Anarchist Post-Revolutionary Transition

[International_Solidarity]

I am not very well-versed on Anarchism, and after researching it, I am wondering how any Anarchists could explain to me their belief for the transitional phase between Capitalism and Anarchism, if any at all. Thanks!

[tuwix]

Anarchism is just an ideology. There is no double meaning as it is in communism: ideology and social system. Therefore, there won't be any transitional phase to Anarchism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Anarchism is just an ideology. There is no double meaning as it is in communism: ideology and social system. Therefore, there won't be any transitional phase to Anarchism.I think the OP probably meant the anarchist view on how to get from revolution to "communism".

IMO physically there must be some kind of self-organized transition, otherwise if you live in a slum then you get to collectivly manage sqalor while those who live in fancy condos get to collectivly manage their existing luxury. If people just take whatever buildings they want, then whoever organizes the biggest gang can take what they want... of course if that gang happens to be organized workers representing and accountable to the larger community, then we have a transitional "state".

[International_Solidarity]

So there is no set Anarcho-Communist way of achieving Communism?(Anarcho-Communism)

[revoltordie]

revolution is transition

[Raúl Duke]

I could theorize some details...

Assume that once the state has been vanquished, the bourgeoisie as a class liquidated via working class expropriation of the means of production, and the formation of things like "worker councils, neighborhood assemblies, and so on..."

The transition will occur in a political manner, via decisions made by those worker councils, etc. Here I say it's important for radicals to advocate ideas, etc that would lead the society towards communism/etc. How long it will take, IDK; but progress to the ideal will go on in at least a steady march (if not hopefully at a brisk pace).

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think the best anarchists can hope for is to intervene in the political process with the conscious goal of moving things in a more libertarian direction, per anarchist ideology. Create an "anarchist vanguard" so to speak, w/ dual card members in many trade unions and other labor organizations, and force out the moderates from positions of power, like the FAI did in the CNT prior to the Spanish Civil War.

All that is entirely theoretical, though. As of today there's no anarchist organization that even comes close to having that level of influence.

[tuwix]

So there is no set Anarcho-Communist way of achieving Communism?(Anarcho-Communism)

There is. And it was put in reality in Ukraine and Spain in their adventures with anarcho-communism. But anarcho-communism assumes immediate communism after revolution. There is no transitional period as it is in Marxism.

And this is why I'm not anarcho-communist.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think that many anarchists would understand "the revolution" as being defined by the real advance of communism, as opposed to "political revolution" in which the working class seizes (state) power. That is, the "transition" is the revolution itself - that period when the class struggles against capital(ists & "ism"), and, in the course of that struggle, destroys capital's material basis by constituting communism.

[tuwix]

Not exactly. There are many streams of anarchism that are focusing only on the transitional period as it would call it Marx. To be honest all beside anarcho-communism. They want to introduce their way of socialism and they don't care what will be next. Anarcho-collectivism or anarcho-syndicalism are the best examples of that.

[Sasha]

Most anarchists, at least today in my surroundings, don't view "the revolution" as an "we stormed the winter palace now what" type of event. While we sometimes talk about "post-revolution" to indicate a time when an society organized allong anarchistic principles has come into existence this is technically faulty as the revolution has already started and is eternal (or until we are all dead at least)
The revolution doesn't happen in a few days, months or years, it has been happening for generations and will continue to happen for generations till something remotely resembling a anarchist society is established and then the revolution will continue to safeguard and improve/develop its existence.
That said off course the revolution will know violent insurrections, some more successful than others but all part of the grander revolutionary process.

[ZenTaoist]

You must remember that the only reason we have capitalism is because the state enforces it. So if the state is gone, so goes bourgeois rule. How are they going to own anything if there's no more laws/police?

The revolution itself would be the transition because it the revolution would be focused on smashing the state, the only means of enforcing class rule.

[The Feral Underclass]

I am not very well-versed on Anarchism, and after researching it, I am wondering how any Anarchists could explain to me their belief for the transitional phase between Capitalism and Anarchism, if any at all. Thanks!

Historically speaking, collectivism has been a system implemented by which production and distribution begins the process of transition towards communism.

I do think that people overstate this idea of "transition", however. It is difficult, if not impossible, to say exactly how a revolutionary process will develop, since none of us have engaged in one. I do put a lot of stock into revoltordie's response that "revolution is transition."

What we know for sure is that seizing the state isn't going to work.

[Akshay!]

To me, Anarchism is more a "tendency" than a social system or ideology. It simply means that any kind of authority which cannot justify itself ought to be dismantled. (Which includes state, private property, Religions, patriarchy, racism, homophobia and so on..)

On the other hand, socialism/communism is a system and an ideology.
You should check out Kropotkin's "Revolutionary Pamphlets".

[Skyhilist]

The Marxist transition uses a state to theoretically transform the world to communism. Under anarchism, the proletariat (rather than some vanguard party that is supposed to represent their needs but never does) carry out their own revolution. This means that in order for revolution to take place, major shifts in viewpoints have already taken place, making revolution more agreeable to more people, so that things run more smoothly and the masses are not alienated by some beaurocratic vanguard party. The entire class shifts things towards communism after seizing the means of production. Of course, a single region undergoing revolution cannot automatically be "communist", and most anarchists don't think this. That's because it's got to get resources from the capitalist world around it. It can still operate internally as socialist though and spread revolution through agitation rather than some forced advances by some regime. If this occurs in the developed world it will hopefully lead to a global domino effect, making global socialism more possible. If not, the workers in revolutionized areas can still operate as internally socialist until global revolution is possible.

[Art Vandelay]

The Marxist transition uses a state to theoretically transform the world to communism. Under anarchism, the proletariat (rather than some vanguard party that is supposed to represent their needs but never does) carry out their own revolution.

What a red herring. I do believe, after all, that it was a Marxist who originally stated that: 'the emancipation of the working class, must be the act of the working class themselves.'


This means that in order for revolution to take place, major shifts in viewpoints have already taken place, making revolution more agreeable to more people, so that things run more smoothly and the masses are not alienated by some beaurocratic vanguard party.

Which is an awfully big false dichotomy. The idea that a vanguard must necessarily be 'beauracratic' or that it intends to implement socialism from above, show fundamental misunderstandings about the concepts.


The entire class shifts things towards communism after seizing the means of production. Of course, a single region undergoing revolution cannot automatically be "communist", and most anarchists don't think this.

Most anarchists I've met believe that statelessness can be abolished day 1 of the revolution, since their conception of the state is fundamentally flawed.


That's because it's got to get resources from the capitalist world around it. It can still operate internally as socialist though and spread revolution through agitation rather than some forced advances by some regime. If this occurs in the developed world it will hopefully lead to a global domino effect, making global socialism more possible. If not, the workers in revolutionized areas can still operate as internally socialist until global revolution is possible.

A state cannot 'internally operate as socialist.' Socialism is a global mode of production, not a type of behavior. On top of this, capitalism is fully capable of continuing its existence without the bourgeoisie. Workers self management is largely a method of reorganizing capital, not surpassing it.

[Skyhilist]

What a red herring. I do believe, after all, that it was a Marxist who originally stated that: 'the emancipation of the working class, must be the act of the working class themselves.'

That's quite ironic actually seeing as vanguard parties usually do a terrible job of approximating the needs of the working class and often times don't even have the mandate of most of the working class.


Which is an awfully big false dichotomy. The idea that a vanguard must necessarily be 'beauracratic' or that it intends to implement socialism from above, show fundamental misunderstandings about the concepts.

Alright, give me a relevant example of a revolution where the vanguard party hasn't become beaurocratic then.


Most anarchists I've met believe that statelessness can be abolished day 1 of the revolution, since their conception of the state is fundamentally flawed.

This is quite fallacious, really. You can believe in statelessness without believing that "communism will happen from day 1". Obviously when the world around a place that has undergone revolution is still capitalist, you can't be immediately communist. Anarchists who I have met do not think this.



A state cannot 'internally operate as socialist.' Socialism is a global mode of production, not a type of behavior. On top of this, capitalism is fully capable of continuing its existence without the bourgeoisie. Workers self management is largely a method of reorganizing capital, not surpassing it.

What I mean is that distribution of resources and other similar things within society can be dealt with in a socialist manner, while of course trading with outside countries would have to remain capitalist until global revolution was possible.

[Art Vandelay]

That's quite ironic actually seeing as vanguard parties usually do a terrible job of approximating the needs of the working class and often times don't even have the mandate of most of the working class.

Alright, give me a relevant example of a revolution where the vanguard party hasn't become beaurocratic then.

Except this is not an argument, in any sense of the word. Similarly I could ask you, show me any anarchist led movements which have resulted in socialism? Similarly you could ask me the same. Neither of us have any examples, because socialism has never been achieved, regardless of the methods used. The point is to have a proper analysis, on what led to these bureaucratic entities, which ultimately stemmed from the isolation of the revolution.


This is quite fallacious, really. You can believe in statelessness without believing that "communism will happen from day 1". Obviously when the world around a place that has undergone revolution is still capitalist, you can't be immediately communist. Anarchists who I have met do not think this.

If you believe that statelessness can be achieved, within the confines of borders, surrounded by hostile bourgeois states, then I really don't know what to say, cause quite frankly I'm sick of attempting to point out to people on this site, how absurd that notion is.

States aren't something that arise in a vacuum, there are very specific material conditions, which give rise to them and you can't simply 'abolish' the state overnight. A state is a byproduct of class society, ie: it is the institution through which a class exerts its hegemony; a tool of class dominance and rule. As long as classes exist, states exist. As long as capitalism exists, classes exists. You can call federated workers councils whatever you want, but don't think that it allows any anarchist free terrority, to escape material reality; its still a state.


What I mean is that distribution of resources and other similar things within society can be dealt with in a socialist manner, while of course trading with outside countries would have to remain capitalist until global revolution was possible.

So capitalism can exist without a state then?

[Skyhilist]

Except this is not an argument, in any sense of the word. Similarly I could ask you, show me any anarchist led movements which have resulted in socialism? Similarly you could ask me the same. Neither of us have any examples, because socialism has never been achieved, regardless of the methods used. The point is to have a proper analysis, on what led to these bureaucratic entities, which ultimately stemmed from the isolation of the revolution.

The question isn't "did they bring about socialism?" It is "has this type of revolution been necessarily beaurocratic throughout history?" If I had asked when vanguard parties have brought about socialism then you would have a point.


If you believe that statelessness can be achieved, within the confines of borders, surrounded by hostile bourgeois states, then I really don't know what to say, cause quite frankly I'm sick of attempting to point out to people on this site, how absurd that notion is.

States aren't something that arise in a vacuum, there are very specific material conditions, which give rise to them and you can't simply 'abolish' the state overnight. A state is a byproduct of class society, ie: it is the institution through which a class exerts its hegemony; a tool of class dominance and rule. As long as classes exist, states exist. As long as capitalism exists, classes exists. You can call federated workers councils whatever you want, but don't think that it allows any anarchist free terrority, to escape material reality; its still a state.

You seem to be definining the state as an organ of class rule. This is not how most anarchists would define it. Most anarchists typically see the state as a centralized government or something of the like. If workers councils, community assemblies, syndicates and horizontal power overlap with both anarchist ideologies and what you might call a state (an organ of class rule), then so be it. I really could care less about what you want to label it.


So capitalism can exist without a state then?

Depends on how you define both capitalism and state. For example, does capitalism involve one class exploiting another, or is mutualism, for example also capitalist? Moreover is the state to you a centralized government or merely an organ of class rule? Marxists and anarchists commonly have different definitions of these terms so I don't want you to think I am saying something which I am not. To answer your questions from the way I see it though, I would say yes, but not to the full extent. Obviously trading with outside areas that are pre-revolution would be capitalist in nature. I don't think other parts of capitalism such as interal markets for trading within revolutionary society can have a sustained occurance without a bourgeois state, because an imbalance in who has what will allow those who have more to exert power as a bourgeois state would.

[Art Vandelay]

The question isn't "did they bring about socialism?" It is "has this type of revolution been necessarily beaurocratic throughout history?" If I had asked when vanguard parties have brought about socialism then you would have a point.

Yes but you have to analyze why these revolutions turned bureaucratic? You can argue, all you want, that the Russian revolution was entirely bureaucratic from the start; to me, however, this is a cop out and a entirely woeful analysis, I think even the best of the anarchist could agree with that. Ultimately as the revolution degenerated, in its isolation, there wasn't much other possible outcomes. Even both Lenin and Trotsky were quite vocal and aware about the growing threat of the bureaucracy; Lenin died too young and Trotsky proved incapable of fighting it successfully.


You seem to be definining the state as an organ of class rule. This is not how most anarchists would define it. Most anarchists typically see the state as a centralized government or something of the like. If workers councils, community assemblies, syndicates and horizontal power overlap with both anarchist ideologies and what you might call a state (an organ of class rule), then so be it. I really could care less about what you want to label it.

Yes anarchists and Marxists generally have differing definitions of the state (some of the best anarchists on the site VMC, Raul Duke, etc..however seem to be closer to the Marxist definition) which is due to the fact that one have a proper definition of the state and one have a definition that is horribly inaccurate. The form the state takes (centralized, decentralized) have no effect on the fact that it is a state.


Depends on how you define both capitalism and state. For example, does capitalism involve one class exploiting another, or is mutualism, for example also capitalist? Moreover is the state to you a centralized government or merely an organ of class rule? Marxists and anarchists commonly have different definitions of these terms so I don't want you to think I am saying something which I am not.

Yes mutualism would still be capitalist and the state is simply (whatever form it takes) the institution through which a class exerts its hegemony.


To answer your questions from the way I see it though, I would say yes, but not to the full extent.

The fact that you think capitalism can exist without a state, says alot about your understanding and analysis.


Obviously trading with outside areas that are pre-revolution would be capitalist in nature. I don't think other parts of capitalism such as interal markets for trading within revolutionary society can have a sustained occurance without a bourgeois state, because an imbalance in who has what will allow those who have more to exert power as a bourgeois state would.

Once again workers self management is simply another method of reorganizing capital, not surpassing it. Regardless of however a revolutionary state internally organizes, they're still capitalist in nature.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Moved to Learning.