Anarchism .vs. Pure-Communism [Archive]

Blackberry

27th May 2004, 05:00

Originally posted by Edward [email protected] 27 2004, 11:16 AM
...only that anarchists believe anarchy can be established in 24 hours after the revolution...
How absurd that you claim that anarchists wish to establish a classless society "within 24 hours after a revolution". It is recognised by anarchists that social revolution is a process, not an event, although it could possibly be marked by uprisings, insurrections, etc.

It would be absolutely impossible to do away with class difference and create the necessary political, social, and economic institutions that would be required for a fully voluntary, non-hierarchical society "within 24 hours".

You would be correct to say that anarchists wish to start the process to a classless society "from the start", without the creation of a state apparatus or any other hierarchical authority, and "take it from there".

As Peter Kropotkin said, "we know that an uprising can overthrow and change a government in one day, while a revolution needs three or four years of revolutionary convulsion to arrive at tangible results..."

It might even take longer. It might not.

Dr. Rosenpenis

27th May 2004, 05:43

So to answer your question again, NO, they can't be regarded as the same.

James, who will wield power during these three or four years prior to the freedom and peace achieved by these independant, sovereign local collectives? Will there be any organization? Will the guerrillas control everything for these three to four years?

Blackberry

27th May 2004, 06:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 03:43 PM
James, who will wield power during these three or four years prior to the freedom and peace achieved by these independant, sovereign local collectives? Will there be any organization? Will the guerrillas control everything for these three to four years?
There would be, of course, at the very least, a basic structure to the society. The various voluntary, non-hierarchical institutions created at the time would "wield power". There should be co-operation between these various workers' institutions, possibly through the use of syndicalist unions, or through the creation of various levels of federations.

"The guerillas" would not, and should not, control anything. Their function would be to defend from external threat, and not impose its will on people. They would be, and should be, derived from workers' collectives and not separate entities.

A revolution would face many problems, you see, including the disruption of economic activity, civil war, attempted imperialist invastion, and isolation, and it is these constraints that could undermine the development of a fully stateless, classless society.

The introduction of the classless society would come about during a (revolutionary) period "partially", depending on the circumstances at the time. The society would need time to develop and mature. Not everything will be created at once, but over time as the circumstances are overcome.

For example, an institution dedicated to having delegates from a number of local environmental groups on the issue to meet on a quarterly basis on the management of forests may not be created in the face of an external capitalist threat in this "revolutionary period". People would be dedicated to fighting off these forces before they would even bother worrying about forests, as it would seem a trivial thing to do at the time, and possibly a disastrous mistake to make.

Guest1

27th May 2004, 06:12

All ideological nit-picking aside, you could go to the point of saying Communism is Anarchism.

The difference is Leninists believe a middle step is needed in between the revolution and the elimination of class and state.

Not all Communists believe that though, and the difference even with most Leninists is mostly style. We are comrades still, because they do believe in classless, stateless society. Their leaders are a different story all together though.

We're on the same side guys :P

Valkyrie

27th May 2004, 06:14

Yes, That's what he meant, Comrade James,--- that power (and socialist process) will be in the hands of The People, within the 24 hours, so to speak, rather than turned over to a hierarchy. Right, EP?

Guest1

27th May 2004, 06:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:14 AM
Yes, That's what he meant, Comrade James,--- that power (and socialist process) will be in the hands of The People, within the 24 hours, so to speak, rather than turned over to a hierarchy. Right, EP?
Again, that's not what happens. Hierarchy doesn't just "disappear overnight", but we believe we should be fighting it from the beginning. It'll take years, while the revolution is ongoing.

It's a revolution of gains, guerrilla down to the society it is building. Every gain we make, we work towards a non-hierarchical society with. Every factory that is taken begins to collectivize and work towards building the revolution.

That does not mean "change overnight" <_< It means ongoing victories and a war with clear, realistic goals and objectives to be accomplished, that can show results and make people believe in the future.

An approach to conflict the US still hasn't learned, after Vietnam, that we would do well to live by.

Valkyrie

27th May 2004, 06:26

And it can't be discounted that Anarchists are Already, RIGHT NOW, in the process of setting up these various institutions. because they don't need the hierarchial consent to act, are organizing these things now within the structures of the ruling class society. So alot of these things are already going to be in place at certain levels.

Valkyrie

27th May 2004, 06:57

Ooops.. we posted at the same time Che-mari.

again semantics error.. EP said "when the revolution is won"

I tend to view Insurrection to Revolution, the end result, as an almost seamless process. That these ruling class institutions are being taken down and socialist institutions are being built up in it's place DURING The Struggle, i.e. NOW. I always believe the transition takes place during the struggle. Yes, a LONG struggle indeed, BUT when the Revolution is won, it pretty much is already in place. Maybe just a faint blow on a few of the reactionary institutions that remain..and some reappropriation and redistribution, but otherwise.. when the Revolution is won..IT'S WON. A clear victory. With people with places to go and resources to use. That to me is what we are doing and trying to do NOW during the struggle. We can't take away shit, without replacing it with something... NOt to say,that when it's won, it will not need to be consistently defended. Of course We can't lie back on our laurels. .

oh yeah, and I agree, that the society will mature with time and that things will be created on an as need basis.

Anyway.. I just came here to point out that EP was taken out of context.. not split hairs over theory.:)

Blackberry

27th May 2004, 08:02

But you see Valkyrie, my objection was that Edward Penishands pointed out the "communist" alternative as something viable (gradual), but ridiculed the anarchist alternative by including "within 24 hours". Why did he not also say that "communists" believe that the vanguardist state would be set up "within 24 hours" and then say it would gradually "wither away"?

The fact that he takes his definition of anarchism from a non-anarchist (the argument that State and Revolution is a semi-anarchist work is not relevant in this case) does not suggest that he has the credibility to answer such a question on anarchism. Why did he not take from an anarchist source?

Now, when I speak of the institutions to be created, I do not speak of the institutions being created now at all. I speak specifically of the various workers' collectives (workplaces in specific), and the consequent federations that should be set up. It is extremely unlikely that even a tenth of these would be set up by the time the overthrow of the state has taken place. There would have to be a rapid continuation of development of these to satisfy needs, as it is unlikely that during the attempted overthrow of the state that many will be set up. People would be too preoccupied physically fighting.

The change to a fully stateless, classless society would be the end of the revolution, and that would not happen with the smashing of the state machinery. It would be the end well after that. That is what I mean by revolution.

When Penishands spoke of revolution, he meant only the destruction of the state, which is why I objected. When you say revolution, you agree very much with his own meaning, and so you thought I misinterpreted him.

It is a matter of definition.

But my explanation of the specifics of what Penishands said should show that I did not misinterpret him. He showed contempt of the anarchist alternative.

Valkyrie

27th May 2004, 09:50

:) I know it's late and I without sleep... 5:30 a.m. here in NY. however.. I am sure I saw an altogether different post when I first began replying to this.... Anyway...

I agree with you about the building of worker collectives and federations, and some institutions... yes, that would be an ongoing process. and dependent on regional needs and so forth. and either/ both revolutionary paths will be gradual.. But, What I'm referring to is that a successful Completion of the Overthrow of the State and the overthrow of the ruling class, is that one qualifying factor is that the basic operations of a functional society are in place, such as water, electric, transportation, natural resources, --Those basic strategical points which tells who is in control, -- the people or the opposition, -- and will HAVE to be in place and in possession of society and operating at some level of effieciency, (Yes, we can take those things) otherwise we're still in the Coup stages and society would indeed grind to a halt. The major fear against anarchism.

Not sure where else I was going with this.. But.. I agree with the points on everything else.

h&s

27th May 2004, 10:10

At the end of the day, communists and anarchists want the same thing, so we should not argue, instead we should join together. There have been too many times in history where socialists, communists, and anarchists have refused to work together, leading to fascists getting into power.
We should sort out our differences when we get into power.

Valkyrie

27th May 2004, 11:58

Hammer & Sickle - I totally agree!!!!

Comrade James, rereading my post.. I see I went off on a small tangent and not really addressed your points at all, which I agree with in that there will be alot of post revolutionary setting up and adjusting period. I was basically referring to the strategy of parallel resources, and societies as one way of getting there and imperative that major resources are in place at the onset, post-struggle.

Still, I'm pretty sure EP was not intentionally denigrating anarchism as he was also speaking post revolution and seems to have given the quick, short answer.

anyway, everyone has their own ideas of how it might best work. I, myself, listen to them all of them, at this point.

Peace!!!

Subversive Pessimist

27th May 2004, 14:10

Blackberry

27th May 2004, 15:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 11:08 AM
My question is this, since anarchism is society working together for the better of society where there is no govt, just one big govt of the people, and pure-communism is the exact same. Is it correct to say that Anarchists are Communists and visa versa? If I'm wrong please inform me.
It just occurred to me that Robob8760's question was never answered. The whole topic digressed.

There is a seemingly limitless amount of different ideas and trends within anarchism, that could or could not be "the same" or compatible as "pure communism".

"Pure communism" appears to be the same as the anarcho-communist and anarcho-collectivist trends within anarchism. However, it should be noted that when speaking of "communist" and "collectivist" in anarchist terms, they have more precise meanings.

An anarchist society is a voluntary, non-hierarchical society based on the creation of political and social structures which are formed on the basis of equal decision making power and which allow all people equal access to society's wealth.

Source: http://www.takver.com/history/meetings/c1990lw.htm

Anarcho-collectivists consider the end of private ownership of the means of production to be the key. Most anarcho-collectivists think that, over time, as production increases and the sense of community becomes stronger, money will disappear. They agree that, in the end, society would be run along the lines suggested by the maxim, "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."

Anarcho-communists believe that the community should be the basis of society and is the communal ownership of means of production and of consumption. They also consider the abolition of money to be essential in an anarchist society. They also agree that, in the end, society would be run along the lines suggested by the maxim, "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."

Source: http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6421

robob8706

27th May 2004, 16:05

Thanks James

Valkyrie

27th May 2004, 21:02

>>>"The change to a fully stateless, classless society would be the end of the revolution, and that would not happen with the smashing of the state machinery. It would be the end well after that. That is what I mean by revolution.

When Penishands spoke of revolution, he meant only the destruction of the state, which is why I objected. When you say revolution, you agree very much with his own meaning, and so you thought I misinterpreted him.

It is a matter of definition."<<<<<

I don't want to be taken out of context either. I am going to try to be really careful in my wording here!!!! When I refer to revolution.. I am referring to the entire process.. encompassing collective conciousness to insurrection.. to the end condition of a transformed society held by the people that was previously held by the ruling class.

I agree with your first paragraph above.

The second paragraph I don't agree. Just in the fact that I believe that the people MUST be in posssession of the MEANS that keep the ruling class in power before one can even claim that a successful overthrow of the ruling class and thus the inception and the carrying out of the new society, (revolution or what ever you want to call it) would not confer any truth in that statement.

In other words... I don't believe that we are going to knock on the door of the white house and tell the ruling class at gunpoint.. that they have to leave.. because we are in possession of some weapons..

I think, (and am well aware that I'm in the minority thinking this) that The People are going to have to be in possession of these Means of the things of the ruling class,--- production, resources, economy etc.. and there will be no question as to who is now in charge of society and then.. after that.. the loose ends of setting things up will be carried out from there. How the means are to be seized is by insurrectional uprising. Not necessarily armed.. however.

that pretty much is my particular view in a nutshell in regard to both communism and anarchism. And I am sure I didn't explain it in the best of terms, still.

Valkyrie

27th May 2004, 21:22

Enough for me on this thread.. as I try to make it a habit to avoid these types of circular arguments, because I end up being taken out of context and misinterpretated. I think Both me and Edward Penishands have been with regards to the claim that we think revolution means (only) the destruction of The State, and his use of referencing "The State and Revolution." The State and Revolution is just a scholary attempt on Lenin's part to explain certain points of Marx/Engels and does not really follow a strong premise, is quite weak, in fact, where it disagrees with anarchist theories.

APOLOGIES TO REBOB.

here are some links that might answer your questions.

http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/marxismfaq.asp

www.anarchyfaq.org

I just found a condensed version of the FAQ that is easier to read.

http://www.anarchy.be/anarchie/teksten/anarchyfaq.html

Raisa

28th May 2004, 18:26

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 27 2004, 10:10 AM
At the end of the day, communists and anarchists want the same thing, so we should not argue, instead we should join together. There have been too many times in history where socialists, communists, and anarchists have refused to work together, leading to fascists getting into power.
We should sort out our differences when we get into power.
WOW cool!
So how do we go about doing this then....a communist democracy?

h&s

29th May 2004, 10:04

Yeah, its possible. If all of the leftists join together and get voted in we could do so much to improve the way things are done that the people wouldn't want to vote for anyone else once we get into power.
The press wouldn't be able to do much because I'd ban anyone from owning more than one newspaper or tv network, stopping murdoch from doing anything!
Its hard, but its possible.

The Feral Underclass

29th May 2004, 14:40

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 29 2004, 12:04 PM
Yeah, its possible. If all of the leftists join together and get voted in we could do so much to improve the way things are done that the people wouldn't want to vote for anyone else once we get into power.
The point of changing society is not to simply improve it but to completely change it. Oppression, exploitation, alienation are all products of capitalism and the state. These things have to be removed if we want to achieve a communist society. Using bourgeois politics to achieve bourgeois power will not change anything significantly.

The press wouldn't be able to do much because I'd ban anyone from owning more than one newspaper or tv network,

So in order to unify the left and change society you want to use the authority of the state to enforce your laws on people?

stopping murdoch from doing anything!

That won't stop people like Murdoch, it just gives them a reason to become more aggressive. Do you think the military, the huge business tycoons, the people who run the intelligence and police services are just going to sit back and allow you to destroy them? Of course not. As soon as you threaten their power and wealth they will use all they have to stop you. They have the power and the wealth to do that.

Its hard, but its possible.

I suppose it depends on what it is you want to make possible?

elijahcraig

30th May 2004, 18:27

Oppression, exploitation, alienation are all products of capitalism and the state.

There was oppression, exploitation, alienation before capitalism and before the state. You are wrong and pathetically wrong.

The Feral Underclass

30th May 2004, 19:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 08:27 PM
There was oppression, exploitation, alienation before capitalism and before the state. You are wrong and pathetically wrong.
I agree, you are correct they did exist before capitalism. However, I don't think it alters the point I was trying to make. They exist because of the political and economic system that we live under and won't cease to exist until those things are smashed.

elijahcraig

30th May 2004, 19:47

No, the economic and political systems are caused by human nature--not the other way around, as Kubrick once said in an interview. Oppression and exploitation are not the results of economics but of human nature.

It is simply illogical to view it the other way around. And the only defense is to oppose the concept of human nature, which scientists and religious sages both view as real and not "made up," though there are some things like "greed" which are myths.

The Feral Underclass

30th May 2004, 19:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 09:47 PM
No, the economic and political systems are caused by human nature
Human nature being what? instinct? I agree. Those instincts did create our economic and political structures, and they way they were created was not suprising either.

Oppression and exploitation are not the results of economics but of human nature.

No, they are the result of our economic and political structures which our instincts to survive, or human nature developed through out history.

It is simply illogical to view it the other way around.

I agree with your first assertion, but to then claim that human nature also created oppression and exploitation is not true. Human nature, or instinct to survive, created our political and economic structures. They inturn created these facts. Oppression and exploitation are products of those creations.

elijahcraig

30th May 2004, 20:39

Human nature being what? instinct? I agree. Those instincts did create our economic and political structures, and they way they were created was not suprising either.

We do not know human nature. Art occasionally gives us a glimpse. All we know is that whatever it is, it created our political and economic realities.

No, they are the result of our economic and political structures which our instincts to survive, or human nature developed through out history.

I don’t disagree here, human nature producing economic and political structures though.

I agree with your first assertion, but to then claim that human nature also created oppression and exploitation is not true. Human nature, or instinct to survive, created our political and economic structures. They inturn created these facts. Oppression and exploitation are products of those creations.

I don’t like your defining human nature, first off. I also don’t like the idea that oppression and exploitation are not natural. They are very natural. They are also not something you can take away. You can change economic systems, which will help people out in their normal and practical existence, but in the existential existence of man, oppression is an unconditional point.

Comrade Clint

31st May 2004, 03:15

Something ive always wondered about anarchy. There are always those people with the urge to do bad things rape, murder etc etc. If there is no hierarchy what do we do. And would it not be easy for one person to just be greedy and take control and establish a government. I dont know much about anarchy so please...with your responses dont kill me :unsure:

pandora

31st May 2004, 04:17

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 30 2004, 11:25 PM
[

Oppression and exploitation are not the results of economics but of human nature.

No, they are the result of our economic and political structures which our instincts to survive, or human nature developed through out history.

I agree, this once again goes back to the old war between the Rationalists and the Enlightenment thinkers, I for one prefer the people are good at heart Enlightenment thinkers and their results have been much more profound.

Doctrine should speak to what is good in the human heart and lead the way, not accept ignorance and greed as factual realities when reality is so much more sublime.

Laws that really do rally equality have profound affects on society, and change the way people think of themselves in that society.

elijahcraig

31st May 2004, 04:28

"good" in the human heart. :lol:

The Feral Underclass

31st May 2004, 07:05

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 31 2004, 05:15 AM
There are always those people with the urge to do bad things rape, murder etc etc. If there is no hierarchy what do we do.
This is a question of authority. Anarchism rejects authority as inherently wrong and fundamentall opposed to workers liberation. However, when we talk about authority we have to define what authority is. The kind of authority anarchism rejects is the authority that one human being has the right to control the actions, thoughts, movements or decisions of another human being. By doing so, you are limiting their freedom to exist, which in turn creates feelings of disempowerment and to some extent alienation.

The problem here is that there are many different types of authority which can be classed as authority over someone. Chomsky thinks that some forms of authority however can be justified. I agree with him.~

Take for instance when your walking in a busy street and your mother or father steps out into the middle of the road and infront of a moving vehicle, you grab that person and pull the back. That is a form of authority. You exerted yourself over another human being. But it can be argued, rightly, that this is justified.

I think the same applies for murderers and rapists. I believe that in a communist society, by the very nature of how it happened, murderers and rapists will be far and few. We don't know for certain what makes people behave like this. Maybe it is the alienation and disempowerment of society that leads them to acts like this, who knows. Regardless, I think that if someone was tyring to murder someone, or if someone was tryng to rape someone, it would be justifiable to use authority to stop them. And maybe we can help them, learn from them, and work out how we can stop these kinds of things from happening.

And would it not be easy for one person to just be greedy and take control and establish a government. I dont know much about anarchy so please...with your responses dont kill me :unsure:

I think it would be extremly difficult for an individual to amass so much support as to suddenly become so powerful he could establish an entire government. Society will be collectivised and communally owned without leaders etc with the entire community protecting and guarding against things like this. If a charismatic figure did crop up I think people would notice it very quickly, and act to stop it.

The Feral Underclass

31st May 2004, 07:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 06:28 AM
"good" in the human heart. :lol:
I think it was a metaphor... ;)

The Feral Underclass

31st May 2004, 07:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 10:39 PM
We do not know human nature.
When we are born, we are not programmed with any preconditions about ourselves or about our surroundings. Human nature doesnt exist, until it is created by your social conditions. Instinct however, could be defined as human nature.

I also don’t like the idea that oppression and exploitation are not natural.

It would some how hamper your Stalinist justification wouldn't it....Damn guilt! Damn it to hell!

They are very natural.

As natural as wearing clothes and driving around in a car?

They are also not something you can take away.

The creation of a communist society would do just nicly.

You can change economic systems, which will help people out in their normal and practical existence, but in the existential existence of man, oppression is an unconditional point.

Oppression is a man made concept! It isn't innate in humanity. This is as absurd as saying "good in the human heart." Just as the heart is an organ designed to pump blood around the body and is incapable of emotion, oppression is a man made concept, desgined to perpetrate a ruling class agenda and is capable of being destroyed.

elijahcraig

1st June 2004, 05:08

When we are born, we are not programmed with any preconditions about ourselves or about our surroundings. Human nature doesnt exist, until it is created by your social conditions. Instinct however, could be defined as human nature.

That is partially true, but you exaggerate it to such a degree that the theory goes out the window—some things in human nature have always existed, no matter the social conditions. You are attempting to do what Foucault did, and you as he was are wrong.

It would some how hamper your Stalinist justification wouldn't it....Damn guilt! Damn it to hell!

It’s not a Stalinist justification, it’s a Nietzschean realization.

As natural as wearing clothes and driving around in a car?

NO—as having two arms and having to BREATHE. Lol

The creation of a communist society would do just nicly.

Sounds like something a teletubby would say.

Oppression is a man made concept! It isn't innate in humanity. This is as absurd as saying "good in the human heart."

There is such a thing as “good in the human heart”—it is not the same as saying oppression is in the human nature.

Just as the heart is an organ designed to pump blood around the body and is incapable of emotion, oppression is a man made concept, desgined to perpetrate a ruling class agenda and is capable of being destroyed.

I don’t get the comparison.

The Feral Underclass

1st June 2004, 06:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 07:08 AM
There is such a thing as “good in the human heart”—it is not the same as saying oppression is in the human nature.
Really? Is that a materialist approach?

I don’t get the comparison.

They are both unalterable facts.

h&s

1st June 2004, 10:13

The Anarchist Tension, on what I said before ; I was rushing so I didn't put half of what I wanted to say in it.
What I meant was for, in England, to get voted in as a united leftist party, and then use the old capitialistic power to straight away nationalise the railways, private hospitals, schools, etc.
Then we would use that power to create power to scrap the house of Lords, and over the 5 year term gradually de-centralise the government to more regional, anarchist/soviet councils.
Then, when the next general election comes, it would be easier to get voted back in, and then continue the de-centalisation and then put the restrictions on the big business.

The Feral Underclass

1st June 2004, 10:26

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 1 2004, 12:13 PM
What I meant was for, in England, to get voted in as a united leftist party, and then use the old capitialistic power to straight away nationalise the railways, private hospitals, schools, etc.
It would be extremly difficult to re-nationalise companies. How do you plan to get them back. Buy them? Use force? Many companies are owned by foreign firms such as the US. How do you propose to re-nationalise these?

Then we would use that power to create power to scrap the house of Lords, and over the 5 year term gradually de-centralise the government to more regional, anarchist/soviet councils.

But how do you stop exploitation?

How are you going to prevent the armed forces, big business and foreign intelligence services from sabataging or outright destroying your attempts. You are taking power away from them, using the system that is designed to protect them. They are not going to sit back and just let you do that.

Then, when the next general election comes, it would be easier to get voted back in, and then continue the de-centalisation and then put the restrictions on the big business.

But when Karl Marx wrote his literature he enviseged a world that was stateless, non-hierarchical, without government, without wage slavery and thus classless. How do you propose to create this society using the present day bourgeois structure?

What happens when big business start giving money to the opposition parties, such as a Nazi party, because when it comes down to it capitalists will rather have Nazis in power than communists. What happens when they mount a huge campaign to make you look bad. They are good at twisting things. These people don't play clean. Then a Nazi party in power?

You can not use bourgeois politics to achieve communism.

But im not sure that's even what you want?

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

h&s

1st June 2004, 13:20

You can not use bourgeois politics to achieve communism.

Yeah, but we're never going to succeed with a revolution are we?

It would be extremly difficult to re-nationalise companies. How do you plan to get them back. Buy them? Use force? Many companies are owned by foreign firms such as the US. How do you propose to re-nationalise these?

The railways would be easy to nationalise as the party that privatised them now regrets it.

How would you get the power?

The Feral Underclass

1st June 2004, 14:30

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 1 2004, 03:20 PM
Yeah, but we're never going to succeed with a revolution are we?
Why?

The railways would be easy to nationalise as the party that privatised them now regrets it.

And then what?

How would you get the power?

For me, I would want to be apart of a movement fighting to create a communist society. Building a movement so that at some point in our history, we can challange capitalism and the state, remove them, and create a communist society.

Edward Penishands

1st June 2004, 23:22

Originally posted by Comrade James+May 27 2004, 05:00 AM--> (Comrade James @ May 27 2004, 05:00 AM)
Edward [email protected] 27 2004, 11:16 AM
...only that anarchists believe anarchy can be established in 24 hours after the revolution...
How absurd that you claim that anarchists wish to establish a classless society "within 24 hours after a revolution". It is recognised by anarchists that social revolution is a process, not an event, although it could possibly be marked by uprisings, insurrections, etc.

It would be absolutely impossible to do away with class difference and create the necessary political, social, and economic institutions that would be required for a fully voluntary, non-hierarchical society "within 24 hours".

You would be correct to say that anarchists wish to start the process to a classless society "from the start", without the creation of a state apparatus or any other hierarchical authority, and "take it from there".

As Peter Kropotkin said, "we know that an uprising can overthrow and change a government in one day, while a revolution needs three or four years of revolutionary convulsion to arrive at tangible results..."

It might even take longer. It might not. [/b]
I've got to tip-toe through the tulips for you guys. I can only post a couple of times a week--- due to logistical and transportation problems---so I should be more lucid and clear than usual.

Comerade James:

I was quoting Lenin about the 24 hours and he did say that in State and Revolution but of course he didn't mean it literally that anarchists want to create anarchism in 24 hours. He meant that anarchists wanted to act in a rash and reckless manner to institute a classless and free society devoid of governmental authority. If you 've read Alexander Berkman's The ABC of Communist Anarchism you will see what I mean. Berkman and his allies disagreed with the Bolsheviks not handing complete control to the people. Then again Lenin didn't implement what he proposed in his book State and Revolution because if you look at his NEP program---that is not communism. He was pitting Western capitalist against Western capitalist to develop the Soviet Union. Then again the Soviet Union was facing tremendous inerventions from the U.S., France, U.K., Japan etc.

For my own part, I tend to agree with Lenin on this issue. If the anarchists had their way and deviate from what Lenin promulgated in State and Revolution
society would be vulnerable to a popular military leader who would want to "restore order" and set up a personal dictatorship. The world saw that when Napolean Bonaparte assumed power. I know that if the precepts of State and Revolution were applied we would move gradually but surely toward that Utopia which has been eluding mankind for all our recorded history.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...rev/ch04.htm#s2 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch04.htm#s2)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/

The Feral Underclass

2nd June 2004, 06:55

Originally posted by Edward [email protected] 2 2004, 01:22 AM
For my own part, I tend to agree with Lenin on this issue. If the anarchists had their way and deviate from what Lenin promulgated in State and Revolution
society would be vulnerable to a popular military leader who would want to "restore order" and set up a personal dictatorship.
What proof do you have for that?

How do you explain Makhano?

The world saw that when Napolean Bonaparte assumed power.

That was a bourgeois revolution!

I know that if the precepts of State and Revolution were applied we would move gradually but surely toward that Utopia which has been eluding mankind for all our recorded history.

'State and Revolution' did lead to its logical conclusion...