How is anarchism a left-wing ideology?

[Savant]

I've roamed this forum a few occasions & I've stumbled across posters with their tendency being "left anarchism". I've also read a post on a site where the ts said that a left wing ideology is Socialism which is more government, where as Anarchism is about no government at all. How can two different ideologies be in the same category? If anything anarchism would be an extreme right wing ideology. "Left Anarchism" to me is really contradictory.

[Ostrinski]

The mode of production has little to do with the government's role in the economy, it is rather decided by a network of property and value relationships. Anarchists seek a socialist mode of production wherein the means of production are owned in common, just like all other communists. A statless-classless society is the task of all communists, the only difference between us is organizational principles and methods.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Anarchism can go both ways. For example, there is anarcho-capitalism (right-wing) and anarcho-communism (based on the works of Bakunin and left-wing). These different types of anarchism are very different. Yet, both anarchists and communists want to destroy the state, but we have very different methods of reaching that goal.

[Tim Finnegan]

To put it in less arcane terms than Labor Days, "left-wing" denotes the advocacy of political and economic egalitarianism, rather than implying a particular attitude towards the state. Social anarchism is left-wing in that it seeks social equality through the abolition of the state and private property. (And, despite Comrade Commistar's ill-informed comment, it cannot be reduced to Bakunin.)


Also, so-called "anarcho-capitalism" has no genealogical or practical relationship to the anarchist tradition, they just think the name sounds cool.. There are individualist market anarchism, but they are inevitably left-wing in practice, having little as little to do with the warmed over the stateless Hayekianism of the "anarcho-capitalists" as social anarchists do. Not to mention the fact that it doesn't actually exist outside of the internet. Anarchism means the rejection of authority as such, not just authority concentrated in the particular form of the Westphalian nation-state.

[GPDP]

Anarchism can go both ways. For example, there is anarcho-capitalism (right-wing) and anarcho-communism (based on the works of Bakunin and left-wing). These different types of anarchism are very different. Yet, both anarchists and communists want to destroy the state, but we have very different methods of reaching that goal.

"Anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism (capitalism cannot exist without the state), and in fact doesn't even exist. Stop vindicating the fantasies of a bunch of internet nerds.

[theblackmask]

Anarchists seek a socialist mode of production wherein the means of production are owned in common, just like all other communists.

Mind you, there are anarchists that would rather just abolish production and its means altogether. There are also many anarchists that do not consider themselves part of any "wing".

From a little something I wrote a while ago...


Many of yourselves may identify with "the Left wing." Consider this...the term left wing comes from the era of the French revolution where the rising "business class" formed the left, and those wishing to retain monarchial rule formed the right. There were differences between the two, but neither dared to offer alternatives to the oppressive class-based society we still live in. Left and Right are the two wings of capital, of big business, of the enemy. We must rid ourselves of this false dichotomy and stop playing under the terms of those who wish to rule us.

[Luc]

I've roamed this forum a few occasions & I've stumbled across posters with their tendency being "left anarchism". I've also read a post on a site where the ts said that a left wing ideology is Socialism which is more government, where as Anarchism is about no government at all. How can two different ideologies be in the same category? If anything anarchism would be an extreme right wing ideology. "Left Anarchism" to me is really contradictory.

Generally the mainstream tends to define Socialism as big government and government intervention etc. but Socialism is really the common ownership of the means of production (land, factories, things that we need to produce stuff). Has nothing to do with how much government there is (or atleast that is not a defining characteristic)

Anarchists are for the common ownership of the means of production so, it is Socialist.

The idea that Socialism is big government etc. is just a bullshit capitalist lie.

Also about the left-right wing distinction... it's pretty terrible system but generally what actually determines if something is left-wing is if it takes a class analysis of society and side with the oppressed class (not class as in lower, middle, upper as defined by how you make but, class as in a person's relation to the means of production which gives us the two main classes: Worker(Proletarian) and Capitalist(Bourgeois) there are some others like Lumpenproletariat; job-less, criminals etc. and petite-bourgeoisie; small business, self employed) Though this class analysis was taken by Karl Marx is the centre of Marxism/Communism it is also used by Anarchists to some extant

So, Anarchist are left wing because they are for the common ownership of the means of production and use a class analysis :)

hope that helps I can clarify if you wish :)

edit: and what others said particularily Tim Finnegan and Labor Days

[Manic Impressive]

OP makes a good point. I don't consider myself left wing. As for me the Left wing is the left wing of capitalism. Socialists are neither left wing or right wing we are on a totally different level. Fuck the Left!

[Raúl Duke]

"Left Anarchism" to me is really contradictory.

It really isn't when you move beyond the "anti-state" rhetoric and look at the non-hierarchical principles of anarchism which has evolved since its origins. Modern day anarchism is very egalitarian focused.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

It's a 'left ideology' because we believe in the abolition of private ownership, in favor of common ownership. And we believe in a classless, stateless society; which falls under Libertarian Communism, or Anarchist Communism. The end goal for any leftist is to achieve a classless and stateless society. As other have stated, we have a different approach and methods on how to reach the same goal.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

So, Anarchist are left wing because they are for the social ownership of the means of production and use a class analysis :)


Let me apologize for sounding like an asshole before I continue.:D

We don't want social ownership, because it's at the right of disposal, by a public body representing society, by government, state power or some other political body.

We want common ownership, it is a huge difference.

[honest john's firing squad]

Socialism which is more government
...yeah, no.

[Grenzer]

OP makes a good point. I don't consider myself left wing. As for me the Left wing is the left wing of capitalism. Socialists are neither left wing or right wing we are on a totally different level. Fuck the Left!

Socialism is really a system that is born from capitalism, just as capitalism was born from feudalism. There is really no way of getting around that, no way of entirely escaping its determinations; even for the "post-left" people such as yourself. It's ironic that, as such, most people who posit a third way tend to be more on the capitalist spectrum.

Historically it has only be right-wingers and fascists who have tried to wrest the mantle of socialism from the left. It is a mistake to attempt to do this, even if you disagree with much of the left; though perhaps I can understand your disillusionment with much of it.

[Misanthrope]

Left anarchism is redundant. All anarchism is left wing, anti capitalist, anti state and pro worker revolution. Anarchism promotes voluntary, decentralized, communal government opposed to statism. Anarchism is as far left as it gets.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

"Anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism (capitalism cannot exist without the state), and in fact doesn't even exist. Stop vindicating the fantasies of a bunch of internet nerds.

Oops. :p I think "anarcho-capitalism" is the real contradiction here, not "left anarchism."

[Luc]

Let me apologize for sounding like an asshole before I continue.:D

We don't want social ownership, because it's at the right of disposal, by a public body representing society, by government, state power or some other political body.

We want common ownership, it is a huge difference.

I thought that was public property? and public and common were both forms of social?:confused:

btw no worries you don't :)

[Magón]

Without going into too much detail, Anarchism is very much a left ideology. Anarcho-Capitalism, is just bullshit that neither the left or right pay much attention to. It's a joke.

Also, to let you get an idea of what Anarchism really is, and not just feeding you names of books you probably won't get until you get an actual proper definition of Anarchism, I suggest you check this: link (http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ). It'll get you started on understanding Anarchism, which once you think you get it, then from there you can have titles of books suggested that you might want to read to get a deeper insight into Anarchism and the various little branches of it: Anarcho-Communism, Syndicalism, etc.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

I thought that was public property? and public and common were both forms of social?:confused:

btw no worries you don't :)
They are both forms of social. Public ownership differs from common ownership, like I've stated previously. Someone, or something regulates public ownership (states or bureaucrats). While common ownership, contrary to social or public, is governed by the people themselves, which requires no state or bureaucrat.

[Luc]

They are both forms of social. Public ownership differs from common ownership, like I've stated previously. Someone, or something regulates public ownership (states or bureaucrats). While common ownership, contrary to social or public, is governed by the people themselves, which requires no state or bureaucrat.

I'll just go change that I don't wanna derail :lol:

[Savant]

Thanks for the replies guys. I'm still learning about these ideologies, so I don't have much knowledge on these topics. I've been curious about Anarchism ever since I heard this MMA fighter (Jeff Monson) claim himself to be an Anarchist & say he believes "everyone should have the resources they need to survive & if they desire more, they go & work for it". I can agree with that statement/belief. I'm also for less government as well due to me personally believing that the people should govern themselves.

[Tim Finnegan]

Socialism is really a system that is born from capitalism, just as capitalism was born from feudalism. There is really no way of getting around that, no way of entirely escaping its determinations; even for the "post-left" people such as yourself.
I'm impressed that you managed to show such an ignorance of both post-leftism and the SPGB in just half a sentence. That sort of concise writing is a talent to be prized.

[the Leftâ„¢]

On a very basic level..

The Market cannot exist without the State.

Private Property ownership is a coercive relationship.

Anarchists hate the state and coercion/authority.

Left-Anarchism

[Misanthrope]

On a very basic level..

The Market cannot exist without the State.



Exactly, "anarcho"-capitalism aims to privatize the state. Capitalism cannot exist without a coercive apparatus (the state) to enforce property laws.

[Savant]

Thanks for your post man! I've always been told (or at least overheard) people saying that Communism & Socialism are all about big government and both types of societies are pretty much "Big Brother" like, something I am strongly against/despise.

My co-manager (whom is a very biased right-winger) says that Socialism doesn't work due to it spiraling into Communism (basically he meant that there will always be an elitist class & in a Socialist society that elitist class can manipulate the working class & it will eventually become a Communist society where the elitist become dictators). I'm unsure about the validity of this statement.

I've also been interested in Anarchism after reading/watching various movies & discussions.

[ridethejetski]

left wing usually means progressive transformation of society, which Anarchists advocate

Yes, thats vague, but then so is 'left wing'

Don't fall into the trap of viewing state control of economy = left wing, or you end up seeing some sort of Leftism in Nazis, Fascists, or weirdos like Gaddafi. Lots of Europe's Far Right (BNP, Front Nationale etc) advocate increased state control of the economy

[The Αnarchist Tension]

It's not a far left ideology, but more of a mid-center ideology. Anarchists won't admit it, but they're really closer to liberal utopian/reformists, because they think that the bourgeoisie will willingly and peacefully give up their power.

[Luc]

It's not a far left ideology, but more of a mid-center ideology. Anarchists won't admit it, but they're really closer to liberal utopian/reformists, because they think that the bourgeoisie will willingly and peacefully give up their power.

what?

[Gatto Nero]

It's not a far left ideology, but more of a mid-center ideology. Anarchists won't admit it, but they're really closer to liberal utopian/reformists, because they think that the bourgeoisie will willingly and peacefully give up their power.

What a nonsensical definition of anarchism.

[#FF0000]

It's not a far left ideology, but more of a mid-center ideology. Anarchists won't admit it, but they're really closer to liberal utopian/reformists, because they think that the bourgeoisie will willingly and peacefully give up their power.

No they don't. Please stop muddying the water with your dumb bullshit -- thanks.

Anyway Xpert, just assume that literally everything you heard about socialism/communism is wrong. It'll make everything a lot easier. As for anarchism -- it's been an established left-wing ideology since the 19th century.

[Tim Finnegan]

It's not a far left ideology, but more of a mid-center ideology. Anarchists won't admit it, but they're really closer to liberal utopian/reformists, because they think that the bourgeoisie will willingly and peacefully give up their power.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KHq_qK5fCew/SQQjP-YscpI/AAAAAAAAAY8/Y6Vx2dDa_d0/s400/field-barna3.jpg

"We call it the 'Peace Buggy'!"

[Railyon]

On a very basic level..

The Market cannot exist without the State.

Have a Lenin/Engels quote with that:

Summing up his historical analysis, Engels says:
“The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it 'the reality of the ethical idea', 'the image and reality of reason', as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of 'order'; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state." (Pp.177-78, sixth edition)[1] (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#fw01)
This expresses with perfect clarity the basic idea of Marxism with regard to the historical role and the meaning of the state. The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.
- Lenin, The State and Revolution (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#s1)

That's exactly why we think anarcho-capitalism cannot be - capitalism presupposes and breeds class antagonism, and to uphold competition and hold class struggle down, a state will inevitably form.

The state would look differently in AnCap society (at least in their theory of Defense Agencies and the likes - which is of course up to debate, I for one think this would inevitably degenerate into a monstrosity far removed from their own theory), but it is a state in the Marxist sense nonetheless.

[Grenzer]

I'm impressed that you managed to show such an ignorance of both post-leftism and the SPGB in just half a sentence. That sort of concise writing is a talent to be prized.

Indeed it is, far better than the petty insults and childish behavior you've shown while prancing around the forums.

I know plenty about the SPGB. They practice parliamentary cretinism are really view the party as no more than an electoral machine. They are of the impossibilist lineage, which is a branch from the second international era. They are a leftist organization, which makes the claim that they are somehow beyond the left quite dumb, hence why I put "post-left" in quotes.

So if you're done being a pompous asshole, perhaps we can get back on topic.

[Sasha]

Since this thread might get a bit confusing for the o.p. a crude rundown of some terms as most here understand them and agree on:

Communism: a classless (and in most opinions money free) society where all the stuff the state and companies now own is owned by all people together.

Socialism: depending who you speak to either the same as communism (anarchists/left-coms) or a transitional phase towards it after the workers seized controll of the state and the means of production (factories, farms etc etc)

Anarchism: with out any adjectives for most anarchists this equals what most here would describe communism to be, a future, nation free, classless, money free communal society.

It's the adjectives that often discribe the different ideas on how to get there, anarcho-syndicalists see a primary role for (often) formal unions, insurectionary-anarchists put emphasis on direct conflict, mutualists see still some role for a market like situation etc etc (like someone earlier in this thread suggest, dive in the "anarchist faq")

Note that for people that identify as communists there are also many different ideas on their path; while all calling themselves Marxists left-coms/councilists, leninists, trotskist, maoists, stalinists etc etc through history have been in violent ideological conflict and differ greatly.

Basicly forget anything popular discourse in the US taught you about communism, socialism and anarchism, assume it was all wrong.

[Manic Impressive]

Indeed it is, far better than the petty insults and childish behavior you've shown while prancing around the forums.

I know plenty about the SPGB. They practice parliamentary cretinism are really view the party as no more than an electoral machine. They are of the impossibilist lineage, which is a branch from the second international era. They are a leftist organization, which makes the claim that they are somehow beyond the left quite dumb, hence why I put "post-left" in quotes.

So if you're done being a pompous asshole, perhaps we can get back on topic.
Perhaps you would like to answer my reply (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2436049&postcount=8) to your charge of parliamentary cretinism? Please either back it up with an actual argument/evidence or stop saying it.

[Tim Cornelis]

I would like to point out that whether stateless capitalism is feasible is irrelevant in terms of advocating such a society. One could advocate stateless capitalism (even though it does not work) and still call himself "anarcho-capitalist" (assuming it is a synonym for anti-statism).

Therefore arguing that "anarcho-capitalism" is not anarchism because it's infeasible is wrong. Nevertheless, "anarcho-capitalists" are not anarchists as they advocate social hierarchy in the form of wage labour.

"Anarcho-"Capitalism = Nonarchism

------------
@OP.

If you want to learn more about anarchism, look up An Anarchist FAQ (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html).

There isn't really an extensive Marxist FAQ, but there is this (http://www.newyouth.com/content/view/129/64/) (note that this FAQ is biased in favour of Trotskyism).

[ed miliband]

"anarcho-capitalism" isn't anarchism because anarchism refers to a particular current of the proletarian movement that emerged from the first international

[Ocean Seal]

All this debate about what anarcho-capitalism is for such a small internet nerd tendency. Can we just not worry about whether or not they are "anarchists" and just say that they will never achieve anything.

[gorillafuck]

"Anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism (capitalism cannot exist without the state), and in fact doesn't even exist. Stop vindicating the fantasies of a bunch of internet nerds.socialist anarchists are just as "statist" as anarcho-capitalists.

and "nerd" is a pretty stupid slur to use on a website full of people who talk in depth about early 20th century political figures that most people haven't heard of.

just sayin'.

[Bronco]

socialist anarchists are just as "statist" as anarcho-capitalists.


How?

[Anderson]

Anarchists are an ally of Communists in breaking down the State apparatus, difference is in what to do after breaking down the present State.

[Tim Finnegan]

Indeed it is, far better than the petty insults and childish behavior you've shown while prancing around the forums.

I know plenty about the SPGB. They practice parliamentary cretinism are really view the party as no more than an electoral machine. They are of the impossibilist lineage, which is a branch from the second international era. They are a leftist organization, which makes the claim that they are somehow beyond the left quite dumb, hence why I put "post-left" in quotes.

So if you're done being a pompous asshole, perhaps we can get back on topic.
I'd rather make fun of preening twats, to be honest.

[Railyon]

Therefore arguing that "anarcho-capitalism" is not anarchism because it's infeasible is wrong. Nevertheless, "anarcho-capitalists" are not anarchists as they advocate social hierarchy in the form of wage labour.

"Anarcho-"Capitalism = Nonarchism

But how can they be nonarchists if they advocate social hierarchy? There is still an "archy" so the "non" kinda flies right out the window, making the distinction between anarchism and nonarchism pretty much meaningless, don't you think? To me both terms are the same in content, you can't be only one or the other.

[Offbeat]

socialist anarchists are just as "statist" as anarcho-capitalists.

Well that's a new one.

[ridethejetski]

Anarchists are an ally of Communists in breaking down the State apparatus, difference is in what to do after breaking down the present State.

For the Communists it usually starts with murdering their Anarchist 'allies'.

[Robespierres Neck]

For the Communists it usually starts with murdering their Anarchist 'allies'.

If they attack and use warfare against the socialist structure, they're as counter-revolutionary as a fighter for the 'white movement'.

[#FF0000]

hey. hey.

none of this bullshit in the learning forum.

[Tim Finnegan]

I'd say that an important part of a socialist education is finding out what complete dickheads Stalinists are.

[Omsk]

What about learning something about the events in Hungary?

[ed miliband]

What about learning something about the events in Hungary?

ah yes, if anyone wants to do that i highly recommend the first chapter of facing reality, written primarily by clr james, and hungary '56 by andy anderson.

[Omsk]

I thought we should recommend books to our newer members,not pamphlets.

[Azraella]

It's not a far left ideology, but more of a mid-center ideology. Anarchists won't admit it, but they're really closer to liberal utopian/reformists, because they think that the bourgeoisie will willingly and peacefully give up their power.


Cool story, bro.

This is innacurate nonsense. Anarchism is a varied tradition that has been historically far left at least in practice. Besides the individualist and the mutualist varieties, there are commie and syndicalist varieties that are filled to the brim with ultra/far left ideas. It's radical egalitarianism at it's finest. Continuing, no we don't beleive that the bourgeois will just give up power. I certainly don't. Many inssurectionist cells don't. This might be true of anarcho-pacifists to an extent, but even they tend to be more for making immediate gains through radical unionism. No anarchist is about passivity even the pacifists among us.

[Tim Cornelis]

But how can they be nonarchists if they advocate social hierarchy? There is still an "archy" so the "non" kinda flies right out the window, making the distinction between anarchism and nonarchism pretty much meaningless, don't you think? To me both terms are the same in content, you can't be only one or the other.

The distinction between nonarchism and anarchism is not etymological.

Stateless socialism = anarchism
Stateless capitalism = nonarchism

As Rothbard said:


We must conclude that the question "are libertarians anarchists?" simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist. Then, when, in the jousting of debate, the inevitable challenge "are you an anarchist?" is heard, we can, for perhaps the first and last time, find ourselves in the luxury of the "middle of the road" and say, "Sir, I am neither an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic middle of the road."

[Tim Finnegan]

I wasn't aware that Murray Rothbard had a license to change the meaning of words to suit himself. Where do you think I might go about obtaining something like that?

[hatzel]

What about learning something about the events in Hungary?

Well yeeeeeah the European women's handball championship will be held there, but that's not for another two years and - brace yourself for the bombshell here - that has nothing to do with anarchism or the thread or anything, so I'm at a loss to figure out why exactly you'd bring that up :confused:

(Emphasis on the bit between 'that has nothing' and 'bring that up :confused:')

[NewLeft]

Anarcho-capitalists can call themselves anarchists for all I care. It's not worth defending the word.

Anarchists are not for no hierarchy.

[gozai]

Anarcho-capitalists can call themselves anarchists for all I care. It's not worth defending the word.

Anarchists are not for no hierarchy.
Yeah they are.

[Omsk]

Well yeeeeeah the European women's handball championship will be held there, but that's not for another two years and - brace yourself for the bombshell here - that has nothing to do with anarchism or the thread or anything, so I'm at a loss to figure out why exactly you'd bring that up http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchism-left-wing-t171172/revleft/smilies/confused1.gif

(Emphasis on the bit between 'that has nothing' and 'bring that up


No worries,it was not ment for you to understand it.

Sorry for the interuption.

[gorillafuck]

Well that's a new one.
How?because anarchists support having institutions to defend their power.


Anarchists are not for no hierarchy.I hear that kontrrazvedka arrests were done in a very non-hierarchical way.

[Railyon]

because anarchists support having institutions to defend their power.
I knew it would come down to this argument. :)

Not that I disagree. But institutions to defend one's power don't make a state, so you'd have to be more specific on that, I guess.

[gorillafuck]

I knew it would come down to this argument. :)

Not that I disagree. But institutions to defend one's power don't make a state, so you'd have to be more specific on that, I guess.what is a state if it's not an organ of class rule?

[ed miliband]

because anarchists support having institutions to defend their power.


this implies anarchists seek to seize power and put anarchism in place, rather than seeing anarchism as an expression of the self-liberation of the proletariat


e2a: sadly the former is probably true of many anarchists

[Revolution starts with U]

what is a state if it's not an organ of class rule?

Is it a "class" rule?

(Or is it an anti-class rule of a proletariat that just abolished itself?)

[gorillafuck]

this implies anarchists seek to seize power and put anarchism in place,well, historically...


rather than seeing anarchism as an expression of the self-liberation of the proletariatthat is very vague.

[gorillafuck]

Is it a "class" rule?rule of the working class isn't class rule?


(Or is it an anti-class rule of a proletariat that just abolished itself?)working class rule to suppress the former ruling class, or working class rule to abolish class. yeah, that's a major difference to take into consideration right there.:rolleyes:

[Railyon]

Now there's a question to you comrades; how useful is the concept of alienation to the analysis of the state? I think this something often overlooked, and I think it's kinda the missing link between definitions of the state between classical Marxism and anarchism; the former see it purely as an expression of class antagonism while the latter, even if they do not openly state it, add the element of alienation to it. Thus why a dictatorship of the proletariat (and how Lenin would put it, the dialectical inversion of the state) in the Marxist sense and demonstrated in the Paris Commune would not be a state in the anarchist sense because alienation of the working class from political power ceases to be.

If I may cite the Engels quote from Lenin's State and Revolution again:


“The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it 'the reality of the ethical idea', 'the image and reality of reason', as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of 'order'; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state."

Am I onto something or are these just fuzzy thoughts? Input please.

[Tim Cornelis]

I wasn't aware that Murray Rothbard had a license to change the meaning of words to suit himself. Where do you think I might go about obtaining something like that?

Change? What meaning did he change of what word? He invented a word to distinguish stateless capitalism from anarchism. Something that should be cheered on.


because anarchists support having institutions to defend their power.

Or do anarchists support having the power to defend their stateless institutions? "The power" of course being armed militias. If you argue that a militia is a state, then drug barons are presidents, and their cartels drug-states. Violence does not equal a state.


I hear that kontrrazvedka arrests were done in a very non-hierarchical way.

And the Makhnovists are representative of anarchism? Any anarchist must necessarily agree with anything the Makhnovists have done or else is not an anarchist?

For your argument to be accurate, you need to demonstrate that rigid hierarchy is institutionalised due to an intrinsic flaw in anarchism itself, not by pointing to anecdotal evidence.

[MaximMK]

Really disappointed comrades started fighting each other and got off topic when the question is simple. I guess you were influenced by right wing propaganda into thinking that communism is something which strives for dictatorship. There are different communist teachings but the end goal is a stateless society the same as with anarchism. The difference is that communists like marxist-lenninists think that a transit phase is needed before that which is dictatorship of the workers through a party that will lead them into communism ( no state and cash ). My point is that anarchism is a leftist ideology because it is progressive! In the left are ideologies that want to change the society to better and are called progressive. While as in the right belong the conservatives who fight for the society to remain as it is thinking that it is ok as it is. So communism and anarchism are left because they want to change the world to better according to their ideas. Anarchism can never be right wing because its opposite of the conservative ideologies of the right ( doesnt want to preserve this society but to destroy it and establish a new one ).

[Enragé]

its not, at least if you look at how 'left' is conventionally understood nowadays.

Which is why some anarchist practice (not all, or better put; in the merging of different strands) is the only revolutionary left current you can find, nowadays.

alot of the people here are stuck in old divisions.

[hatzel]

If I may cite the Engels quote from Lenin's State and Revolution

To be honest I've never liked that quote at all. For a few reasons:

a) although it's up to interpretation, for me it feels vaguely contractualist. Perhaps it's just the wording, but it still seems to be rooted in this idea that society itself consciously and collectively constructed a Leviathan to stop the bellum omnia contra omnes. In fact the only divergence from Hobbesian theory I can see is that Hobbes saw a simple interpersonal conflict, whilst Engels sees conflict between classes/castes, but I don't think that's so monumental a difference that we can honestly call this a wholly different idea...

One could perhaps argue that there is no alleviating social contract implied in the passage, and that Engels intended to suggest that one particularly dominant class asserted itself over the others in creating the state, and was driven to do so by the various antagonisms in society, but I think that would be adding ideas to the text which simply aren't present, as this would not be a societal 'admission.' It also doesn't explain how that class reached a position of dominance in the first place, and why this power imbalance is fundamentally different from the state it gave rise to; in fact I feel that taking this position would imply that the state (to quote zeekloid, 'an organ of class rule') was in fact already necessary in order to establish the state, which obviously doesn't make any sense.

b) it wants us to believe that power is some abstract unified force that exists on a transcendent plane disconnected from individuals, floating above society. And this doesn't really make much sense; power can't be analysed outside of the human interactions that perpetuate it, the reciprocal relationship between society/sociality and power, each generating the other. Or, to take that famous line from Landauer, 'we are the state,' the basic idea of which was subsequently developed throughout the 20th century. Seeing power and the state as some abstract boogeyman isn't really...useful anymore...

Unless he means the state in the sense of the actual government, something like that, rather than this abstract transcendental 'point' of power. But that would make even less sense, because it would suggest that those in government are somehow immune to this power, when of course those who are now the 'state' were once 'society,' necessarily - very few people are born into the presidency, even if we were to imagine a fundamental disconnect between 'them' and the rest of society, - so I wouldn't suggest arguing that Engels is taking that position.

c) ...nah actually I think I've covered my main objections now. Oh, but I remember being confused at or troubled by some of his formulations. For instance, how he leaps from 'seemingly standing above society' to, later in the very same sentence, categorically stating that it is, in fact, placed above society. Which one is it? Is the power actually above society, or is it an illusion? Engels seems to claim both - I would be much happier with the latter, as you might be able to guess from point (b). There's also the issue that he claims that the state is 'by no means a power forced on society from without,' instead that it was created by society itself, and emerged from there. But then he goes on to say that this power "plac[es] itself above [society]," which raises two issues. First is how exactly power can act autonomously to place itself above society, and second is how power foisting itself on society in such a manner wouldn't constitute power being 'forced on society from without.'

I remember that Lenin goes on after this to write something like "Engels has here explained the Marxist understanding of the state with perfect clarity," and I remember thinking that there is no clarity there whatsoever, and if there is in fact clarity, then the Marxist understanding of the state is seriously shit...

[honest john's firing squad]

How?

Well that's a new one.
What anarchists would consider a "revolutionary territory" or something similar, marxists of the variety which do not possess shit for brains would consider to be a dictatorship of the proletariat - that is, a kind of state, but one with a radically different structure than all others which came before it, due to the need for a state structure more suited to the rule of our class.