend generalized commodity production (certainly Proudhon and neo-Mutualists like Kevin Carson).

This is incorrect. Mutualists are not capitalists, it shares some aspects with capitalism but is hardly capitalism. Mutualists are opposed to profits, rent, usury, and even interest, they accept the labor theory of value, and are opposed to private property. Mutualist thought extracted any type of institutional roles played by the market by supporting either praxeology or methodological "individualism." They can't see anything beyond a person making a "voluntary choice" in each purchase and ignore how those purchases affect the overall society. They also believe that all institution should be self-managed except one: the free market.

I generally reject mutualism as being workable on the long term. I mean they are essentially free market socialists but I really don't agree with their ideas. Hence on anarchist message boards you'll get into arguments like individualist versus social anarchism, or the "best tendency"(anarcho-communism for the win).

[Tablo]

But why do Anarchists want a free society? Why do they think a Free Society will be better off for the masses?

Why do you want to be free? And, why don't you just try to become rich if you want freedom?
Same question for Marxists. Motivation for both come from the same moralistic desires.

[Azraella]

Yes, I'm perfectly aware that Ian McKay is not a Marxist.

Marxists don't have a monopoly on being anti-capitalists.

[Le Socialiste]

Sorry for the long post, I know I'm not really anything close to an intelligent poster on this forum, but I want a thread that could promote some debate and help me understand things better!Ah come on, don’t sell yourself short like that! As far as I’m concerned, you’re fucking brilliant. :thumbup:
Alright, so I was doing some thinking. I want to know what you guys think are the shortfalls of what communism/anarchism are, and are trying to achieve. What do you guys think will be the most difficult obstacles to get over? What do you think needs to be done to get past obstacles, and are there things you think need to be revised? What are some points you guys think may not work, and how would you go around changing applications to make them work? Also, what are some short term and long term goals/ideas you would be willing to change or abandon for the greater goal of achieving a classless, stateless society?When it comes to communism/anarchism, I believe the greatest difficulty lies in how we present our case to those unfamiliar with our position. How many people are going to immediately come out in favor of an idea that revolves around a classless, stateless society? For those who aren’t as well versed in anarchist thinking, such a proposal borders on idealism (at best, the worst probably being insanity). The greatest obstacle to achieving a revolutionized consciousness is the minds of the workers themselves, in connection with the material, cultural, and sociopolitical institutions around them. Once one is able to come into a truly critical consciousness—an “awakening” of sorts—you remove perhaps one of the greatest barriers to a revolution. Our role revolves around trying to point out the relationship of the oppressed to their oppressors, and correctly identifying the source of their suffering. Too often this is twisted into channels that reflect the needs and demands of the oppressors themselves, building anger towards a particular segment of the national or international political-financial elite without endangering themselves in the process. This directs the working-class into conflict with only a specific layer of oppression, without posing a threat to the system as a whole.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that society managed to get beyond this, becoming revolutionized in their goals and efforts—culminating in the overthrow of the ruling elite. It is difficult to predict what would come next: would the workers push for a communist state or abolish it outright? Would they reject national borders and everything that comes with them, or would their situation push them to embrace it? The problem lies in predicting how society will grow and interact within its transformed reality. Furthermore, will the inevitable growth in ideological differences manifest itself in armed conflict, or will these antagonisms be resolved through proper democratic channels? It’s difficult to say, but I would argue that these issues can (and should) be tied into the formation of future movements prior to any revolutionary activity. By impressing upon the oppressed that they share a common situation and goal, we manage to get our foot in the door. If we can point to capitalism and the state and say “Here lies the source(s) of your oppression, in their entirety,” and convince the people in the process, we lay the groundwork for more in-depth proposals. Our efforts will yield results if we can successfully convince the average workingwoman/man that the reasons for his/her plight lie in the policies and machinations of global capitalism and the state(s) that support it.

Everything that follows can be seen as a progression from that point. Issues such as workers’ democracy, classlessness and statelessness, national identity, gender roles and sexuality, etc. etc. can be sought out and addressed as society adjusts to the path it has taken. I would argue that any given nation’s working-class who rises up in revolt and solidarity already has the seeds of transformation working within it. First comes consciousness, then the fight—and with the fight comes a binding solidarity. If the people can emerge from this fight successfully with that sense of solidarity intact, I suspect it would be only natural for everything else to gradually fall into place. It’s a process guided by the revolutionary principles of a working-class that is conscious of its efforts to achieve a truly liberated society. Unfortunately, I don’t think that answers your question, and I suspect I’ve just rambled on about a situation without providing the necessary concreteness it deserves. Everything that I’ve touched on remains a generality, and I apologize for that. Hopefully some of it proves helpful.

Thank you revlefters!If I’ve helped you (which I doubt) then you’re more than welcome.

Edit - One poster pointed out the issue of collective management, the allocation and redistribution of goods and resources, and its coordination on a local, regional, and (inevitably) international scale. This is a problem that will have to be sorted out both theoretically and in practice (theoretically prior to the revolution, in practice during and following it).

As for arguing that anarchists are simply moralistic in their condemnation of all authority and hierarchical structures/institutions, I would say that my opposition to them lies in how they have historically been proven to create, support, and exacerbate the social and material antagonisms inherent in societies in which such systems are present. There is certainly a fair amount of moralism thrown in there, but I have come to the conclusion that - regardless of ideology - the state is a naturally exploitative system that preserves the relationship of the oppressed with their oppressors, effectively overseeing the formation of a new political-financial elite/bourgeoisie. This has historically been the case, and I don't believe that can be changed (short of revolution and the state's dismantlement). It is impossible for a newly reformed state to go beyond its original purpose, no matter how hard any given party or individual may try. It will inevitably fall back into its historically repressive character, resulting in a resumption of its conflict with the oppressed.

[Rafiq]

Same question for Marxists. Motivation for both come from the same moralistic desires.

Well no.

A position that Revolutionary Marxists and Anarchists both take.... Is that we both are revolutionaries because we support the interests of our class character. We see a war going on, and we as proletarians want to win the war and supress our class enemy and put forward the interests of our class. which isn't really moralistic.

Anarchism is that, + the Anti-Authoritarian rhetoric, which is moralistic in that almost all things deemed Authoritarian are "evil" ( not the best choice of words, and for that I apologize)

Personally I am a Marxist because I agree with Marx's analysis on most things (You know what I mean) and the positions he took. If Capitalism 'worked' and didn't carry the seeds of it's destruction(class conflict) and wasn't systematically bound to failure then I would be fine with it. You won't catch me often morally criticizing capitalism.

[Rafiq]

Marxists don't have a monopoly on being anti-capitalists.

That's true, however, we over the most valid criticism of capitalism.

[Azraella]

That's true, however, we over the most valid criticism of capitalism.

Actually I'm in agreement here. Das Kapital is the best book criticizing capitalism and I will admit to a lot of influence from libertarian Marxists. :)

[Искра]

Anarchists on this board can't even defend themselves....
Anarchist FAQ? Seriously? Guy used Eltzbacher definition of anarchism! Go and read some Van der Walt, he's only inteligent anarchist writer of today.

[Azraella]

Anarchist FAQ? Seriously?

Seriously. For all of it's faults and bias, it is well sourced and is probably the most comprehensive thing explaining anarchism.


Guy used Eltzbacher definition of anarchism! Go and read some Van der Walt, he's only inteligent anarchist writer of today.

I see dogmatism (http://www.google.com/search?q=dogmatism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=rsN&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=dogmatism&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=JnOwTpq7EcK7qAHk9MWwBQ&ved=0CC0QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=185329c4c246de97&biw=1440&bih=717) is as infectious as ever.

[Искра]

I see dogmatism (http://www.google.com/search?q=dogmatism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=rsN&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=dogmatism&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=JnOwTpq7EcK7qAHk9MWwBQ&ved=0CC0QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=185329c4c246de97&biw=1440&bih=717) is as infectious as ever.
Ha ha ha ha. Dogmatism!

I used to be an anarchists and it also happens that I’m still very fond of it and that I’m also academic wanker. Van der Walt and Schmidt may be “dogmatic” (I’m talking about their book Black Flame here), but still they were capable of defining anarchism as it is. Unlike their book, AFAQ is a piece of shit which follows flawed theory of German judge Paul Eltzbacher. If you read his book you’ll be able to see that anarchism is defined as political ideology which is against state and which is based on work of 7 sages: Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Tucker, Tolstoy, Stirner and Godwin. Unlike this confused old man, Van der Walt and Schmidt said that only Bakunin and Kropotkin were anarchists in a real sense of that word and that he they were influenced by Proudhon (as pre-anarchist) and Marx (his economics, of course). So, in their word other fellows aint anarchists because anarchism is against capitalism and but its not anti-social ideology. Read Black Flame, that’s only decent book on anarchism in 21st century, especially for beginners.

[Azraella]

Don't get me wrong... I acknowledge the FAQ's [many] faults. I think it's incredibly biased and doesn't even deal with individualist anarchism in anything resembling a non-biased manner. I am familiar with Black Flame, it's interesting and had been a while since I have read it but I'll reread it.

[Tim Cornelis]

Ha ha ha ha. Dogmatism!

I used to be an anarchists and it also happens that I’m still very fond of it and that I’m also academic wanker. Van der Walt and Schmidt may be “dogmatic” (I’m talking about their book Black Flame here), but still they were capable of defining anarchism as it is. Unlike their book, AFAQ is a piece of shit which follows flawed theory of German judge Paul Eltzbacher. If you read his book you’ll be able to see that anarchism is defined as political ideology which is against state and which is based on work of 7 sages: Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Tucker, Tolstoy, Stirner and Godwin. Unlike this confused old man, Van der Walt and Schmidt said that only Bakunin and Kropotkin were anarchists in a real sense of that word and that he they were influenced by Proudhon (as pre-anarchist) and Marx (his economics, of course). So, in their word other fellows aint anarchists because anarchism is against capitalism and but its not anti-social ideology. Read Black Flame, that’s only decent book on anarchism in 21st century, especially for beginners.

Proudhon was the first person to call himself an anarchist, so it would make sense that he would be the one to factually define anarchism. Proudhon defined anarchism as "the absence of a master", master is someone who controls others, i.e. social hierarchy. Hence anarchism is defined as the absence or opposition to hierarchical social relations. Then we can divide anarchism into two camps: social and individualist anarchism.

Godwin certainly wasn't an anarchist though.

Black Flame is an interesting book, though flawed because of its interpretation of syndicalism and individualist anarchism. Maybe ask ZeroNowhere whether he considers himself or DeLeon an anarchist--my guess, he does not.

[Искра]

Black Flame is verry good book because of it's begining. Where authors define difference between anarchism, as historical movement and ideology, and "anarchism", as fantasy by some writers.

Proudhon supported capitalism and later he supported the state. He was extremly against working class struggles etc. He was a reactionary fool.

DeLeon is not an anarchist and that part of a book is crap :P

[xub3rn00dlex]

Communism, if ever existing will have a shit ton of problems (just less). As for Anarchism, even more.


I completely agree that communism will be problematic, less than capitalism but undoubtedly problems will develop unique to communism. I was under the impression that anarchism is a means to achieving a communal society? Am I wrong? And why would it have more problems?

@lady catherine; Thank you for your posts defining the types of anarchism, I find them insightful as I've recently taken an interest in learning just what anarchism really is.

What exactly is individualism though? The pursuit of the movement for ones own ends? And if so, then aren't all class conscious proletarians individualists to some extent? Of course they recognize the need for their class to defeat the ruling elite as a class but aren't they also out to better their own situations?

@Le Socialiste; Your post was insightful, and was helpful so stop apologizing :) Not exactly what I was going for, but the thread isn't exactly what I was going for either.

Also a question, do any of you guys think that after the establishment of communism, there is still something further and better beyond it? I know our goal is to establish a classless stateless society, and we can't imagine life under that society today. So do you think that will be the final product, with infinite room for improvement, or will there be another further stage beyond it? ... Kind of like the option with constantly buying pc parts to upgrade it with the advancement of technology vs. buying a brand new pre built pc.

I thank all the posters who took the time to answer my thread, as I'm enjoying reading through the debates and learning.

[Tablo]

Well no.

A position that Revolutionary Marxists and Anarchists both take.... Is that we both are revolutionaries because we support the interests of our class character. We see a war going on, and we as proletarians want to win the war and supress our class enemy and put forward the interests of our class. which isn't really moralistic.

Anarchism is that, + the Anti-Authoritarian rhetoric, which is moralistic in that almost all things deemed Authoritarian are "evil" ( not the best choice of words, and for that I apologize)

Personally I am a Marxist because I agree with Marx's analysis on most things (You know what I mean) and the positions he took. If Capitalism 'worked' and didn't carry the seeds of it's destruction(class conflict) and wasn't systematically bound to failure then I would be fine with it. You won't catch me often morally criticizing capitalism.
I don't see how anti-authoritarian rhetoric makes the actual theory itself moralistic. I've always taken a class conflict approach to anarchism. I am influenced by Marxism though.. I don't understand how anarchism is moralistic as a whole.

[Azraella]

What exactly is individualism though? The pursuit of the movement for ones own ends? And if so, then aren't all class conscious proletarians individualists to some extent? Of course they recognize the need for their class to defeat the ruling elite as a class but aren't they also out to better their own situations?

Individualist anarchists are mostly Tuckerite socialists. The Tuckerite claim that socialism is best understood as naming a series of goals which can be achieved using the political means or the economic means. For the Tuckerite, the economic means turns out to achieve the desired set of goals more efficiently than the political means—and so without the aggression that’s definitionally part of the use of the political means. But what is achieved is still socialism. The Tuckerite socialist can achieve what the state socialist purports to want, but without many of the human and financial costs created by a state-based approach. This is mutualism-lite and what is proposed and supported by Kevin Carson. Proudhonian mutualism is much thicker. A full explanation of mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29) can be found here. Kevin Carson's take on mutualism is in this book (http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html)

Ultimately, I reject mutualism and individualist anarchism... but that's because I think it would collapse back into capitalism. That's another story. I accept that Proudhon has the best criticisms of property (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/index.htm) and that's about it. (I like a few things that Kevin Carson writes but not often)

(I've already explored egoist anarchism in a previous post it is a form of EDIT individualist anarchism.)

If you're looking at anarchist communism start with Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html). I also think that Chomsky's Understanding Power (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565847032/qid=1013365358/sr=8-1/understandi04-20) would be an excellent purchase. (it's accessible compared to some of the books I read).

The individualist and collectivist dichotomy is false anyways. Individuals make up collectives of people.

[Le Socialiste]

@Le Socialiste; Your post was insightful, and was helpful so stop apologizing :) Not exactly what I was going for, but the thread isn't exactly what I was going for either.

Yeah, I realized as I was writing my response that it was way too general - not to mention disorganized. :rolleyes:


Also a question, do any of you guys think that after the establishment of communism, there is still something further and better beyond it? I know our goal is to establish a classless stateless society, and we can't imagine life under that society today. So do you think that will be the final product, with infinite room for improvement, or will there be another further stage beyond it? ... Kind of like the option with constantly buying pc parts to upgrade it with the advancement of technology vs. buying a brand new pre built pc.

I don't think we'll really know until after we achieve it. As far as I'm concerned, those kinds of things will have to wait until after the revolution. Maybe something better is out there, but we wouldn't necessarily know it. In this world of ours, the only real system I can get behind is communism/anarchism. If something better came along I'd consider it as well. As for the future, I think our immediate concern would be protecting the gains of a revolutionized society against the forces of reaction. Who's to say certain nations/regions wouldn't revert back to capitalism? That's what I'm most worried about. Beyond that, however, I see a communist/anarchist society as leaving room for improvement (like you suggested). It would be constantly progressing and moving forward, I'd think.

[Azraella]

Also a question, do any of you guys think that after the establishment of communism, there is still something further and better beyond it?

I just want to mention that no matter how utopian the world is, is that there is always will be someone who thinks the world isn't utopian enough.

[Zukunftsmusik]

A position that Revolutionary Marxists and Anarchists both take.... Is that we both are revolutionaries because we support the interests of our class character. We see a war going on, and we as proletarians want to win the war and supress our class enemy and put forward the interests of our class. which isn't really moralistic.


Isn't siding with one class and its interest a moralistic stand?

I'm asking this not necessarily because i think this, but just to bring up the problem to discussion as I'v been thinking about this quite a lot lately.

[xub3rn00dlex]

@lady catherine; i downloaded the books you recommended, and will be taking a good read through them, thank you :)

@haust; well doesn't it depend? I'm sure some people would side with the proles for moralistic reasons, but my assumption is that the workers would be doing it out of absolute necessity, materialistic reasons.

[Azraella]

@lady catherine; i downloaded the books you recommended, and will be taking a good read through them, thank you


No problem. There's a ton of other books that are really good too(Peter Gelderloo's Anarchy Works is coming to mind as a good third download/purchase) and despite all of it's flaws you can still read the FAQ and get a grasp of the basics. (I think it doesn't deal with some areas in a non-biased way AND in some areas I don't think it meshes with reality)

[Art Vandelay]

Also a question, do any of you guys think that after the establishment of communism, there is still something further and better beyond it?

I could be wrong, and any other members feel free to correct me, as I have never claimed to be the most knowledgeable or even anywhere close poster on the forum but it was always my understanding that it was class antagonisms which cause societal upheavals and revolutions resulting in the re-organization of society. Therefor if class antagonisms are no longer present there should be no more revolutions. So yes I believe communism to be the last stage of society.