Teaching class and teacher about communism.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

We've just started learning about "communism" in school, (i.e. China, Russia.) I try to answer questions that people have about it, because my teacher is fairly anti communist. He was very open to me showing the other side, and he asked if there was anything wrong with what he said. There were some things I couldn't answer though, and I said I would ask around here. So answer whichever ones you know most about. I will be showing this in class, or at least to the teacher, so minimal language, be civil.

1. What is Leninism? He said it was based on dictatorship, and a one party state. I've heard otherwise, so an explanation would be nice.

2. How is communism achieved without becoming a dictatorship?

3. How is anarchism achieved without resulting in chaos?

Those are the three I remember, if I remember anything, I'll write more. Thanks!

[u.s.red]

1. What is Leninism? He said it was based on dictatorship, and a one party state. I've heard otherwise, so an explanation would be nice.

2. How is communism achieved without becoming a dictatorship?

3. How is anarchism achieved without resulting in chaos?

Those are the three I remember, if I remember anything, I'll write more. Thanks!

1. I would say that Leninism is the overthrow of the dictatorship of tsarism and capitalism and the institution of the dictatorship of the working class. It is a one party state, just like the U.S. is a one party state, the capitalist party. The capitalist party in the U.S. is nicely covered with a facade of bourgeois democratic illusions.

2. Once the dictatorship of the working class is achieved and the capitalist class is destroyed, there will be a period of time when the international working class administers the economy. Afterwards the state will wither away and die because there is no longer any class to suppress, class suppression being the sole raison d'etre for the existence of a state.

3. Anarchism is not what Marxism and communism is about.

[Lolumad273]

Communism is Stateless, so yes, it is Anarchism.

[ВАЛТЕР]

1. What is Leninism? He said it was based on dictatorship, and a one party state. I've heard otherwise, so an explanation would be nice.

Leninism is centered around the use of a Vanguard party of the most class-conscious proletariat in order to to crush the class enemy and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. Dont get caught up on the word "dictatorship" it just means "rule" not dictatorship in the way we use the term now. (As the teacher will most likely bring this up.)


2. How is communism achieved without becoming a dictatorship?Direct democracy and localization, workers self management, etc. Also communism implies world revolution, there cannot be communism in a single state that is an oxymoron.


3. How is anarchism achieved without resulting in chaos?Anarchy is the same thing as communism. A stateless, classless society. The primary difference between anarchists and communists is the strategies used to achieve the goal.

[ForgedConscience]

About the one-party state part. It would be best to first explain why multiple parties are still in effect dictatorships, because you are electing a small amount of people to make decisions for you. Then go on to say that the party in communism is organised democratically so that the people make decisions collectively. This is also where the main difference comes in Leninism, because they believe in one party of professional revolutionaries to manage the transition to communism.

Finally, you should also state that eventually the idea of a party or state will eventually wither away as the new society develops into pure communism.

[Brosip Tito]

We've just started learning about "communism" in school, (i.e. China, Russia.) I try to answer questions that people have about it, because my teacher is fairly anti communist. He was very open to me showing the other side, and he asked if there was anything wrong with what he said. There were some things I couldn't answer though, and I said I would ask around here. So answer whichever ones you know most about. I will be showing this in class, or at least to the teacher, so minimal language, be civil.I'll do what I can, and if you want to make it look appealing, and correct, you'll avoid listening to Marxist-Leninists.



1. What is Leninism? He said it was based on dictatorship, and a one party state. I've heard otherwise, so an explanation would be nice.
Leninism is the school of Marxism which follows the ideas of Lenin. I would ask your teacher if he has read any of Lenin's works. If he says yes, ask which.

The idea of "dictatorship" which your teacher is proclaiming, is indeed, incorrect. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not a literal dictatorship, qutie the contrary, it is democracy. It is a dictatorship of the class, which is enacted and maitained via democratic means and organs (councils).

Now, was Lenin's party too centralized, and did he make mistakes? Yes, however, the Soviets operated on the notion of democracy, and elections of representatives, to my understanding. The issue I have is with Demcoratic Centralism/Centralism, and I am unsure whether these CC members were subject to recall. Perhaps a comrade more familiar with the revolution could help me out with this.

Perhaps note that, in elections prior to the revolution, the Bolsheviks got 9 000 000+ votes.

You need to note that Lenin was merely the head of the party, and not the "President of Russia". The party, which represented the masses, was made up of elected representatives, etc. The proletariat and peasantry were the head of the nation, as it was a class dictatorship. Lenin had influence in his words, but had the CC voted against him, he would have had to accept it. He was not a dictator/ruler/president/whatever.

Perhaps suggest a few articles to your professor, or to help you with formulating a counter, including:

The Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/index.htm) by Rosa Luxemburg, to show him that their are other opinions in Marxist theory than Lenin, Mao and Stalin. Not only is this opinion critical of the Bolsheviks, it is also, in support of the Bolsheviks and the revolution. This is why I recommend it.

History of the Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/index.htm) by Trotsky is another, obviously from a Leninist persepective.

I mean, the Bolsheviks were faced with a civil war supported by Western forces, as well as faced with a famine, and trying to organize the economy and society while this was going on. Remember, this country was already poor and was under the thumb of the Tsar.

Ask him what he thinks Obama or Bush would have done had their been a famine and civil war in the USA. Does he think that they would be campaigning for elections, and smiling on camera, and askign peopel to "go out and vote for me!". No, it'd be martial law.

Continue to mention the advances in civil rights, how women were now participating in poltical office, in industrial life, had the right to vote, far before women even had universal suffrage in America.

2. How is communism achieved without becoming a dictatorshipPerhaps start with a Luxemburg quote, from The Russian Revolution:

"Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people."

Note that there is no state in a communist society, and inform him that what he is thinking of is: how is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" maintained without becomming a dictatorship for a minority, and reverting into a bourgeois class dictatorship again.

As an example of a policy, suggest the idea of "right of recall", where regardless of position, a representative is subject to be removed from their postion, and replaced through an election of a new representative.

The idea of a socailist "constitution" is another suggestion to throw out to him.


3. How is anarchism achieved without resulting in chaos?I'll let an anarchsit comrade handle this, my opinion is that Anarchy is flawed.


Those are the three I remember, if I remember anything, I'll write more. Thanks!I hope I helped.

If there is anything I missed, or I got wrong on the History side of things, a cormade is more than welcome to correct me and let me know!

[Leftsolidarity]

1. What is Leninism? He said it was based on dictatorship, and a one party state. I've heard otherwise, so an explanation would be nice.



It's an expansion of Marxism that deals a lot with the development of Imperialism. A 'dictatorship' and 1 party state are tools, not a goal. By dictatorship it would be a class dictatorship by the proletariat. Just like how we live in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, we want to replace that with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Put control into the hands of the working class and the state (which would be a worker's state).

It's not about some totalitarian march-in-step nonsense. It is the working class seizing state power and running it democratically themselves.



2. How is communism achieved without becoming a dictatorship?


Well, from my perspective, we cannot achieve communism (a stateless and classless society) without first having the dictatorship of the proletariat. Through the control of the state by the working class, classes disappear and the state "withers away". Then you have communism.



3. How is anarchism achieved without resulting in chaos?


Like how I described above. There are many instances of anarchists/communists carrying out their goals without 'chaos'. Google search a history of anarchist societies.

[Offbeat]

?
3. How is anarchism achieved without resulting in chaos?

In a hurry so can't go into much detail, but there's no reason anarchism should lead to chaos, other than chaos which you might expect during what's probably going to be a violent revolution. The mainstream media often use 'anarchy' as a synonym for 'chaos', but anarchy simply means a stateless society. It doesn't mean everyone will be able to do what they want - no state does not mean no authority, as authority will rest in the hands of the people, who will govern through direct democracy.

[Tim Cornelis]

2. How is communism achieved without becoming a dictatorship?

Worker democracy.


3. How is anarchism achieved without resulting in chaos?

In order to answer this we need to identify the reason why people think anarchism will lead to chaos. The reason they think is because they assume anarchists want to eradicate all institutions of power, and with this there would be a power vacuum as happened in Somalia. While anarchists do indeed want to eliminate the current institutions of power, they want to replace them with institutions based on an equal distribution of decision-making power. As such there is no power vacuum, and thus no chaos.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

1. What is Leninism? He said it was based on dictatorship, and a one party state. I've heard otherwise, so an explanation would be nice.

Belief in a vanguard party. The utilization of an entity to provide knowledge, leadership, and organization for the workers' by the party to overthrow Capitalism. Contrary to everything I stand for. The reason : the party, the officals, speak on behalf the people, and act for the people instead of letting them do this themselves.



2. How is communism achieved without becoming a dictatorship?

Implimentation of workers' councils and unions, where the individuals organize from the "bottom up". They collectivly decide what they need through discussion, then elect a delegate to speak with the other councils and unions. Brief, and instantly revokable term limits for delegates, a maximum term limit not to exceed a specific amount of time. EDIT : Delegates hold no power, they make no decisions, they only speak on behalf of the union or council for which they were elected to speak for.


3. How is anarchism achieved without resulting in chaos?


By the use of councils or unions. The common conception of Anarchism isn't understood by the obtuse. We're not barbarians who intend on destroying, raping, stealing, and pillaging everything. We don't possess a genial disposition in regards to the state; we instead govern ourselves individually through non-hierarchical unions made by the people for the people. We decide upon the task at present as a whole, we speak for ourselves internally, then communicate with the other unions via delegates.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

1. I would say that Leninism is the overthrow of the dictatorship of tsarism and capitalism and the institution of the dictatorship of the working class. It is a one party state, just like the U.S. is a one party state, the capitalist party. The capitalist party in the U.S. is nicely covered with a facade of bourgeois democratic illusions.

2. Once the dictatorship of the working class is achieved and the capitalist class is destroyed, there will be a period of time when the international working class administers the economy. Afterwards the state will wither away and die because there is no longer any class to suppress, class suppression being the sole raison d'etre for the existence of a state.

3. Anarchism is not what Marxism and communism is about.

Anarchism came up at the end, I know it's not Marxism or communsim.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Can anyone elaborate more on the transition to communism?

[Leftsolidarity]

Can anyone elaborate more on the transition to communism?

What do you mean? What about the transition?

[Ocean Seal]

1. What is Leninism? He said it was based on dictatorship, and a one party state. I've heard otherwise, so an explanation would be nice.

It is, a dictatorship of the proletariat. Whereby the working classes exercise their power through the state and the party. Ask for any evidence of where they didn't and you'll just drop jaws.



2. How is communism achieved without becoming a dictatorship?

It isn't.



3. How is anarchism achieved without resulting in chaos?

This is absurd, anarchism is an organized method based upon mutual cooperation through working class ordinance. It is basically just a different conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Things are organized through industrial syndicates which workers control democratically, it isn't people running in the streets murdering each other.

[Zealot]

1. What is Leninism? He said it was based on dictatorship, and a one party state. I've heard otherwise, so an explanation would be nice.

It is a dictatorship....of the Proletariat. The Leninist theory of the state is that it is a ruling class tool to suppress other classes which is currently in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Once the workers organise themselves as the ruling class, the state becomes their tool to suppress the bourgeoisie.

Many bourgeois democracies are also one party states, sometimes two parties to change things up a bit. Whichever party has the financial backing of the big time capitalists, on account of their pro-capitalist policies, is the one that gets into power. In this sense, then, bourgeois democracies are in fact Capitalist dictatorships.


2. How is communism achieved without becoming a dictatorship?

When the imperialists stop isolating and attacking countries that want to pursue Socialism.


3. How is anarchism achieved without resulting in chaos?

I would point out that this is more of a religious argument than anything. Kind of like saying "If there's no god, everyone would murder and rape each other!" whereas the complete reverse has been proven to be the case. Many people stopped believing in god and yet the world goes on and, I would argue, even better than previously.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

1. What is Leninism? He said it was based on dictatorship, and a one party state. I've heard otherwise, so an explanation would be nice.


Leninism is (to me) interchangeable with Anti-imperialism. It lies on the theory of Imperialism, particularly Lenin's interpretation of Imperialism. Lenin had in mind that the more oppressed and exploited nations of the world gained social control of their capital, the faster imperialism and therefore modern capitalism, would be destroyed. He was definitely a far right-wing deviation from marxism, "Socialism is merely State Monopolist Capitalism made to function in the interest of the working class" etc., but radically changed the movement to embrace struggle of the third world; Anti-Imperialism. This of course failed with the fall of the USSR, and is (in my opinion) a sign that marxists should return to what is called "Eurocentrism", or rather in today's world centrism on all advanced capitalist societies to overthrow (not like we can choose, but...) capitalism, which though, still remains Germany.

EDIT: Yes, -_- I hereby submit to Imperialism. I do not think it is possible to change a historical process such as this one which has hundreds of nuclear weapons at its disposal and a psychotic-drive for capital.



2. How is communism achieved without becoming a dictatorship?


By the dictatorship being a dictatorship of the majority, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, "democratic dictatorship" as Mao put it.



3. How is anarchism achieved without resulting in chaos?

If by anarchism the man means "no authority" or rather no state, as in Communism: It is a transition. Look at the dialectics first, we cannot realistically get rid of all hierarchy within 10 seconds, also not in 1 hour, and depending on the strength of the class enemy, also not within a few months. So, to have a sustainable anarchy and true freedom, (this is my humble opinion) there needs to be a transition with a state in which the people organise themselves hierarchically according to knowledge and experience in the class struggle.

Anarchy definitely would and does end in chaos if not preceded by the complete annihilation of class rule. Even for the economic transition, we cannot get rid of hierarchies immediately. The autocratic relations at the workplace need to be constantly and steadily abolished, workers trained in the management and their new social role of production of controlling their surplus more directly. This is not to say though that anyone else should essentially control the surplus but the people who produce it, even if the manager manages it, the decisions about the basic labor and fruits of labor need to be made by those workers.

EDIT: Even in Kenya i saw on TV that the workers went on strike so long and eventually made a sit in that they got to push the owners so far as for them to allow the workers to vote for half the board of directors. So this is as well a [half] democratic control of their own labor and surplus, albeit no progress of course is being done to reduce the autocratic relation of production and a more direct control of the workers of the management of the surplus. But it is coming, in Germany it is law of every company which employs over 10,000 workers to have half of its board of directors representative of the workers in that enterprise, Socialism is Coming!

[Brosip Tito]

[QUOTE=Workers-Control-Over-Prod;2445723]Leninism is (to me) interchangeable with Anti-imperialism. It lies on the theory of Imperialism, particularly Lenin's interpretation of Imperialism. Lenin had in mind that the more oppressed and exploited nations of the world gained social control of their capital, the faster imperialism and therefore modern capitalism, would be destroyed. He was definitely a far right-wing deviation from marxism, "Socialism is merely State Monopolist Capitalism made to function in the interest of the working class" etc., but radically changed the movement to embrace struggle of the third world; Anti-Imperialism. This of course failed with the fall of the USSR, and is (in my opinion) a sign that marxists should return to what is called "Eurocentrism", or rather in today's world centrism on all advanced capitalist societies to overthrow (not like we can choose, but...) capitalism, which though, still remains Germany. [QUOTE]By socialism, Lenin was referring to the DOTP, in my opinion. Though, this use of the term socialism I deem a deviation from Marx, I do not deem Lenin a "far-right deviation of Marx"'s theories. That's ridiculous.

In the context of this, socialism = dotp.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[Manic Impressive]

1. What is Leninism? He said it was based on dictatorship, and a one party state. I've heard otherwise, so an explanation would be nice.
Leninism is a wide and varied revision of Marxism which has many different off shoots some of which don't rely on a dictatorship. But the vast majority do, this is contrary to what Marx had envisaged.

2. How is communism achieved without becoming a dictatorship?
As Marx said in the manifesto "by the vast majority acting in the interests of the majority." Not the minority (vanguard) acting in the interests of the majority. Communism will be achieved when enough of the working class want it to be achieved. That's the only sure way as capitalism cannot function if a majority of the population stop allowing it to function.
3. How is anarchism achieved without resulting in chaos?
It depends on what sort of anarchism you're talking about some of it suffers from the same defect that Leninism does which is revolutionary impatience. They think a minority can stage a coup or a people's war except they will destroy the state immediately. Personally I find that quite chaotic. However, there are many other anarchists who know that a majority is required for a revolution to be successful. In this way they are closer to original Marxism than the Leninists.

Can anyone elaborate more on the transition to communism?
Yes, http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/myth-transitional-society

On the other hand if you're only interested in defending the soviet union I'd recommend this talk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvSRnx7oVHQ

[Leftsolidarity]

1. What is Leninism? He said it was based on dictatorship, and a one party state. I've heard otherwise, so an explanation would be nice.
Leninism is a wide and varied revision of Marxism which has many different off shoots some of which don't rely on a dictatorship. But the vast majority do, this is contrary to what Marx had envisaged.



As you can see in stuff like this ^, there is also a lot of disagreements and sectarian jabs. Be sure to explain that there are vastly differing views.

[u.s.red]

Can anyone elaborate more on the transition to communism?

Check out Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme. I think there are two main ideas or "tendencies:" One says the "transition" means the gradual change from capitalism to state capitalism to state socialism to socialism to communism, from a free market to a state regulated market to a market controlled by workers to a class-free society with no market.

The second tendency says that no evolution or gradual transition is possible and that only revolution can bring capitalism to an end.

An example of gradualism would be, as a previous poster noted, the requirement in Germany that any company with over 10K employees have 1/2 of the board of directors elected by employees, or, as in Greece, allowing voters to reject austerity. Revolution would be Russia in 1917, China 1945, etc.

[Zulu]

1. What is Leninism? He said it was based on dictatorship, and a one party state. I've heard otherwise, so an explanation would be nice.


To oversimplify, say that the communists don't concern themselves with political "freedoms" that much because for them, as long as there is capitalism, everybody is a slave to the "invisible hand" - including the capitalists, although they are obviously privileged ones. The primary concern for the communists is reorganization of economy in an entirely new way, so that it would not be driven by the mindless (in the literally sense) pursuit of profit, but by the conscious planning, which would recognize only the natural human needs. Such a transformation is absolutely desirable for the Leninists, so as long as the majority of the population does not recognize the its value (because capitalism keeps its slaves ignorant), it's OK for the vanguard party to run things even by force, if need be.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

[QUOTE=Workers-Control-Over-Prod;2445723]Leninism is (to me) interchangeable with Anti-imperialism. It lies on the theory of Imperialism, particularly Lenin's interpretation of Imperialism. Lenin had in mind that the more oppressed and exploited nations of the world gained social control of their capital, the faster imperialism and therefore modern capitalism, would be destroyed. He was definitely a far right-wing deviation from marxism, "Socialism is merely State Monopolist Capitalism made to function in the interest of the working class" etc., but radically changed the movement to embrace struggle of the third world; Anti-Imperialism. This of course failed with the fall of the USSR, and is (in my opinion) a sign that marxists should return to what is called "Eurocentrism", or rather in today's world centrism on all advanced capitalist societies to overthrow (not like we can choose, but...) capitalism, which though, still remains Germany. [QUOTE]By socialism, Lenin was referring to the DOTP, in my opinion. Though, this use of the term socialism I deem a deviation from Marx, I do not deem Lenin a "far-right deviation of Marx"'s theories. That's ridiculous.

In the context of this, socialism = dotp.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Correct, all our tendencies i guess, have different words for different meanings.
To me, Socialism = Transition to Communism
Communism = Classless, Moneyless, Stateless society

Socialism can only truly be called socialism in my opinion, when the workers are truly the ruling class, i.e. have a democratic lever on the administrators, managers, planners etc. In Communism that hierarchical relation of production does not exist.

[Brosip Tito]

[QUOTE=Brosip Tito;2445813][QUOTE=Workers-Control-Over-Prod;2445723]Leninism is (to me) interchangeable with Anti-imperialism. It lies on the theory of Imperialism, particularly Lenin's interpretation of Imperialism. Lenin had in mind that the more oppressed and exploited nations of the world gained social control of their capital, the faster imperialism and therefore modern capitalism, would be destroyed. He was definitely a far right-wing deviation from marxism, "Socialism is merely State Monopolist Capitalism made to function in the interest of the working class" etc., but radically changed the movement to embrace struggle of the third world; Anti-Imperialism. This of course failed with the fall of the USSR, and is (in my opinion) a sign that marxists should return to what is called "Eurocentrism", or rather in today's world centrism on all advanced capitalist societies to overthrow (not like we can choose, but...) capitalism, which though, still remains Germany.

Correct, all our tendencies i guess, have different words for different meanings.
To me, Socialism = Transition to Communism
Communism = Classless, Moneyless, Stateless society

Socialism can only truly be called socialism in my opinion, when the workers are truly the ruling class, i.e. have a democratic lever on the administrators, managers, planners etc. In Communism that hierarchical relation of production does not exist.The dictatorship of the proletariat, is indeed, when the worker's are the ruling class. They hold state, societal and economic power.

I'm not someone who cares what you call it, unless you refer to another stage between the DOTP and communism, then I think you're some kind of idiot.

I've called the DOTP the "socialist stage" to make it easier to debate with capitalists.

However, among marxists, I keep it "DOTP".

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

What do you mean? What about the transition?

I mean how people think because of the Vangaurd party, it will become tyranny. How can it be avoided? I think I have my answers now though, thanks anyway! Unless you still want to anwer, that's cool too.

[Leftsolidarity]

I mean how people think because of the Vangaurd party, it will become tyranny. How can it be avoided? I think I have my answers now though, thanks anyway! Unless you still want to anwer, that's cool too.

Words like "tyranny", "totalitarian", "authoritarian", etc. don't mean much without a class anaylsis with it.

It will seem tyrannical and authoritarian to the bourgeoisie. It will limit what the bourgeoisie view as their rights (like the right to own property).

The vanguard is there to protect against inevitable counter-revolution and outside pressure.

By "tyranny" I assume you mean that the state doesn't go away and the vanguard holds onto its power.

The way to avoid that is world revolution. The vanguard will be nessescary until then to protect against reactionary forces. Once there is world revolution and the capitalist mode of production is gone, the state (vanguard) will , as Engels said, "wither away".


Engels- "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific"

III. Proletarian Revolution — Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.

To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and this the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific Socialism.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

What about the transition?

The transition will be different depending on how the revolution happened of course. In the west where the vast majority of the population are landless, wage-dependent working humans (Proletarians) the transition will not necessitate a period of state-capitalist "Socialism" as the majority are already proletarians. In Germany over 84% of Germans are means-of-production-less wage dependent working humans, Proletarians.

The Transition in advanced capitalist countries (after political power is taken and a majority of the economy socialised) will most likely be one that will immediately expand the proletarian decision at the workplace making from a democratic one (Socialism) gradually to a direct democratic one (Communism, or rather a 'higher stage of socialism'). But this is of course dependent on how weakened Capital is in those economies and how advanced the productive forces are, which i can tell you, they are now already very advanced. You have to see that the capitalist state has subsidised the technological advance (to keep up with the USSR in the 20th century) with hundreds of billions of dollars a year to universities and corporations such as Apple, Microsoft of the Bill Gates and Jobs etc.; this has advanced the productive forces so far that the rate of profit for the production process in the United States is now at 2%, below the financial interest rate. But i digress...

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

3. How is anarchism achieved without resulting in chaos?

I think you could point out numerous examples in which Anarchy hasn't resulted in outright chaos, was fairly organized and functioned properly in it's own right such as the Paris Commune of 1871, Anarchist Catalonia in the 30s, the Free Territory in the Ukraine from 1918-1921, the Shinmin Autonomous region in Korea from 1929-1932 and others. All of which never went belly up like the Soviet Union but were destroyed by outside forces thus your teacher can't through up the argument of "it has been tried and it has failed," like they normally would for their anti-Communist points.

It might also be helpful to research works by various Anarchist theorists whom would illustrate this point as well. You also could bring up spontaneous order and emergence theory. Basically, Anarchism, real political Anarchism doesn't equate to lawlessness, banditry and chaos. You could even be a smart ass and point to the Anarchy 'A' itself which is within the 'O' or order.

This (http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA5) and this (http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI) might be of some use to you as well.