Police plot to discredit anarchism

[nz revolution]

I just saw an article with this name.

I don't think the police need to bother about discrediting it. It does it itself.

Nearly all anarchists (at least in this country) crap on about anti-authoritarianism. When they themselves are the most authoritarian people known. So many rules and regulations for being an anarchist. Vegetarianism or worse veganism, anti-humanism (eg professing humans are a disease and should voluntarally make themselves extinct). Wearing ripped clothes, with patches all over them. Not that they are poor, most come from well to do families of professionals and so on.

Then there are the rabid attacks on Marxism for what reason? They are rarely class conscious as they think all workers know exactly what a revolution is and what will happen afterwards. Most get hung up on feminism and other reactionary ideologies (if feminism even is an ideology).

I could write forever on these people.

[TC]

Feminism isn't a full ideology, its just a school of thought, it doesn't have full enough basis to be a true ideology but it can still provide useful commentary (like in understanding fucking patriarchal manarchist pigs!). Legitimate feminism is socialist, conservative women who hate porn and think women shouldn't be allowed to wear clothing that reveals their neck or go on a diet aren't feminists, they're conservatives fooling themselves, and butch lesbians who for some reason hate men are just bitter people.


About anarchy, I basically agree. Anarchists: the police wont waste the time to discredit you if you don't make a menace out of yourselves.

[SittingBull47]

with respect, I think you're just stereotyping anarchists. The people you mention, NZ, are classical rich-kid wannabe-rebels. Most like that have no political thought in their heads. I have no problem with Marxism (it's a brilliant philosophy and i support it 100%), but yes i agree that there are some who just attack it for no good reason.

[God of Imperia]

Someone told me the other day that communism (in it's true and total/last form) is anarchism ...

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by God of [email protected] 29 2004, 03:27 PM
Someone told me the other day that communism (in it's true and total/last form) is anarchism ...
A communist society and a anarchist society would be the same thing.

[TC]

I think Anarchists who support Marxism 100% are more properly termed "Left Communists" not Anarchists though.

[filimarxist]

One huge misconception about the two groups is that they have different goals. Both 'narchs (if they're gonna call us commies, we might as well have a name for them too, he he he) and communists have the same goal of creating a classless and stateless society called communism. What differentiates the two groups is the method chosen to attain said society. Anarchists believe that an uprising will trigger a worldwide revolution of the working/oppressed classes immediately, and that a revolutionary movement should work at a grouping no larger than a collective (usually no larger than one or several dozen ppl.), and that revolutions should spread rabidly and almost instantaneously all over the world, quickly turning into the communist society they envision. On the other hand, Communists (with a capital C), believe in revoltuion in countries where there is a revolutionary situation, building a socialist state, creating a nucleus for a communist revolutionary movement, which can then spread to other countries with sharpening contradiction that can spawn other revolutionary situations. Eventually the world will merge into one big socialist state that can make a transition into a communist society. Now how we make that transition is a question that has plagued our movement for ages, if anyone has any bright ideas as to how we could do this, i'm all ears. That's my analysis on things, if you have otherwise to say, fuck you!! l'etat c'est moi, lol just kidding, feel free to interject.

[TC]

heh...I doubt they'd appreciate being called 'narch's...cause its pronounced like narc.


Its not just a difference in goals though, its a difference in fundemental orientation towards politics. Communists want working class power and oppose power of all other classes, where as Anarchists don't want any class to have power.

And that scenario you provided, is just absurd. People can't just revolt at the same time, all accross the world, spontaniously, with no organization. The only way to coordinate a simultanious uprising in a single country, let alone all countries, would require intense military dicipline and rigid hierarchical organization, the type that Communists don't advocate and Anarchists would surely despise. And the opposite problem is of course the only way to have an a stable society without coercive power is to eliminate coercive power everywhere, pretty much all at once, otherwise the governments that stand will just re-establish governments in 'liberated zones.'


As silly as that is, anarchists and Communists can still have tactical unity against existing repressive social forms...as long as they agree not to try to kill us after the revolution.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by nz [email protected] 29 2004, 03:12 AM
When they themselves are the most authoritarian people known. So many rules and regulations for being an anarchist. Vegetarianism or worse veganism, anti-humanism (eg professing humans are a disease and should voluntarally make themselves extinct). Wearing ripped clothes, with patches all over them. Not that they are poor, most come from well to do families of professionals and so on.

Then there are the rabid attacks on Marxism for what reason? They are rarely class conscious as they think all workers know exactly what a revolution is and what will happen afterwards.
Blah blah blah.

I'm NOT a vegetarian, i'm NOT an "anti-humanist", i don't wear "ripped clothes with patches all over them", I don't attack Marxism but all the "vanguard party" who thinks that represent the proletarians. "Class consciousness" is something that will eventually happen, but it's hard to predict how, when, why and what would come next.

I think you are just generalizing, and as such you are creating a stereotype.

[filimarxist]

"And that scenario you provided, is just absurd. People can't just revolt at the same time, all accross the world, spontaniously, with no organization."

i think you failed to notice the fact that that's exactly the critique that i was trying to make about the anarchist movement.
As for tactical unity w/ 'narchs (yes, i'm well aware of the resemblance to the word narc, that's the whole point), i do agree w/ it's possibility, provided that they don't try to pull a similar stunt to the russian revolution. Can anyone refresh my memeory? how did the anarchist attempt to kill lenin lead to the deterioration of his death and eventual death?

p.s.
nice pic of chiang ching

[(R)evolutionary]

Hey, I'm an Anarcho-Communist and I come from NZ.
You'll see some posers that have a circle A shirt that they prolly bought from a shop, but I think you are generalising us a bit too much, what are all these rules and regulations for being an Anarchist of which you speak?
I've got a mate who wears "ripped clothes, with patches all over them." But he's a punk and an Anarchist.

"Anarchists believe that an uprising will trigger a worldwide revolution of the working/oppressed classes immediately"
I think this wrong, anarchists know that revolution will never be achieved without support of practically everyone (exceptions are the people at the top who want to keep their position). First the masses must be educated, then revolution can come about, also, after getting rid of the people in power it is more of a gradual change into anarchy rather than just boom! Anarchy, that's it.

You are right about Anarchists and Communists having the same goal but differing methods, where you want to have a temporary government to run things until it is able to be dissolved, Anarchists want no government during and after revolution. As has happened in the past *coughRussiacough* this temporary government tends to not dissolve itself, power corrupts.

Personally, I don't know if I would trust "Communists" during revolution, anarchists tend to get fucked over, ala Spain and to some extent Russia.

Refresh your memory? I remember a guy named Nestor Makhno, yeah after helping the Reds fight the Whites and then turned against the Bolshevik food collectors and CHEKA agents and after he helped RED forces defeat Wrangel you turned on him.

Under Lenin,life wasn't much better than under the Tsar, he turned on his original aims. CHEKA/Okhrana, not much difference.

[Louis Pio]

Personally, I don't know if I would trust "Communists" during revolution, anarchists tend to get fucked over, ala Spain and to some extent Russia.


Hmm from my recollection the anarchists pretty much fucked themselves over in Spain. As well as the Poum did. They allowed the small Communist party to take control and grow. NIN of the Poum even lost the oppotunity of recruting the young socialists because he was too secterian. Thus paving the way for the stalinists to crush the revolution in class collaboratism.

My oppinion on Makhno is that he was a dicatorial adventurer but I know most Anarchists hold him in very high regards.

[Nas]

even though we have different thoughts (anarchists and communists) we must not fight against each other ,it will not get us anywhere

because I have a dream :) where Anarchists and Communists and all of our other radicals and pro-lefts will unite together in order to end Capitalist Imperialism set up by Authoritarian rulers !!!!!!


i dont know what would happen from then on but i know how it will begin ........

[nz revolution]

Whats wrong with making generalisations? The only time they are bad is when you use race to generalise, because minorities and people of colour are usually disadvantaged by capitalism and imperialism so of course the generalisation will be bad. Anyway.

Sounds like a neo-liberal concept to me.

I bet you (El Infiltrado) generalise all capitalists together? Heres a stereotype "all capitalists and imperialists are scum" oops thats not good for the politically correct liberals, because I lumped all these individuals together, not realising that some may be nice and have families and are onl trying to make a living...

The usefulness of generalisations is you can look at situations for what they really are eg. in New Zealand, the native Maori people (which I am one of) are "generally" worse off by a long shot. Of course there are the house niggers and uncle toms like in the US, so by not using a generalisation you can't say that Maori are disadvantaged because some aren't.

®evolutionary where are you from (city)? I might have an idea of who you are as An-Coms are quite rare in this fine (nature) but also rotten (politically) country.

Also I think blaming of Lenin for things might be going a bit far, Lenin argued against not killing the Royal Family (Nick the Bloody and family) but some Bolshie soldiers killed them, hacked them up and hid them in a swamp in Siberia.

[Stapler]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 07:50 AM
even though we have different thoughts (anarchists and communists) we must not fight against each other ,it will not get us anywhere

because I have a dream :) where Anarchists and Communists and all of our other radicals and pro-lefts will unite together in order to end Capitalist Imperialism set up by Authoritarian rulers !!!!!!


i dont know what would happen from then on but i know how it will begin ........
Eee... Maybe we should just let all that rest, and recognize anarchism for what it really is - hatred of authority.

[Dawood]

I'm a libertarian communist, and I'd rather work with anarchists than with leninists.
But your typical anarchist is not really into classwar, it is just a lifestyle. Classwar-anarchist and anarcho-communists are cool though.

[nz revolution]

Im not a Leninist in the sense of democratic-centralism, I accept his analysis of imperialism and capitalism, and a hefty bit of his organising pre-1917. Afterwards I'm not too convinced of, although he was a product of his time, if look back at the conditions they were awful (conditions), WW1 and an invasion by 14 imperialist countries.

Dawood you are right, the class-war anarchists and an-com folk are rarities. Let's also not forget the syndacalists such as the IWW.

[Dawood]

Yeah. Classwar from GB was a nice anarchist group though. My organisation in Sweden, Folkmakt (Power to the people) took a lot of inspiration from Classwar.
And the IWW is of course classical, "One big union!". Only problem as I see it is that unions are an intergrated part in das kapital, and because of that have very little chance to actually crush capitalism.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 11:34 PM
I'm a libertarian communist, and I'd rather work with anarchists than with leninists.
But your typical anarchist is not really into classwar, it is just a lifestyle. Classwar-anarchist and anarcho-communists are cool though.
I'm a Anarcho-Communist.....But sadly there aren't any local anarcho-Communist groups in my community...

[Stapler]

ah, the denominations...

[guerrillaradio]

Anarchism makes far more sense than communism. Even Marx realised this.

[Stapler]

How so? do you fully expect a disorganized group of people to peacefully coexist? or are you just angry that someone else holds all the power, and are dissatisfied with your political impotence?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by nz [email protected] 4 2004, 10:11 PM
I bet you (El Infiltrado) generalise all capitalists together? Heres a stereotype "all capitalists and imperialists are scum" oops thats not good for the politically correct liberals, because I lumped all these individuals together, not realising that some may be nice and have families and are onl trying to make a living...
No

Here you have some "nice" stereotypes society created and holds as natural and real things:
- "All communists are totalitarian freedom-hating people"
- "All leftists are rebel kids who know nothing about what they represent"
- "All the people who worries about the environment are tree-hugging hippies who smoke pot all day long"
- "All the poor black people are criminals and should be killed"
- "All the French people are gay socialists"
- "All the poor people is lazy"
- "All the yankees are fat idiots"
- "All female models are dumb"
- "All women don't know how to drive"
- "All women belong to the kitchen and should stay there"
- "All men must like action movies and threat women like in the above sterotype, otherwise they are gays or not real men"
- "All jews are rich and discusting"

Think about the consequences of such stereotypes. What guarantees you that they are true for every single case?

I do not generalize about capitalists being all the same, unless I'm talking about "social darwinist" attitudes.

I don't think you have examined anarchism enough.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 10:18 AM
Feminism isn't a full ideology, its just a school of thought, it doesn't have full enough basis to be a true ideology but it can still provide useful commentary (like in understanding fucking patriarchal manarchist pigs!). Legitimate feminism is socialist, conservative women who hate porn and think women shouldn't be allowed to wear clothing that reveals their neck or go on a diet aren't feminists, they're conservatives fooling themselves, and butch lesbians who for some reason hate men are just bitter people.
What? Please refer to the writings of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, Rutgers has a website of their writings at http://ecssba.rutgers.edu
Cady Stanton created the ideology essentially in her Address on Woman's Rights in 1848, and again in Solitude of Self.
Susan B. Anthony's work speaks for itself, they worked with Matilda Joselyn Gage on the National Woman's Sufferage Association where they composed a great deal of ideology.
Simone de Beauvoir who with her lover Jean Paul Satre met with Che Guevara, and enjoyed their time together wrote her classic in feminist ideology, "The Second Sex" in addition to writing social essays and philosophy on existenialism.
You can view here writings at http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/beav.htm
or http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/beavoir.html

Please research before stating such outrageous statements that belittle the lives of great men and women, even Emma Goldman wrote feminist ideology, although a bit conservative, and yes feminist standpoints have modernized, as you will view in a march on Washington in two weeks time.

As far as Communist theory in regards to Anarchy. I myself have given in to the spirit of Anarchy at times, I have a hard time obeying rules, even if they are just. Am interested in learning more information on Libertarian Communist theory, although I found Germany's work in the 1920's in Socialist Democracy to be interesting as well, but as Rosa Luxembourg said, people were too comfortable to take the real actions needed to ensure a just society and the brown shirts soon took over, similar to the situation in Guatemala with Arbenz

[CorporationsRule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 04:39 PM
How so? do you fully expect a disorganized group of people to peacefully coexist? or are you just angry that someone else holds all the power, and are dissatisfied with your political impotence?
An absence of hierachy that alienates people from descision making procsses doesn't require a lack of organization. In fact, without consciousness and communal organization, hierachy is bound to come with time. Any practical anarchism will embrace organization as a necessity.

And of course we're angry that someone else holds all the power and are dissatisfied with our political impotence. What the hell kind of question is that?