Anarchism

[j.guevara]

What would an anarchist world or commune look like. How would you ensure that everyone is fed and has shelter and lifes neccesities. I strongly agree with anarchists critques of capiltalism and marxism but i can't quite picture it. How would you prevent people from taking power??/ and... basically answer the questions you are always asked. I think I would consider myself an anarchist but I need to understand betterwhat the goal is and how it would be in reality.

[Pete]

Anarchism revolves on everyone knowing that they are independant and free as individuals, but knowing that they must respect eachother as family to survive. Basically everything is based off the community, and grows from there.

You can't take power when people don't believe they need someone in power :P

[Comrade Zeke]

I really dont think Anarcism can work.....it has no goverment,no organisation,no plan if the world went anarcist we would all kill each other! :P

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 16 2004, 01:43 PM
I really dont think Anarcism can work.....
What are some examples of "Anarchy in Action"? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA5.html)


it has no goverment

Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB1.html)


no organisation

Are anarchists in favour of organisation? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca23)


no plan if the world went anarcist

What sort of society do anarchists want? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca29)

If my memory serves me correctly, it was Engels who said that there should be no blueprint for communism. Why should anarchism be any different?


we would all kill each other! :P

To that: :rolleyes:

[The Feral Underclass]

great post comrade james...thank you for the links!

[Comrade Ceausescu]

The thing is,Anarchism would have to be a very slow process.I see the classless society envisioned by Marx and Engels as anarchsim.But that would take years and years to get too.Jumping into Anarchism would be insane.I mean,its like,I have faith in the people,but that just wouldn't work right away at all.There are some very intelligent Anarchists,but for every intelligent Anarchist I meet there is another idealistic one who wants the whole world to get into a circle,hold hands and sing Koombaya.

[The Feral Underclass]

Comrade Ceausescu


I mean,its like,I have faith in the people

But not enough to organize themselves without a ruler, commissars and a rigid central authority.


for every intelligent Anarchist I meet there is another idealistic one who wants the whole world to get into a circle,hold hands and sing Koombaya.

Anarchism can not help being idealistic in the sense that it wishes to create a perfect society. Anything which seems so out of reach and challanges the level of understanding that people have will always be called idealistic. It was idealistic to think that we would have electricity or that we would drive around in cars because these concepts questioned peoples understandings of the world.

You can not concieve a world without a state or a hierarchy just as people couldnt concieve living in a liberal democracy during the feaudel period of history, or just as people couldnt concieve that you could have light by pressing a switch, but just because you do not have the ability to perceive it, or understand the possibilities does not mean it is not posible.

And there are no anarchists who think that you can change the world by hold hands and singing kumbayaa, if there are, they are confused.

[j.guevara]

ok lets say we started an anarchist commune or a liberated zone, how would we maintain without capitalism for food clothes and shelter, and the state would probably destoy us. Would an anarchist world have electricity, and internet, and cellphones and all that type of shit? or would work only be done to supply the basics?

[The Feral Underclass]

ok lets say we started an anarchist commune or a liberated zone, how would we maintain without capitalism for food clothes and shelter,

It could not simply be a zone within a nation that is capitalist. It wouldnt achieve anything. The point of anarchism is to liberate the working class, you could not do this from having anarchist communes within captialism. Communes are an ok thing, but they have to be apart of wider tactics. We have to bring about consciousness within the workers so that they can liberate themselves and confront capitalism head on.


Would an anarchist world have electricity, and internet, and cellphones and all that type of shit? or would work only be done to supply the basics?

Of course. In society now, we work for companies with the sole purpose of making money. In an anarchist society work would be done only in socially necesary things. So you would work a certain amount of horus a week in a socially necessary job and be provided for by society. We need electricty so a socially necessary job would be to run an electricity station.

Things like the internet would have been decided on. Are they socially necessary? I would say yes. Expecially in an intensly organized society. It is a quick and easy way to communicate. But it would be decided on by society.

Other things that people wanted would be projects outside socially necessary work. If you wanted to start a dvd factory to produce dvd players for everyone then you would find others who want to do the same. I am sure there will be many, i for one would want a dvd player. All it takes then is organizing.

[Bolshevika]

Paris Commune was not anarchism, it was the first Marxist (later Marxism-Leninist) dictatorship of the proletariat. I do not see how Anarchists can support that because it was Lenin and Stalin who modeled the USSR after the Paris Commune (with a few differences obviously).

In the Paris Commune delegates were elected and were not immune to recall if they were not doing their job, just like in the USSR. So the Paris Commune still had a Republic-style government, and was what you call "Modern day Leninism" to many degrees. In many senses, certain communards ordered and looked out for the well-being of society, something Anarchists are against. I believe in many socialist states the 'workers wage' system was practiced to a large degree.

[j.guevara]

ok a commune in a capilatlist country wouldnt work so anarchism is achieved through anarchist workers unions? and how would we not fall victum to the greed of union leaders?

[The Feral Underclass]

is achieved through anarchist workers unions?

Class consciousness will come about through dedication and hard work. People need to concentrate on building a mass movement, in what ever way that is. THrough the trade unions, through community work, through united front issues.

We need to build a movement that challenges captialism at every opportunity demanding that it justifies itself. It can not justify itself and we must exploit that. Capitalism can not last forever and the workers will realise what it is as long as there is a movement guiding them and fighting with them


how would we not fall victum to the greed of union leaders?

Union leaders are no better than politicians and we must challenge them just as we should challenge the politicians. We are subject to greed everyday by capitalists etc. What out job is, is to show that this is the case to the working class.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 05:20 AM
Paris Commune was not anarchism, it was the first Marxist (later Marxism-Leninist) dictatorship of the proletariat. I do not see how Anarchists can support that because it was Lenin and Stalin who modeled the USSR after the Paris Commune (with a few differences obviously).

Paris Commune was not anarchism

I don't think anyone will state otherwise, although it was heavily influenced by anarchist ideas.


, it was the first Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat.

It was actually Marx who had to edit the Communist Manifesto in light of this event. "...the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." That is what he added. It shows that Marx came to accept what the anarchists were already saying.

I will quote an extended summary on the Paris Commune:


The Paris Commune of 1871 played an important role in the development of both anarchist ideas and the movement. As Bakunin commented at the time,

"revolutionary socialism [i.e. anarchism] has just attempted its first striking and practical demonstration in the Paris Commune" .

In the free elections called by the Parisian National Guard, the citizens of Paris elected a council made up of a majority of Jacobins and Republicans and a minority of socialists (mostly Blanquists -- authoritarian socialists -- and followers of the anarchist Proudhon). This council proclaimed Paris autonomous and desired to recreate France as a confederation of communes (i.e. communities). Within the Commune, the elected council people were recallable and paid an average wage. In addition, they had to report back to the people who had elected them and were subject to recall by electors if they did not carry out their mandates.

Why this development caught the imagination of anarchists is clear -- it has strong similarities with anarchist ideas. In fact, the example of the Paris Commune was in many ways similar to how Bakunin had predicted that a revolution would have to occur -- a major city declaring itself autonomous, organising itself, leading by example, and urging the rest of the planet to follow it. (See "Letter to Albert Richards" in Bakunin on Anarchism). The Paris Commune began the process of creating a new society, one organised from the bottom up.

...

Moreover, the Commune's ideas on federation obviously reflected the influence of Proudhon on French radical ideas. Indeed, the Commune's vision of a communal France based on a federation of delegates bound by imperative mandates issued by their electors and subject to recall at any moment echoes Proudhon's ideas (Proudhon had argued in favour of the "implementation of the binding mandate" in 1848 [No Gods, No Masters, p. 63] and for federation of communes in his work The Principle of Federation). Thus both economically and politically the Paris Commune was heavily influenced by anarchist ideas.

...

[b]However, for anarchists the Commune did not go far enough. It did not abolish the state within the Commune, as it had abolished it beyond it. The Communards organised themselves "in a Jacobin manner" (to use Bakunin's cutting term). As Peter Kropotkin pointed out, it did not "break with the tradition of the State, of representative government, and it did not attempt to achieve within the Commune that organisation from the simple to the complex it inaugurated by proclaiming the independence and free federation of the Communes." [Fighting the Revolution, vol.2, p. 16] In other words, "if no central government was needed to rule the independent Communes, if the national Government is thrown overboard and national unity is obtained by free federation, then a central municipal Government becomes equally useless and noxious. The same federative principle would do within the Commune." [Kropotkin, Evolution and Environment, p. 75] In addition, its attempts at economic reform did not go far enough, making no attempt to turn all workplaces into co-operatives (i.e. to expropriate capital) and forming associations of these co-operatives to co-ordinate and support each other's economic activities. As the city was under constant siege by the French army, it is understandable that the Communards had other things on their minds.

...

Instead of abolishing the state within the commune by organising federations of directly democratic mass assemblies, like the Parisian "sections" of the revolution of 1789-93 (see Kropotkin's Great French Revolution for more on these), the Paris Commune kept representative government and suffered for it. "Instead of acting for themselves . . . the people, confiding in their governors, entrusted them the charge of taking the initiative. This was the first consequence of the inevitable result of elections." The council soon became "the greatest obstacle to the revolution" thus proving the "political axiom that a government cannot be revolutionary." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 240, p. 241 and p. 249]

The council become more and more isolated from the people who elected it, and thus more and more irrelevant. And as its irrelevance grew, so did its authoritarian tendencies, with the Jacobin majority creating a "Committee of Public Safety" to "defend" (by terror) the "revolution." The Committee was opposed by the libertarian socialist minority and was, fortunately, ignored in practice by the people of Paris as they defended their freedom against the French army, which was attacking them in the name of capitalist civilisation and "liberty." On May 21st, government troops entered the city, followed by seven days of bitter street fighting. Squads of soldiers and armed members of the bourgeoisie roamed the streets, killing and maiming at will. Over 25,000 people were killed in the street fighting, many murdered after they had surrendered, and their bodies dumped in mass graves.

For anarchists, the lessons of the Paris Commune were threefold. Firstly, a decentralised confederation of communities is the necessary political form of a free society ("This was the form that the social revolution must take -- the independent commune." [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 163]). Secondly, "there is no more reason for a government inside a Commune than for government above the Commune." [Peter Kropotkin, Fighting the Revolution, vol. 2, p. 19] This means that an anarchist community will be based on a confederation of neighbourhood and workplace assemblies freely co-operating together. Thirdly, it is critically important to unify political and economic revolutions into a social revolution. "They tried to consolidate the Commune first and put off the social revolution until later, whereas the only way to proceed was to consolidate the Commune by means of the social revolution!" [Peter Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 19]

Source: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA5.html#seca51

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 06:34 AM
anarchism is achieved through anarchist workers unions? and how would we not fall victum to the greed of union leaders?
The anarchist-styled unions have no leaders.

And anarchist revolution need not come through the work of these unions -- though it is more than likely that such will happen in the future, if it indeed happens again (like the Spanish Revolution).

[Comrade Ceausescu]

But not enough to organize themselves without a ruler, commissars and a rigid central authority.

*rolls eyes*It would be so easy for the capitalist class to re-take power,within a day if the anarchists took over now in America.




Anarchism can not help being idealistic in the sense that it wishes to create a perfect society. Anything which seems so out of reach and challanges the level of understanding that people have will always be called idealistic. It was idealistic to think that we would have electricity or that we would drive around in cars because these concepts questioned peoples understandings of the world.

What you say is true,but you do not acknowledge that a perfect osciety takes time,and adjustment,and great changes that will take many,many years.


You can not concieve a world without a state or a hierarchy just as people couldnt concieve living in a liberal democracy during the feaudel period of history, or just as people couldnt concieve that you could have light by pressing a switch, but just because you do not have the ability to perceive it, or understand the possibilities does not mean it is not posible.


I will be convinced when it works in a country.




And there are no anarchists who think that you can change the world by hold hands and singing kumbayaa, if there are, they are confused.

Geez,can't you take what I thought to be a pretty humerous joke?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 17 2004, 03:46 AM
*rolls eyes*It would be so easy for the capitalist class to re-take power,within a day if the anarchists took over now in America.
Now in America? You're right, because such a thing, right now, is impossible. This requires a special situation, such as popular dissapointment with the establishment and a collective desire to change.

I believe there are going to be many conflicts in the future, then a revolution will happen. Where? When? I don't know. Meanwhile there's not much to do except making the people rise up.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Emma Goldman

After spending some time with him I was convinced that Debs was in no way to blame. Whatever the politicians in his party might be doing, I was sure that he was decent and high-minded. His belief in the people was very genuine, and his vision of socialism quite unlike the State machine pictured in Marx's Communist Manifesto.

Hearing his views, I could not help exclaiming: "Why, Mr. Debs, you're an anarchist!"

"Not Mister, but Comrade," he corrected me; "won't you call me that?"

Clasping my hand warmly, he assured me that he felt very close to the anarchists, that anarchism was the goal to strive for, and that all socialists should also be anarchists. Socialism to him was only a stepping-stone to the ultimate ideal, which was anarchism.

"I know and love Kropotkin and his work," he said; "I admire him and I revere our murdered comrades [the Haymarket martyrs] who lie in Waldheim, as I do also all the other splendid fighters in your movement. You see, then, I am your comrade. I am with you in your struggle."

I pointed out that we could not hope to achieve freedom by increasing the power of the State, which the socialists were aiming at. I stressed the fact that political action is the death-nell of the economic struggle. Debs did not dispute me, agreeing that the revolutionary spirit must be kept alive notwithstanding any political objects, but he thought the latter a necessary and practical means of reaching the masses. We parted good friends. Debs was so genial and charming as a human being that one did not mind the lack of political clarity which made him reach out at one and the same time for opposite poles.

[redstar2000]

...because it was Lenin and Stalin who modeled the USSR after the Paris Commune (with a few differences obviously).

That's rather like saying that the authors of the American constitution "modeled their republic after the Athenian democracy...with a few differences obviously." :lol:


In the Paris Commune delegates were elected and were not immune to recall if they were not doing their job, just like in the USSR...

Or the State of California, for that matter.

The formal provision for recall is meaningless if it cannot be exercised by popular demand. The only officials ever recalled in the USSR were those who had run afoul of the leadership of the party. The working class had no say in the matter.


In many senses, certain communards ordered and looked out for the well-being of society, something Anarchists are against.

"Ordered and looked out for"? You mean like a politburo?

No, they didn't have that. They didn't even have a vanguard party. They hardly even had any Marxists. Towards the end, they attempted to set up a "Committee of Public Safety" with "emergency powers"...but it was essentially a "dead letter" as the Commune was defeated within a couple of days.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks made a point of publicly praising the Paris Commune on many occasions...but in no sense did they ever attempt to emulate it.

That's a matter of record.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[eyedrop]

You can not concieve a world without a state or a hierarchy just as people couldnt concieve living in a liberal democracy during the feaudel period of history, or just as people couldnt concieve that you could have light by pressing a switch, but just because you do not have the ability to perceive it, or understand the possibilities does not mean it is not posible.



I will be convinced when it works in a country.




Comrade Ceausescu look at Spain and be convinced. (It's not harder than that)

[marsell]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 16 2004, 08:15 AM
The thing is,Anarchism would have to be a very slow process.I see the classless society envisioned by Marx and Engels as anarchsim.But that would take years and years to get too.Jumping into Anarchism would be insane.I mean,its like,I have faith in the people,but that just wouldn't work right away at all.There are some very intelligent Anarchists,but for every intelligent Anarchist I meet there is another idealistic one who wants the whole world to get into a circle,hold hands and sing Koombaya.
yes Yes YES!!! i agree comrade. it would stop marxism, and slow down the progress of socialism. i dont know why they wont just assist socialism it would help us get to communism much quicker. the anarchists only ever hindered trotskys progress in russia.

the workers would also be easily fooled by western counter-revolutionairy fascist propaganda, and overthrow trotskyist socialism.

[cubist]

i personally think that the reson anarchism won't work is becuase the capitalistic society still exists,

capitalism breeds ignorance and greed, where as it may well be human nature like "the bible :lol: claims" i feel that that is just an excuse to promote capitalism. when capitalism fails the ignorance and greed taught will be there but the faith in it will be lost then anarchy could exist.

what do you lot think??

[marsell]

yes, in anarchism capitalist could set up little areas and the anti-trotskyist anarchists couldnt do anything, as they are so disorganised :lol:
what would happen if a cappie country or maybe a proper socialist trotskyist state invaded them? they would be runnin all over the place no one in charge, while the workers got converted :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[cubist]

marsell i must ask are you on a wind up?

[marsell]

what?

[cubist]

maybe it is becuase you are french and your english is poor but the way you post almost implies that you are taking the piss out of peoples posts. please accept my apologies if this isn't the case.

[marsell]

sorry :( no i wasnt mocking you i was just agreeing i think it would be interesting to see anarchism handle these things

[cubist]

like i said accept my apologies :D and yes it would, and the time will come

[The Feral Underclass]

Marshall

Oh how that dialectical wheel keeps on turnin'


i dont know why they wont just assist socialism it would help us get to communism much quicker.

You mean quicker than having communism from the start :blink:


the anarchists only ever hindered trotskys progress in russia.

Good!


the workers would also be easily fooled by western counter-revolutionairy fascist propaganda,

A revolution can not be fought by people who will be easily fooled by "western revoluionary fascist propganda." :rolleyes: A revolution can only come into existence through mass class consciousness. Why would the workers decide they wanted (anarchist) communism, fight the ruling class, only to be tricked into being capitalists again....sigh!


and overthrow trotskyist socialism.

Another great big Good!


yes, in anarchism capitalist could set up little areas and the anti-trotskyist anarchists couldnt do anything, as they are so disorganised

I see you are one of these people who think that anarchism automatically means disorganization. Well it dosnt. Anarchism advocates organization but fails sees inherent contradictions in the use of authority, states and hierarchy and workers liberation. We need to be organized, highly organized. What we dont need is Trotsky wannabes like you barking orders out to people. The working class must lead themselves against capitlalism if the outcome of the revolution is going to be the desired one.

I am sure at a time of hightened consciousness and out right revolution the capitalists will have a damn hard time setting up these little areas. If they did the workers would be prepared to fight them.


what would happen if a cappie country

The same as if they invaded a country lef by leninists. We would fight them.


or maybe a proper socialist trotskyist state invaded them?

So what your saying is, if the workers, on mass and conscious, decided to overthrow capitalism and the ruling class and implement anarcho-communism, you would support a Trotskyist invasion? What happens if the workers wanted anarchism? You are showing your true colors!


they would be runnin all over the place no one in charge, while the workers got converted

What is the seperate they and workers. There is no anarchist party and the workers, it is the workers who are anarchists. What this statement implies is that we human beings do not have the ability to operate or make decisions without a leader. I disagree, human beings work co-operativly all the time. Look at the anti-capitalist demonstrations in seattle and genoa. Consious human beings working co-operativly with each other to achieve an outcome. There was no leader or central committee. One example a comrade used was going on a tenting trip. When you and your friends decide to do something do you have a leader to tell you where you are going or is it a joint decision making process? Human beings who arent even cosncious of their class have the ability to work co-operativly. Imagine what those people who are conscious of their class could achieve using this basis.

[The Feral Underclass]

Cephas


i personally think that the reson anarchism won't work is becuase the capitalistic society still exists,

Why does this assertion only apply to anarchism. Surly the same should be applyed to Leninism or any kind of theory that wishes to change society fundamentally.


capitalism breeds ignorance and greed

But they are not organs attacked to the body, they are ideas, beliefs which exist only in thought. They are changable. People do not all live in ignorance and greed and those who dont have the opportunity to show those who do exactly what these thoughts are.


when capitalism fails the ignorance and greed taught will be there but the faith in it will be lost then anarchy could exist.

Capitalism fails every day. Look at the world. Not exactly a story of success is it. The problem that exists is that the workers believe they have no alternative. I have done lots of work talking to working class people and the same argument that comes up is "it's a nice idea, but what can i do - nothing will ever change."

The workers know there is a problem, they simly do not feel empowered to change it. That is why we need a revolutionary movement to empower the workers to change society.

[cubist]

AT,

Thankyou, i am aware that it is relevant to leninism etc etc but anarchism was the thread.


But they are not organs attacked to the body, they are ideas, beliefs which exist only in thought. They are changable. People do not all live in ignorance and greed and those who dont have the opportunity to show those who do exactly what these thoughts are.

yes they are changeable and time will reveal the oppurtunity to activate the masses and carry out the revolution, how ever i feel you have read my comment in black and white.

i walk through the streets where i live you are encouraged to be successful, riches will bring you pussy etc etc. life is driven around encouraging you to be rich to profit gambling is profit, caitalism controls sport, everything.

it breeds in anyones mind born into a capitalistic society, and it is failing youre right but it fails SOCIALIST ideals everyday, it failes the People the masses if you like, but it doesn't fail capitalism itself. its like an oil well fire in kuwait it won't go out until it throttles its own fuel supply or we take it away.

unfortunately it is how we take away the fuel that is hard, everything is against us. the police support the leader, the leader doesn't listen to the UN, the leader lies, the army listens to the leader it woun't revolt. the leader is capitalist. The leader doesn't listen when 100,000 people march in london against the war. so we will need more than that.


of course the supply will burn up but will that be too late?

so here it is revolution or not how and when is the questions that we as people and leaders must address.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 01:14 PM
what would happen if a cappie country or maybe a proper socialist trotskyist state invaded them? they would be runnin all over the place no one in charge, while the workers got converted :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
now the "trotskyist state invade them" shows that stalinists, although they do the same thing, were kinda right about trotskyists. You are the same imperialist bureaucratic shit.

[The Feral Underclass]

Cephas


i walk through the streets where i live you are encouraged to be successful, riches will bring you pussy etc etc. life is driven around encouraging you to be rich to profit gambling is profit, caitalism controls sport, everything.

I see this also.


it breeds in anyones mind born into a capitalistic society, and it is failing youre right but it fails SOCIALIST ideals everyday, it failes the People the masses if you like, but it doesn't fail capitalism itself. its like an oil well fire in kuwait it won't go out until it throttles its own fuel supply or we take it away.

I dont really see what your point is.


unfortunately it is how we take away the fuel that is hard, everything is against us. the police support the leader, the leader doesn't listen to the UN, the leader lies, the army listens to the leader it woun't revolt. the leader is capitalist. The leader doesn't listen when 100,000 people march in london against the war. so we will need more than that.

it is simply a question of dedication. As long as there are people dedicated to building a movement consciousness will be reached and capitalism will be confronted.


here it is revolution or not how and when is the questions that we as people and leaders must address.

The word leader I have a problem with. Those who have gained consciousness do not have a right to lead those who have not. Our role is to build a movement and fight for consciousness within the working class. The workers must lead themselves if a revolution is ever going to have meaning.

[Vladimir I. Kropotkin]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 22 2004, 03:54 PM
The workers must lead themselves if a revolution is ever going to have meaning.
the leaders of the vanguard party are workers too right? :P

It boils down to how much faith one has in the revolutionary class, if you're an anarchist, there is no question, the class must lead the struggle to liberate itself, if you're a Leninst/Stalinist/Trotskyist the class cannot be trusted to remain loyal to the socialist ideals, they're too easily manipulated and duped by the capitalist class. And thus the fundamental divergence between Anarchism- Leninism/Trotskyism/Stalinism.

Personally, i think party goers need to have a little more faith.

[cubist]

OK AT,
The LEader in my case is Tony blair, i also disagree however he is the bloody leader of the nation.
he is in charge of everything with a few approvals required of course
.


as for the breeding capitalist point. capitalism fails those that are aware, (the socialists and those living the breadline). the upper income and non prolateriat are not failed at all they have enough to survive and to indulge. no matter what government takes power they are not effected by the capitalist policy. only those that require a benifit from the government are being affected by these capitalist policies.
so the capitalist imposing the action is not affected by its otcome in a negative way. so they won't just stop.

[The Feral Underclass]

when did i ever suggest they would. I understand all this, and that is why revolution is inevitable. We must organize and take power from them.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 01:11 PM
i personally think that the reson anarchism won't work is becuase the capitalistic society still exists,

capitalism breeds ignorance and greed, where as it may well be human nature like "the bible :lol: claims" i feel that that is just an excuse to promote capitalism. when capitalism fails the ignorance and greed taught will be there but the faith in it will be lost then anarchy could exist.

what do you lot think??

Yes capitalism still exists, but the idea is that this will not be for long. Anarchists believe that the abolition of capitalism will inevitably lead to the end of authority since all external authority is founded on injustice and exploitation [and can only protect the elite].

I am done.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 01:04 PM
the anarchists only ever hindered trotskys progress in russia.

Greetings Comrade marsell. You are quite correct. The Anarchists under Nestor Makhno did everything they could to turn the Great October Socialist Revolution around. They would sabotage shippments of food, clothes, ammunition, and other basic necesities indended for the Bolsheviks. The Makhnovshchina even opened up their lines and let the White Army march through unopposed with the hopes that they would crush the Bolsheviks. Thankfully Trotsky ordered the Red Army to attack the Makhnovists' positions which crushed the Makhnovshchina. When I learned about this I was rather shocked because until this point I thought Anarchists were true anti-capitalists. As you noted, it is truely a mystery why they don't assist Socialism, but assist the bourgoisie to stop the building of Socialism (which would eventually bring Communism).

[The Feral Underclass]

The Anarchists under Nestor Makhno did everything they could to turn the Great October Socialist Revolution around.

The anarchists through out the USSR fought along side the Bolsheviks. It was only until after the bolsehviks saw them as a threat and began to arrest and shoot them that the anarchists realised something had gone wrong.


They would sabotage shippments of food, clothes, ammunition, and other basic necesities indended for the Bolsheviks.

I dont know if this is true. If it is I do not see this as an outragously suprising thing. They were fighting a defensive war. These things happen during wars.


The Makhnovshchina even opened up their lines and let the White Army march through unopposed with the hopes that they would crush the Bolsheviks.

This is a bare faced lie and unless you can show me reliable sources it is not worth answering.


Thankfully Trotsky ordered the Red Army to attack the Makhnovists' positions which crushed the Makhnovshchina.

Yes, when the anarchists were still involved in fighting for the red army. The anarchists were betrayed because they questioned the vangaurds authority.

[N.I. Pavlov, "The Free Commune and the Free City", 16 September 1918]


"We Anarcho-Syndicalists oppose collectivism (state communism) with free anarchist communism, which recognizes the right of man to his own life and to the full satisfaction of all his needs. This right is seen not as vulgar huckstering, not as an exchange for a specific quantity of labour, but as the participation of each individual, according to his strength, in productive life."

Do you honestly believe that these kind of sentiments deserved the suppression of the red terror? Was it really that terrible to suggest living in a world like this.


When I learned about this I was rather shocked because until this point I thought Anarchists were true anti-capitalists.

This is interesting. What you are saying here is that because the anarchists did not continue to support the bolsheviks perpetration of the state and its authority they suddenl become pro capitalist and counter-revolutionary. Are you saying that anyone who dosnt support Trotskyism or Leninism does not qualify to want workers liberation.


As you noted, it is truely a mystery why they don't assist Socialism, but assist the bourgoisie to stop the building of Socialism

The anarchists in russia supported the bolsheviks and fought along side them. Then the vangaurd leadership decided that the anarchists were to much of a threat and began to kill them off. Of course they were going to defend themselves.

Anarchists do not support the state, we want to smash it from the beginning. That does not mean that we support or want to assist the bouregoisie and in fact I take great offence at the implication. It truly shows how ignorant you people are.


(which would eventually bring Communism).

No it wouldnt. I can not. The state and communism contradict each other. In order to perpetrate the state those in power have to move further and further away from communiusm. To give freedom you have to take it away. You can not achieve communism by using a state. History proves that.

I suggest you read this thread Anarchism vs Leninism (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=21625)

[Zanzibar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 02:31 AM
What would an anarchist world or commune look like. How would you ensure that everyone is fed and has shelter and lifes neccesities. I strongly agree with anarchists critques of capiltalism and marxism but i can't quite picture it. How would you prevent people from taking power??/ and... basically answer the questions you are always asked. I think I would consider myself an anarchist but I need to understand betterwhat the goal is and how it would be in reality.
I posted on this in length on the ISF forums, I will here tommorow.

[Comrade Hector]

Anarchist Tension: Yes, the Anarchists did fight along side the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks then saw them as a threat because they rejected the Soviet workers state. The Anarchists opposed its existence and decided it must be smashed. The Soviet workers state was very much needed for the process of building Communism. Remember that the Soviet workers state was established by workers and peasants. As Anarchists are against state power in any form, it was their goal to destroy what the Bolsheviks built.

It is in fact very true that the Makhnovites sabotaged and seized shipments intended for the Bolsheviks. By doing this they were only helping the White Army, in taking the basic necesities which the Bolsheviks needed to crush the counter-revolutionaries. The Makhnovites did this for one very simple reason: they needed the supplies of arms, clothes, food, transports, etc to fight for their cause. The Anarchists knew they would have to turn to the Soviet state power for help which they refused to recognize. So they resorted to stealing.

The Makhnovites further collaborated with the White Army by opening their fronts to them. I can give you a citation from an Anarchist magazine confirming that this is true. "Trotsky added nasty lies the anarchist Makhnovschina guerillas in the Ukraine opening the front to the White armies, the Tsarist counter-revolutionaries (while, in actuality, it was Trotsky's Red Army attacking the Makhnovschina relentlessly)." Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, #55/Spring-Summer 2003, Vol. 21, No. 1

It was the Anarchists who turned against the Communists when they refused to recogize the Soviet workers state as I stated above. They were attacked for their collaboration with the bourgeoisie, which posed a serious threat. Therefore, the needed to be dealt with accordingly.

In regards to that quote. To suggest any standard of living is not a crime. But it cannot exist. Workers will never be truely equal without collectivization. Collectivization ensures that the nation's resouces is spread among the masses equally.

It was not just the Anarchist betrayal of the Russian Revolution, that Anarchists resorted to anti-worker doings. For example: Anarchists hailed the CIA-backed Afghan Mujahideen cut-throats as "freedom fighters", in other words they opposed workers solidarity between the Soviet and Afghan working class. Anarchists such as Noam Chomsky cheered the fall of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European Socialist allies, hence cheered the restoration of Capitalism. And they even praised men like Boris Yeltsin and Lech Walesa as "revolutionaries." This shows how ignorant Anarchists are.

You talk as if Communism was achieved. It was not because as you pointed out State and Communism contradict each other. Communism can only exist when the state has withered away. This doesn't happen overnight. Communism takes time to build. With the state gone the working class then runs the nation in the place of the state. Anarchists are 100% opposed to this as it is a form of authority. A workers state is needed for the process of building Socialism and then Communism. This is how Socialism was achieved. By industrialization, collectivization, and workers solidarity.

I suggest you read the military writings of Trotsky regarding The Makhno Movement (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1919-mil/ch49.htm). You should then see what the Makhnovites were all about.

Peace.

[bombeverything]

Wouldn't a decentralized community that is well organized be harder to conquer?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 30 2004, 11:03 AM
Anarchists such as Noam Chomsky cheered the fall of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European Socialist allies, hence cheered the restoration of Capitalism. And they even praised men like Boris Yeltsin and Lech Walesa as "revolutionaries." This shows how ignorant Anarchists are.

That's bullshit. The Soviet Union and its allies governors had ruined Socialism. If it fell it was by the mistakes made by people with your same ideas. You authoritarian system has been tried everywhere and nowadays it's seen as a tyrannical system, which survives on few countries, and not very well (and not very "socialist"). The whole "state phase" was in fact just a falied dictatorship which never reached it's final aim.


Communism can only exist when the state has withered away. This doesn't happen overnight. Communism takes time to build. With the state gone the working class then runs the nation in the place of the state. Anarchists are 100% opposed to this as it is a form of authority. A workers state is needed for the process of building Socialism and then Communism. This is how Socialism was achieved. By industrialization, collectivization, and workers solidarity.

The fact that Communism wasnt reached and capitalism was restored should already say enough about the role of the state in the revolution. The state will make people depend on it and the state doesn't make help in creating communism, it never gave enough freedoms to the people, thus the idea of the socialist revolution never got support by the people. That explains why most people sees "Communism" as a "tyrannical totalitarian authoritarian nazi anti-freedom statist government".

As you mentioned Chomsky, read this: URL=http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm]http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm[/URL]

[Comrade Hector]

El Infiltr(A)do: First of all, your reply to the first quote is completely irrelevant from what I stated. Socialism in the USSR became completely deformed thanks to Mikhail Gorbachev's reformist policies of glasnost and perestroika. These policies spread like a plague throught Eastern Europe, by splitting the leadership in these Socialist nations (one for reformism and the other for retaining Socialism), or the leaders sided with Gorbachev. Gorbachev had not only created the counterrevolution, but he and his reformists supported the counterrevolutionaries both morally and financially. So the reactionaries had gained much strength, which led to the fall of the East Bloc. The Socialist states are seen as "tyrannical" by the bourgeoisie for they're history of suppressing attempts at restoring Capitalism which is often named "freedom". Just for the record, the idea that a world can exist without some form of authority is an utopia. Just out of curiosity, how would you define Socialism?

The state does help in building Communism which I state how in my previous post. The state is needed to distribute resources equally amongst the people. This is called collectivization. You claim that the people never supported any Socialist revolution. Then maybe you can explain how the Socialist states were built? If the people do not support a Socialist Revolution it is then unpopular and therefore cannot succeed. Did Marx come back with some magic wand and create these Socialist states with a simple hocus pocus? :lol: Personally, I think anyone who sees Socialism as some sort of nazi state in which you described has no understanding of the concept of Communism or Fascism.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2004, 07:46 AM
El Infiltr(A)do: First of all, your reply to the first quote is completely irrelevant from what I stated. Socialism in the USSR became completely deformed thanks to Mikhail Gorbachev's reformist policies of glasnost and perestroika. These policies spread like a plague throught Eastern Europe, by splitting the leadership in these Socialist nations (one for reformism and the other for retaining Socialism), or the leaders sided with Gorbachev. Gorbachev had not only created the counterrevolution, but he and his reformists supported the counterrevolutionaries both morally and financially. So the reactionaries had gained much strength, which led to the fall of the East Bloc.
My point was that thing weren't that well before the fall of the USSR. The authoritarian socialism has never attracted the people, so that's why the USSR fell down so easily.


Just for the record, the idea that a world can exist without some form of authority is an utopia.

Well then Communism is a utopia, because after all, if the proletarian doesn't make the revolution against the authority of the bourgeoisie, then we are all stuck in the same authoritarian system, so the point of Anarchism is to get rid of the authority, in the same way the proletarian should revolt against capitalism.


The Socialist states are seen as "tyrannical" by the bourgeoisie for they're history of suppressing attempts at restoring Capitalism which is often named "freedom".

The problem here is that in that way they attract the people, which seems to be very stupid as to realize that such a thing is repeptitive propaganda, said to them everyday by their favourite "objective" newspaper. That's when we should appear and make the masses get freedom of thought and the "class consciousness"


Just out of curiosity, how would you define Socialism?

Socialism: in economical and social issues, it's a system based on satisfying the needs of the whole society, which is opposed to the inequal, ultra-individualist and conservative views of capitalism. Socialism, in the political sense, is a term used to describe a system where the state plays an important role in giving the whole society their basic needs at the expense of the rich capitalist class, by collective or state control of the means of production.
That's a simple definition I just came up with right now. It changes according to the situation and what people thinks.


The state does help in building Communism which I state how in my previous post. The state is needed to distribute resources equally amongst the people. This is called collectivization. You claim that the people never supported any Socialist revolution. Then maybe you can explain how the Socialist states were built? If the people do not support a Socialist Revolution it is then unpopular and therefore cannot succeed. Did Marx come back with some magic wand and create these Socialist states with a simple hocus pocus? :lol: Personally, I think anyone who sees Socialism as some sort of nazi state in which you described has no understanding of the concept of Communism or Fascism.

No, I meant to say that those socialist revolutions concentrated too much power in few hands, which doesnt make the people control their own lives, which means that this creates inequalities and a new class system, because the only difference with capitalism is that now the "vanguard" controls the means of production. I don't think that "Socialism=fascism" (taking Socialism as a "state control" system such as those we all know), but I think that people should run the society as a whole, without representatives.

[Comrade Hector]

El Infiltr(A)do The USSR had its ups and downs just like everyone else. I'm pretty sure what you mean, is the people under Socialism didn't enjoy the bourgeois lifestyle which you are used to. And once again you claim that "authoritarian" Socialism never attracted the people as I am pretty sure like every other Anarchist for some odd ball reason believes that they were the ones who had the support of the masses, and yet Anarchists have never achieved anything. As you later say, Socialist Revolutions were led by revolutionaries with the power toenable the workers and peasants to arm themselves and smash the old bourgeois state. This never created inequalities, on the contrary after such revolutions inequalities are smashed with the old bourgeois state. There are no similarities between Socialism and Capitalism. While the workers vangaurd is in control of the means of production which is spread equally amongst the people under Socialism, under Capitalism the one with more dough gets more than he needs, while the workers don't get much less from the system. If this creates such inequalities why did it happen more than once?

The proletarian cannot live in a world without some form of authority for the purpose of stabilization. Communism requires working class authority to keep it working and satisfying the workers needs. This is not an utopia. Anarchism is an utopia. Without authority and some form of organization, no revolution can ever happen. As several comrades have already pointed out, if Anarchists were to take power, the bourgeoisie would make a large comeback within a day and re-establish itself. History has shown that Anarchists are very incapable of making a revolution, and only end up playing the role of bandits.

One question for you: If Anarchists are so pro-working class as they claim to be, than why did they embrace some of the greatest enemies of the working class? Such as praising the Afghan Mujahideen as "freedom fighters", cheering the Capitalist counterrevolution in Eastern Europe by standing with the "Revolutionary" Boris Yeltsin and the "Revolutionary" Lech Walesa?

[Stapler]

Meaning that eventually, some form of government or organization will arise, because when large populations come together in a community, there needs to be regulation - i mean when there are no laws, which side of the road will you drive on? what's the speed limit? what will happen when someone does commit a crime? Anarchism is fundamentally flawed.

[bombeverything]

::cut::

[bombeverything]

What side of the road would you drive on if the government did not exist? I would like to think that you are smart enough to know what side of the road to drive on without being told. There is a difference between authority and organisation. Anarchists are not against organisation and base their views on the ability of the human mind to apply reason to everyday situations.

As far as crime goes, approximately 3/4 of crime is property related. With the elimination of private property crime would be drastically reduced. Crimes committed by individuals have and will never be as numerous and brutal as the crimes committed by governments. In other words, the coercive nature of government is always stronger than its protective nature.

Your idea of anarchism sounds very vague … sort of flawed ;).

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2004, 08:47 PM
El Infiltr(A)do The USSR had its ups and downs just like everyone else. I'm pretty sure what you mean, is the people under Socialism didn't enjoy the bourgeois lifestyle which you are used to. And once again you claim that "authoritarian" Socialism never attracted the people as I am pretty sure like every other Anarchist for some odd ball reason believes that they were the ones who had the support of the masses, and yet Anarchists have never achieved anything.
Well, those with the "vanguard party" wasn't us. The point is that when people saw the "luxuries" of capitalism and compared them to the authoritarian and not very flexible socialist system, they went for the dollars. Now the problem here is making the masses wake up against the exploitation, I'm not saying that Anarchist had the support of the masses (excepting in the Spanish Revolution) but the point is that Anarchism has never had a way to reach the masses...meanwhile capitalists keep sponsoring their "democracy" and spreading the ads of their candidates "vote for x, he is honest and the best democratic option!", while the most authoritarian socialists keep fighting with their old fashioned, sectarian, authoritarian vanguard party.


As you later say, Socialist Revolutions were led by revolutionaries with the power toenable the workers and peasants to arm themselves and smash the old bourgeois state.

Well the thing is that Anarchists can't seem to organize or educate the workers. THat's were we should aim.


This never created inequalities, on the contrary after such revolutions inequalities are smashed with the old bourgeois state. There are no similarities between Socialism and Capitalism.

Yes there's an important inequality: there's a group who governs and a group who obeys. This is an important thing.


The proletarian cannot live in a world without some form of authority for the purpose of stabilization. Communism requires working class authority to keep it working and satisfying the workers needs. This is not an utopia.

If they were smart enough to remove the capitalist exploiters, then I'm sure they can figure out how to control their own lifes.


Anarchism is an utopia. Without authority and some form of organization, no revolution can ever happen.

Who said there isn't organization?


As several comrades have already pointed out, if Anarchists were to take power, the bourgeoisie would make a large comeback within a day and re-establish itself. History has shown that Anarchists are very incapable of making a revolution, and only end up playing the role of bandits.

History has shown that authoritarian socialists end up corrupted, paranoid, divided, and the whole system collapses and the old lie comes back. Concerning the bourgueoisie, there's always someone who asks the rest to "fuck off" and live in his individualist utopia. The point, however, is that in such a situation, this will be a minority, because most people (those who did the revolution and gained consciousness) will accept some anarchist system. As private property will be abolished (that doesn't mean you can just enter someone's house, in that case a Workers Army will take care of them if necessary for being a possible threat, but of course this is a special situation and we don't know what would happen in such a society), they won't be able to use their resources to bring capitalism back. I'm sure that if people can bring down capitalist, they can also stop the response of the capitalist-sponsored mercenaries.


One question for you: If Anarchists are so pro-working class as they claim to be, than why did they embrace some of the greatest enemies of the working class? Such as praising the Afghan Mujahideen as "freedom fighters", cheering the Capitalist counterrevolution in Eastern Europe by standing with the "Revolutionary" Boris Yeltsin and the "Revolutionary" Lech Walesa?

I don't remember ever hearing an Anarchist say that? Is necesarilly a revolutionary a comrade??? Because after all, "revolutionary" isn't necesarilly subjective, for cappies el Che could have been a revolutionary but that doesn't mean they support him.