Young, Angry and Anarchist

[RedBlackStar]

Well I've already posted a few things but I still feel like I should do one of these things... hi comrades.

Firstly, no I'm not red or black, nor am I in anyway famous or some sort of celebrity 'star' *comedic drumroll*.

I'm 17, I'm currently in my last year of College and going to University next year (woop) to study History and Politics. I find myself being drawn to Anarchism as an ideology but must admit that I have only read a few works of each thinker of each major ideology across the spectrum, so this may change. I still have yet to truly understand the differences between the different sub-ideologies in Anarchism, but I do have a vague idea of them; hopefully some of you fine people can help me out.

What I'm basically saying? I see the world as it is, the one that's being left to my generation, and I'm becoming very, very pissed off. I'm attempting to turn that anger into something constructive to help build a better world, or at least the foundations of one, for my generation's successors. I'm learning fast but there's still so much more to learn so please have patience with me.

Thanks and Viva La Revolution!

[Q]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

[RedWorker]

Is there anything specifically which draws you to anarchism, as contrasted to the other leftist ideologies? I see too many people becoming anarchists over Marxists merely because the latter has had the misfortune of being historically tied to authoritarianism. In fact, nobody should be afraid of being linked to that authoritarianism. Real Marxism has nothing to do with authoritarianism, but in any case outright rejection and endless propagandism against stuff like the Russian Revolution, rather than properly analyzing and constructively criticizing, is a problem. Nevermind the mass democracy created by workers' revolution and soviets...!


Thanks and Viva La Revolution!

No, no, comrade. It's actually ¡Viva la revolución!.

[Chomskyan]

I'm young angry and Anarchist too. This Thanksgiving I was really distraught at my parents and grandparents defending state terrorism against Michael Brown. Particularly because Michael Brown committed a crime.

What happened to looking at one's own sins? Anyway, welcome to the forum.

[RedBlackStar]

Thanks for the welcome.

I find myself to be Anarchist purely because being a revolutionary socialist arrives either there or at Marxism. In spite of all Marx's genius I cannot, morally or logically, identify with his ideas of revolution (or at least the ones which I have read); this means both his method and post-revolutionary society. In contrast to this, although I have yet to fully learn about syndicalist structure, I quite like the sound of Anarcho-Syndicalism.

I also have to say that, although I see the logic behind the Marxist view of history, I also see flaws.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well I've already posted a few things but I still feel like I should do one of these things... hi comrades.

Firstly, no I'm not red or black, nor am I in anyway famous or some sort of celebrity 'star' *comedic drumroll*.

I'm 17, I'm currently in my last year of College and going to University next year (woop) to study History and Politics. I find myself being drawn to Anarchism as an ideology but must admit that I have only read a few works of each thinker of each major ideology across the spectrum, so this may change. I still have yet to truly understand the differences between the different sub-ideologies in Anarchism, but I do have a vague idea of them; hopefully some of you fine people can help me out.

What I'm basically saying? I see the world as it is, the one that's being left to my generation, and I'm becoming very, very pissed off. I'm attempting to turn that anger into something constructive to help build a better world, or at least the foundations of one, for my generation's successors. I'm learning fast but there's still so much more to learn so please have patience with me.

Thanks and Viva La Revolution!

Which uni are you doing your degree at?

[RedWorker]

I find myself to be Anarchist purely because being a revolutionary socialist arrives either there or at Marxism. In spite of all Marx's genius I cannot, morally or logically, identify with his ideas of revolution (or at least the ones which I have read); this means both his method and post-revolutionary society. In contrast to this, although I have yet to fully learn about syndicalist structure, I quite like the sound of Anarcho-Syndicalism.

I also have to say that, although I see the logic behind the Marxist view of history, I also see flaws.

Why not morally? Why not logically? What flaws?

[The Idler]

Welcome, any questions feel free to ask.
Revolutionary socialism is a laudable aim and can be more similar to anarchism than you think. Stay constructive and don't direct your anger in destructive tendencies.

[The Disillusionist]

Stay constructive and don't direct your anger in destructive tendencies.

Definitely. Be careful not to become a stereotype. I'm always glad to see another anarchist, but the "angry, destructive youth" stereotype has created a bit of an image problem for anarchy, in my opinion.

[Quail]

Welcome to RevLeft :)

[RedBlackStar]

Thank you all for the welcome.


Which uni are you doing your degree at?

Sheffield University hopefully. They've given me a conditional offer, now I just have to get the grades at A Level.


Stay constructive and don't direct your anger in destructive tendencies.

Thank you comrade, this is my aim. One should only try and destroy the old world when ready to build a new one. That's why I'm constantly trying to acquire new knowledge by reading more from new thinkers and read as much History as possible, to understand how and why the human race has allowed the world to stagnate.

[The Feral Underclass]

Sheffield University hopefully. They've given me a conditional offer, now I just have to get the grades at A Level.

Yeah, I knew it would be Sheffield. History and politics is a classic Sheffield degree. There's been a long line of radical groups at the Uni. The current incarnation is: http://sheffieldautonomousstudents.wordpress.com/. They're a good of bunch of people, although the politics is a bit lacking. There's also a solid IWW branch in the city.

[The Idler]

If you're in Sheffield one of the better groups to speak to might be the Midlands Discussion Forum
http://www.freecommunism.org/tag/midland-discussion-forum/
Some of them post at libcom.org

[Comrade #138672]

Please remember that your youthful anger is part of a phase. Over time, you will most likely develop different attitudes.

Anyway, welcome!

[Quail]

Please remember that your youthful anger is part of a phase. Over time, you will most likely develop different attitudes.

Don't you think that's a bit patronising? Anger, put to use in a productive way, is a powerful thing, and it's not like there's a shortage of things to get angry about.

[BIXX]

Most of revleft is super patronizing about people being angry etc...

[cyu]

http://bequotes.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/pizap.com10.93840836314484481395673151239.jpg

[motion denied]

better angry than hopeless

[The Idler]

better angry than hopeless
Better organised than angry.

[BIXX]

Better organised than angry.
No.

[Halert]

Better organised than angry.

Why not both?

[BIXX]

Why not both?
Organization is a product of alienation and work, for the purpose of continuing civilization's existence. Fuck that.

[Halert]

Is a vangaurd party no a form of organisation? ofc you might be opposed to that but i'm not.

[BIXX]

Is a vangaurd party no a form of organisation? ofc you might be opposed to that but i'm not.
Yes I am opposed to a vanguard party, as it is devoted to changing society, not destroying it.

[Slavic]

Organization is a product of alienation and work, for the purpose of continuing civilization's existence. Fuck that.

Humans are social creatures. You can't NOT have organization within a society. To think otherwise is plain silly.

[BIXX]

Humans are social creatures. You can't NOT have organization within a society. To think otherwise is plain silly.
Fuck society as well.

[Loony Le Fist]

Don't you think that's a bit patronising? Anger, put to use in a productive way, is a powerful thing, and it's not like there's a shortage of things to get angry about.

^ This. Anger is a powerful and motivating emotion. Fear is too.

Not only are there lots of things to be angry about. There are lots of things to be fucking furious about.

[Loony Le Fist]

Fuck society as well.

Yep. Society can lick my balls. Particularly US conservatives.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

EDIT: I've always disliked conservatives. Even when I was a right-wing libertarian.

[Bala Perdida]

Yep. Society can lick my balls. Particularly US conservatives.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

EDIT: I've always disliked conservatives. Even when I was a right-wing libertarian.
I don't think you understood that statement lol

[Loony Le Fist]

I don't think you understood that statement lol

Perhaps not.

[Bala Perdida]

Perhaps not.
I hope not lol

[Ravn]

I find myself being drawn to Anarchism


Thanks and Viva La Revolution!


Revolution is impossible via anarchism. You're just going to get the same old thing. That A in that Circle might just as well stand for Asshole. I'm not calling you an asshole but with anarchism & it's real underpinnings, WATCH OUT!

[BIXX]

Revolution is impossible via anarchism. You're just going to get the same old thing. That A in that Circle might just as well stand for Asshole. I'm not calling you an asshole but with anarchism & it's real underpinnings, WATCH OUT!
Lol ravn has been discredited in every one of the thread they participate in don't listen. I may not be an anarchist but I find anarchism more compelling than Marxism almost 100% of the time.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Welcome to Revleft.

You'll find that certain posters in here could start an argument in an empty room with themselves.

Keep your anger and keep asking questions, I think it's the best way to develop your own philosophical ideas.

[The Jay]

hiyo, welcome to the forum.

[cyu]

Organization is a product of alienation and work, for the purpose of continuing civilization's existence. Fuck that.

The anarchist in me likes this attitude. But then the syndicalist in me says "Hold on a minute." Well, I guess even if I'm not thanking your post, consider me a sympathizer :wub:

[BIXX]

The anarchist in me likes this attitude. But then the syndicalist in me says "Hold on a minute." Well, I guess even if I'm not thanking your post, consider me a sympathizer :wub:
Hahaha no worries. I expect that most people disagree with the shit I post, especially lately when I've decided "fuck it revleft can have my opinions IDC what they think"

[Ravn]

Lol ravn has been discredited in every one of the thread they participate in don't listen. I may not be an anarchist but I find anarchism more compelling than Marxism almost 100% of the time.


Getting dissed by one's enemies is a good thing. (They don't do that unless one is a threat.) But the matter is, the problem with anarchism is that it doesn't change the bourgeois foundations of society. So, people who proclaim it as a panacea are selling snake oil. It's not revolutionary. It's reformist at best.

[The Feral Underclass]

the problem with anarchism is that it doesn't change the bourgeois foundations of society. So, people who proclaim it as a panacea are selling snake oil. It's not revolutionary. It's reformist at best.

The revolutionary overthrow of the ruling class by the working class in order to seize the means of production and re-organise the economy is specifically designed to change the bourgeois foundations of society; it is its fundamental objective. That's not reformism.

[GaggedNoMore]

Better organised than angry.

You say that as though the two are mutually exclusive. :confused:

[Ravn]

The revolutionary overthrow of the ruling class by the working class in order to seize the means of production and re-organise the economy is specifically designed to change the bourgeois foundations of society; it is its fundamental objective. That's not reformism.

Anarchism oscillates between individualism & collectivism. It's a petty-bourgeois outlook. One minute you talk about "the revolutionary overthrow of the ruling class". The next you're talking about opposing authority & hierarchies. It's driven by opportunism. Left, right, left, right until you're punch-drunk silly. To overthrow the bourgeoisie, the working class has to seize state power. But anarchy is really about the petty-bourgeoisie & their sense of entitlement.

[Lord Testicles]

Anarchism oscillates between individualism & collectivism. It's a petty-bourgeois outlook. One minute you talk about "the revolutionary overthrow of the ruling class". The next you're talking about opposing authority & hierarchies. It's driven by opportunism. Left, right, left, right until you're punch-drunk silly. To overthrow the bourgeoisie, the working class has to seize state power. But anarchy is really about the petty-bourgeoisie & their sense of entitlement.

You should try to understand things a little better before you feel you can speak with such confidence about something you evidently don't know much about.

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchism oscillates between individualism & collectivism. It's a petty-bourgeois outlook. One minute you talk about "the revolutionary overthrow of the ruling class". The next you're talking about opposing authority & hierarchies. It's driven by opportunism. Left, right, left, right until you're punch-drunk silly. To overthrow the bourgeoisie, the working class has to seize state power. But anarchy is really about the petty-bourgeoisie & their sense of entitlement.

That's really just a jumbled collection of concepts that says absolutely nothing. The meaning of this paragraph is basically gibberish.

You claimed that anarchism did not want to change the bourgeois foundations of society and was reformist. I am pointing out that the revolutionary overthrow of the ruling class by the working class in order to seize the means of production is not reformist and specifically seeks to change the bourgeois foundation of society.

In response you have further described anarchism as petty-bourgeois, opportunistic and about entitlement (whatever that means). So now you think that the revolutionary overthrow of the ruling class by the working class in order to seize the means of production is not only reformist and will not change the foundation of society, but you think is also petty-bourgeois, opportunistic and about entitlement. That seems like a very strange position to take.

[Ravn]

That's really just a jumbled collection of concepts that says absolutely nothing. The meaning of this paragraph is basically gibberish.

You claimed that anarchism did not want to change the bourgeois foundations of society and was reformist. I am pointing out that the revolutionary overthrow of the ruling class by the working class in order to seize the means of production is not reformist and specifically seeks to change the bourgeois foundation of society.


But anarchism is incapable of doing that, because it's petty-bourgeois & reformist. You want a stateless society which gives grounds to those who will get the material advantages under those circumstances to eventually take the capitalist road.





So now you think that the revolutionary overthrow of the ruling class by the working class in order to seize the means of production is not only reformist .... [blah-blah-blah]

To overthrow the bourgeoisie *specifically* requires the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But that isn't going to happen with anarchism if anarchism is what you're upholding.

[The Feral Underclass]

But anarchism is incapable of doing that, because it's petty-bourgeois & reformist.

To be petite-bourgeois and reformist one would have to advocate for the middle classes through gradual reform. Based upon what aspect of anarchist ideology and history do you make this claim that anarchism is "petty-bourgeois (sic) & reformist"?


You want a stateless society which gives grounds to those who will get the material advantages under those circumstances to eventually take the capitalist road.

All communists want a stateless society, including Marx and Lenin.


To overthrow the bourgeoisie *specifically* requires the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But that isn't going to happen with anarchism if anarchism is what you're upholding.

What is the dictatorship of the proletariat if not the working class exercising its political and economic power?

[Sentinel]

Not being an anarchist myself or anything, I just have to point out that those who are asking for user Ravn to read up on anarchism are quite correct in doing so. Firstly, it has zip all to do with reformism or crossing the class line.

Secondly if we are talking about the major schools of classwar anarchism, which are represented outside the Opposing Ideologies forum on this board, they are against centralised authority, but certainly in favour of federalistic collective power and organising - not individualism.

If their model can work in practice for extended periods and oppose counterrevolution effectively enough etc etc may remain to be proven and is up for debate, but lets keep our facts straight here and not embarass ourselves, shall we.

[Ravn]

To be petite-bourgeois and reformist one would have to advocate for the middle classes through gradual reform. Based upon what aspect of anarchist ideology and history do you make this claim that anarchism is "petty-bourgeois (sic) & reformist"?


Anarchism is a middle-class trend in itself that emphasizes individualism. "The doctrine of anarchism has mainly been adopted by middle class people, especially young intellectuals. This is why the natural "home" of anarchism is the university campus. However, some people from a working class background are also influenced by this trend, particularly the unemployed youth who've never had a job long enough (through no fault of their own) to adopt the collective outlook of the working class. Thus anarchists are also making themselves a "home" in unemployed centres."

"The middle class is noted for being extremely individualistic, which stems from the capitalist ideology of the individual "getting ahead" and "making it to the top." The favourable position of the middle class, as compared to the working class, is the material breeding ground for such individualistic strivings to "get ahead." This contrasts sharply with the instinctive collectivism of working class people who know they're never going to "get ahead" under capitalism, and realise their only defence is to stick together and fight as a united mass force against the class enemy.


"As Lenin noted in 1901: "Anarchism is bourgeois individualism in reverse. Individualism is the basis of the entire anarchist world outlook."
]"Anarchism is a product of despair," Lenin continued, reflecting "the psychology of the unsettled intellectual or the vagabond, and not of the proletarian."


http://www.mltranslations.org/NewZealand/Anarchism.htm





All communists want a stateless society, including Marx and Lenin.

Socialism is a necessary stage before communism is possible. It's not possible to just jump into a stateless society w/o socialists seizing state power & establishing DOTP.
(It's no surprise that some anarchists on here are so opposed to dialectical & historical materialism.)



What is the dictatorship of the proletariat if not the working class exercising its political and economic power?

That requires establishing a state, not abolishing it wherein everybody acts autonomously, gravitating towards this or that association. That soup is a sure way to recreate capitalist economy.

[motion denied]

And to criticize anarchism you quote. Lenin, more than a hundred years ago, arguing against certain strands of anarchism.

Interestingly, today Leninism is also predominant in the University only.

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchism is a middle-class trend in itself that emphasizes individualism. "The doctrine of anarchism has mainly been adopted by middle class people, especially young intellectuals. This is why the natural "home" of anarchism is the university campus. However, some people from a working class background are also influenced by this trend, particularly the unemployed youth who've never had a job long enough (through no fault of their own) to adopt the collective outlook of the working class. Thus anarchists are also making themselves a "home" in unemployed centres."

"The middle class is noted for being extremely individualistic, which stems from the capitalist ideology of the individual "getting ahead" and "making it to the top." The favourable position of the middle class, as compared to the working class, is the material breeding ground for such individualistic strivings to "get ahead." This contrasts sharply with the instinctive collectivism of working class people who know they're never going to "get ahead" under capitalism, and realise their only defence is to stick together and fight as a united mass force against the class enemy.f

http://www.mltranslations.org/NewZealand/Anarchism.htm

The first noticeable thing about this, aside from it being in red, as if that makes it more correct, is the fact that you are attempting to describe anarchism, not by going to a source text on anarchism written by an anarchist theoretician, but by quoting an obscure article by some completely unknown person whose experience and knowledge of anarchism is not credited. The section you provide is not even referenced and the only reference I can see in the whole article is from Stalin's Anarchism and Socialism, which is a thoroughly discredited piece of work. What in your view makes this a article credible?

Secondly, if the legitimacy of a movement came down to the class demographics of its membership then Marxism would also be "middle-class" by your definition, since Marx, Engels, Trotsky and Lenin were all middle-class intellectuals.

As far as I can tell the thesis of this article, which is very badly written by the way, is that because anarchism attracted students and "middle-class" intellectuals that it is inherently about preserving the individual in contrast to the aims of communism, which is about "instinctive collectivism." Is that a correct assessment?


"As Lenin noted in 1901:"Anarchism is bourgeois individualism in reverse. Individualism is the basis of the entire anarchist world outlook."

I think it's fairly disreputable to quote people without referencing where the quote is from. It's customary to reference so that people know you aren't making things up. That's pretty standard practice.

After doing a little research I discovered the source of the quote. It is a collection of cursory notes penned in 1901 that would go on to form part of a work called Socialism and Anarchism. The article you linked quotes from these notes, which you can read here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/dec/31.htm

In any case, individualism is not the basis of the "entire anarchist world outlook."

As a young man, Pytor Kropotkin, the seminal anarchist communist theoretician, was a geographer, zoologist and evolutionary theorist. After spending many years studying different species of animals he wrote a book in 1902 called Mutual Aid: A factor of evolution. (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidconclu.html) In it, he makes observations which challenge Darwinian ideas and posits that those species who work together in co-operation are more likely to survive the conditions of existence.


There is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species; there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, of mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defense...Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle.

Mutual Aid: Mutual aid between animals (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidch1.html)

He goes on to conclude:


The higher conception of "no revenge for wrongs," and of freely giving more than one expects to receive from his neighbours, is proclaimed as being the real principle of morality -- a principle superior to mere equivalence, equity, or justice, and more conducive to happiness. And man is appealed to to be guided in his acts, not merely by love, which is always personal, or at the best tribal, but by the perception of his oneness with each human being. In the practice of mutual aid, which we can retrace to the earliest beginnings of evolution, we thus find the positive and undoubted origin of our ethical conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical progress of man, mutual support not mutual struggle -- has had the leading part. In its wide extension, even at the present time, we also see the best guarantee of a still loftier evolution of our race.

Kropotkin saw this as a "moral position," but it was guided by an understanding of class struggle and the need to abolish private property.


All is interdependent in a civilized society; it is impossible to reform any one thing without altering the whole. Therefore, on the day we strike at private property, under any one of its forms, territorial or industrial, we shall be obliged to attack them all. The very success of the Revolution will demand it.

Conquest of Bread: Expropriation (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch4.html)

Likewise, Mikhail Bakunin, arguably the "father of anarchism" understood capitalism and the nature of class struggle. In Marxism, Freedom and the State (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/mf-state/ch03.htm") he even praises Capital as "...not in the least a fantasy, an "a priori" conception, hatched out in a single day in the head of a young man more or less ignorant of economic conditions and of the actual system of production. It is founded on a very extensive, very detailed knowledge and a very profound analysis of this system an of its conditions." He goes on to say of Marx that he, "...is a man of immense statistical and economic knowledge. His work on Capital...is in the highest degree a scientific or realist work: in the sense that it absolutely excludes any other logic than that of the facts."

In light of Capital he also summarises his view in a far more approachable way than Marx ever did,


What is property, what is capital in their present form? For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the State, to live without working. And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not fertilized by labor - that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the work of someone else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both.

The Capitalist System (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/capsys.htm)

On the subject of the individual, Bakunin rejects very clearly liberal individualism and argues that there is no individual beyond the individuals of society. Just like Kropotkin after him, Bakunin argued that in order for emancipation to be realised, all have to be emancipated.


The inherent principles of human existence are summed up in the single law of solidarity. This is the golden rule of humanity and may be formulated this: no person can recognize or realize his or her own humanity except by recognizing it in others and so cooperating for its realization by each and all No man can emancipate himself save by emancipating with him all the men about him.

My liberty is the liberty of everybody. I cannot be free in idea until I am free in fact. To be free in idea and not free fact is to be revolt. To be free in fact is to have my liberty and my right, find their confirmation, and sanction in the liberty and right of all mankind. I am free only when all men are my equals (first and foremost economically.)

What all other men are is of the greatest importance to me. However independent I may imagine myself to be, however far removed I may appear from mundane considerations by my social status, I am enslaved to the misery of the meanest member of society. The outcast is my daily menace. Whether I am Pope, Czar, Emperor, or even Prime Minister, I am always the creature of their circumstance, the conscious product of their ignorance, want and clamoring. They are in slavery, and I, the superior one, am enslaved in consequence.

[...]

The true, human liberty of a single individual implies the emancipation of all: because, thanks to the law of solidarity, which is the natural basis of all human society, I cannot be, feel, and know myself really, completely free, if I an not surrounded by men as free as myself. The slavery of each is my slavery.

Solidarity in Liberty: The Workers' Path to Freedom (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/writings/ch04.htm)

Bakunin goes on to restate the anarchist position on the individual in Man, Society and Freedom. (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1871/man-society.htm)


I am truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise and confirmation. It is the slavery of other men that sets up a barrier to my freedom, or what amounts to the same thing, it is their bestiality which is the negation of my humanity. For my dignity as a man, my human right which consists of refusing to obey any other man, and to determine my own acts in conformity with my convictions is reflected by the equally free conscience of all and confirmed by the consent of all humanity. My personal freedom, confirmed by the liberty of all, extends to infinity.

The materialistic conception of freedom is therefore a very positive, very complex thing, and above all, eminently social, because it can be realized only in society and by the strictest equality and solidarity among all men. One can distinguish the main elements in the attainment of freedom. The first is eminently social. It is the fullest development of all the faculties and powers of every human being, by education, by scientific training, and by material prosperity; things which can only be provided for every individual by the collective, material, intellectual, manual, and sedentary labor of society in general.

The position that anarchism is about "individualism" at the expense of "collectivism" bares no relation to actual anarchist thought as expressed by the founders of social anarchist ideology.


"Anarchism is a product of despair," Lenin continued, reflecting "the psychology of the unsettled intellectual or the vagabond, and not of the proletarian."

Lenin made that note in 1901 at a time when anarchism was first emerging in Russia. By 1905 when he wrote Socialism and Anarchism, social anarchist organisations existed across Russia. These organisations operated within the broader workers' movement and had chapters and units in factories across the whole country. You'll note that in Socialism and Anarchism (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/nov/24.htm), Lenin doesn't make this same point he makes in his initial notes, instead choosing to focus on why anarhism was not right for the proletariat, rather than not having a constituency within it, since by 1905 it very clearly did. Lenin begrudgingly and through evidently gritted teeth, has to admit, "a certain number of workers undoubtedly support them." A certain number that, by the way, was greater than an "insignificant" amount.

If you want further reading on this, you can read Paul Avrich's The Russian Anarchists (https://libcom.org/history/russian-anarchists-paul-avrich), which gives a comprehensive history of the anarchist movement in Russia from the 19th century onwards.

Nevertheless, it is true that anarchism has a history of organising amongst the "lumpenproletariat." And why shouldn't they? The idea that revolutionaries should close themselves off to a constituency of workers is ridiculous.


Socialism is a necessary stage before communism is possible. It's not possible to just jump into a stateless society w/o socialists seizing state power & establishing DOTP.
(It's no surprise that some anarchists on here are so opposed to dialectical & historical materialism.)

What is a state to you? For Marx, a state was nothing more than the ruling class organised to suppress another. No social anarchist rejects that idea. Of course a transitional stage between capitalism and full communism will be required, but if this transition is dependent upon a bourgeois state, then the revolution is doomed -- as it has been in history.


That requires establishing a state, not abolishing it wherein everybody acts autonomously, gravitating towards this or that association. That soup is a sure way to recreate capitalist economy.

It strikes me as absurd that someone who links to articles that use Stalin as its only reference can lecture others about what will create a capitalist economy. Let's be absolutely clear here: the only communist experiments that have ever led back to a capitalist economy are Marxist-Leninist ones. You have no credibility on that issue.

On the question of the state, what is a state? You use this term freely without defining it. Do you mean the centralisation of political authority into the hands of a minority? If so, then how do you imagine replicating this bourgeois social relationship (something you accuse anarchists of doing, ironically) can transition into a phase of history in which minority rule no longer exists?

The centralisation of political authority is a self-perpetuating system of power. It exists to maintain its existence. There cannot be an expression of direct working class power if there exists a central political authority operating separate to that working class power; one will invariably come into conflict with the other. Therefore, if you are unprepared to tackle the question of centralised political authority at the outset of a revolution, then eventually the revolution will be betrayed as the state crushes any expression of working class power that exists separately to it -- how does the state maintain its authority otherwise? This has been demonstrated time and again throughout the history of socialism.

[The Feral Underclass]

And to criticize anarchism you quote. Lenin, more than a hundred years ago, arguing against certain strands of anarchism

It's a really shitty source as well. It's basically a collection of notes that Lenin made in 1901 that were supposed to form a larger work, which eventually was Socialism and Anarchism. Some of the points he abandons and doesn't take them up in the article anyway