Is anarchism communism?

[Postteen]

Anarchism is the final level of communisn right?
So in order to be an anarchist you have to be a communist,don't you?I mean anarchism can't start from the nowhere!There must be communism first. :blink:

Anyway,yes i'm an anarchist,i believe in anarchism as the final stage of communisn as i said

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Beatle [email protected] 15 2004, 12:21 PM
Anarchism is the final level of communisn right?
Yes.


So in order to be an anarchist you have to be a communist,

Not necessarily. Though socially and politically anarchism and communism are the same, economically they aren't. One of the main variants of anarchism is anarcho-communism or anarchist communism which advocates a communist style of economic organisation. Also, the wterm communism is classically used to define Marxists which stands in opposition to anarchism because of its state and authority ideals.


I mean anarchism can't start from the nowhere!There must be communism first.

Marxists and Leninists believe that there must be a transition from capitalism to communism which requires the perpetration of the state. Anarchists, although they recognize that the transition to communism can not happen in one fell-swoop, also recognize that the state is inherently bad and will ultimatly, always corrupt, leading to a dictatorship of the party, or as history has shown, the dictatorship of one man.

Anarchism for Dummies (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6421)

[Postteen]

Marx and Engels were totally against anarchism!They said that for anarchisn the key of the solution is the individual and its personal benefits' wheras,for marxism the benefits of the working masses come first.Anarchism and Marxism are two ideologies completely opposite,says a communistic dictionary i have.

Stalin has also written a book called"Anarchism or Socialism?"in which he criticises anarchism.In addition,anarchists state that they're enemies of the state generally,but they really hate the dictatoship of the proletariat.(!!)

Lenin said that "with the pretext that they refuse any political authority,anarchists,subdue the working class to the middle(civil)class.!!
I can see that many people from here are anarchists so,what doyou think?

[elijahcraig]

I advise you to look at TAT's answers and believe the opposite.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Beatle [email protected] 21 2004, 11:51 PM
Marx and Engels were totally against anarchism!
Yes they did.


They said that for anarchisn the key of the solution is the individual and its personal benefits' wheras,for marxism the benefits of the working masses come first.

They were either puposefully attempting to distort anarchism for their own benifit, or they misunderstood.

The main variants of anarchism all advocate liberation for the working class, by the working class themselves.


Anarchism and Marxism are two ideologies completely opposite,says a communistic dictionary i have.

They are to some degree. Most variants of anarchism follow Marx's analysis of capitalism and history, they just don't agree with his ideas of the state.

Communism isn't exclusivly Marxist. Marxism is a theory of how to get to communism.


Stalin has also written a book called"Anarchism or Socialism?"in which he criticises anarchism.

Of course he would criticise it, he was a dictator.


In addition,anarchists state that they're enemies of the state generally,but they really hate the dictatoship of the proletariat.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a continuation of the state, of course anarchists oppose it.


Lenin said that "with the pretext that they refuse any political authority,anarchists,subdue the working class to the middle(civil)class.!!

What is political authority? The act of the majority against the minority to assert itself as a free class, or the domination of a leadership?

[elijahcraig]

Of course he would criticise it, he was a dictator.

That was written in 1907...but i'm a criple, please help me?

Some quotes from the comrade who wrote the work:


We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies.


Proudhon, the "father" of the Anarchists, said that there existed in the world an immutable justice determined once and for all, which must be made the basis of future society. That is why Proudhon has been called a metaphysician. Marx fought Proudhon with the aid of the dialectical method and proved that since every thing in the world changes, "justice" must aIso change, and that, consequently, "immutable justice" is metaphysical nonsense (see K. Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy). The Georgian disciples of the metaphysician Proudhon, however, keep reiterating that "Marx's dialectics is metaphysics"!


One of two things: either the Anarchists are deceiving themselves, or else they do not know what they are talking about.


Messieurs the Anarchists confused these two mutually negating dictatorships and thereby put themselves in a ridiculous position: they are fighting not Marxism but the figments of their own imagination, they are fighting not Marx and Engels but windmills, as Don Quixote of blessed memory did in his day. . . .

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 04:49 PM
but i'm a criple, please help me?
How sad...it's asking for help!


We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism.

Only in the relms of sectarianism.


Proudhon, the "father" of the Anarchists, said that there existed in the world an immutable justice determined once and for all, which must be made the basis of future society.

Once we agree, it exists.


One of two things: either the Anarchists are deceiving themselves, or else they do not know what they are talking about.

How is this a refutation of anarchism?


Messieurs the Anarchists confused these two mutually negating dictatorships and thereby put themselves in a ridiculous position: they are fighting not Marxism but the figments of their own imagination, they are fighting not Marx and Engels but windmills, as Don Quixote of blessed memory did in his day. . . .

Bakunin's predictions were right, and it is not that we do not understand the apparent difference, it is that in reality, when the theory is applied, they are actually the same thing.

[Daymare17]

One can argue for weeks on forums like these and never get anywhere.

If one wants to learn it's much better to read texts and books.

A short explanation of the Marxist attitude to anarchism: http://www.marxist.com/Theory/direct_action.html

Plekhanov's Anarchism and Socialism is also good.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/...narch/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1895/anarch/index.htm)

[elijahcraig]

How is this a refutation of anarchism?

It's not, it's a quote taken out which I like, you can read the whole work for his refutations.


Only in the relms of sectarianism.

?


[Bakunin's predictions were right, and it is not that we do not understand the apparent difference, it is that in reality, when the theory is applied, they are actually the same thing.

No, they were not "right".

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 05:24 PM
?
I'm not a "real" enemy of Marxists, I just disagree with them. I have and will continue to work with them if needs be. Anarchists have also historically worked along side marxists, in Spain and in Russia.


No, they were not "right".

Oh really...

[elijahcraig]

I'm not a "real" enemy of Marxists, I just disagree with them. I have and will continue to work with them if needs be. Anarchists have also historically worked along side marxists, in Spain and in Russia.

In revolutionary times, anarchists historically have called for rebellion against the new socialist revolution. Russia for example. And they were put down, like enemies.

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 06:48 PM

In revolutionary times, anarchists historically have called for rebellion against the new socialist revolution. Russia for example. And they were put down, like enemies.
oi oi man there you are with red faschits thoughts ,revolution didnt work because they (cococ) couldn't get out class discriminetion,they even made a new one in the name of revolution,those poor proletairs can't think so let think for them (sure they new wat struggling for your life was,those petty bourgeois who never put theire hand in the grease,they sure had all the time to think about theory.)
it's not working,the red the black,it all bullshit,an other way to get us apart.Wake up,men be yourself.
and i can again bring you to Kronstadt or Makhno.they really fought there not for an idea or a theory.

[elijahcraig]

oi oi man there you are with red faschits thoughts ,

Stealing from Chomsky or Bakunin?


revolution didnt work because they (cococ) couldn't get out class discriminetion,they even made a new one in the name of revolution,those poor proletairs can't think so let think for them (sure they new wat struggling for your life was,those petty bourgeois who never put theire hand in the grease,they sure had all the time to think about theory.)

You've lost me.

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 08:05 PM

Stealing from Chomsky or Bakunin?



You've lost me.
never ! i 'm ,and i think.and i thought i will lost you,meaning by that did they knew what a worker life is.
working 60 or more hours comming home empty did they knew or even get any smack of it.
petty bougeois with petty theory other people who just berely can survive.sitting and debating over proletaria
:ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

[elijahcraig]

Learn english, for'ner.

[gaf]

does english speaking people work?.then we can speak the same language.petit bourgeoi que tu es

[elijahcraig]

Wow, you really are an idiot.

[gaf]

that's make two of us,i just thought the same over you.arrogant bastard :P :P :P

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 08:48 PM
In revolutionary times, anarchists historically have called for rebellion against the new socialist revolution. Russia for example. And they were put down, like enemies.
When it became clear that the dictatorship of the proletariat was becoming the dictatorship of the party something had to be done to attempt to save the revolution. It failed.

I also think there has to be a point where Marxists and anarchists can have a dialogue. We cannot make these mistakes again.

[elijahcraig]

I disagree, but there really isn't much else to say about it other than that.

[MiniOswald]

you see heres what i dont get about anarchism, once we've got this society where everyone distributes equally and we all help each other, whos going to be there to stop people trying to take liberties. I mean with a leninist society you would have centralised police forces and strong court systems to deal with all these people. I also dont think that leninism must always end in a dictatorship, the only reason it has been so far is because all the leaders have been paranoid to a certain degree, even lenin was he didnt have to kill the landowners simply stripping them of their power would have been enough. But hey i guess theres a lot of you who just think im naive for thinking that a good leader can be found and that the leninist state can exist. and yes im aware that i use fronted conjunctions.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 12:45 AM
you see heres what i dont get about anarchism, once we've got this society where everyone distributes equally and we all help each other, whos going to be there to stop people trying to take liberties.
The community.


I mean with a leninist society you would have centralised police forces and strong court systems to deal with all these people.

That's not the kind of world Lenin wanted to create.


I also dont think that leninism must always end in a dictatorship, the only reason it has been so far is because all the leaders have been paranoid to a certain degree,

The nature of the state makes this happen. It corrupts, it creates power which shouldnt be used to create communism.


that the leninist state can exist.

Of course it can exist. It can exist very well, and achieve all its objectives, except one. Withering away. The progress to communism is impossible. And it was Lenin who said "when there is a state there will be no freedom, when there is freedom, there will be no state."

[elijahcraig]

That's not the kind of world Lenin wanted to create.

How can you know the "intentions of Lenin"?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 12:09 PM

How can you know the "intentions of Lenin"?
Read 'State and Revolution' elijah.......... :lol:

[elijahcraig]

It doesn't say ANYTHING about "no law" and "no fair courts"...dumbass.

Stop being so fucking evasive and show me proof of your statement.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 12:57 PM
It doesn't say ANYTHING about "no law" and "no fair courts"...dumbass.
where did the conversation get to "law" and "fair courts"...I was talking about strong courts, and centralised police forces!


Stop being so fucking evasive and show me proof of your statement.

Show you proof?...are you completely insane? :blink:

State and Revolution has an entire sectiond dedicated to the discussion of a transition to communism....A stateless, classless, society!

Strong courts, and centralised police forces are state institutions which will no longer be needed in a communist society...there will be no state!

It would seem after all it is you who hasnt read the book.

[elijahcraig]

where did the conversation get to "law" and "fair courts"...I was talking about strong courts, and centralised police forces!

YOu said he wanted no strong courts or centralized police forces, prove this.


Strong courts, and centralised police forces are state institutions which will no longer be needed in a communist society...there will be no state!

Yes, you fucking dumb ass--it's a TRANSITION period, and about the time DURING THE REVOLUTION. He isn't talking about having police forces in a classless society.

Once again you prove that you have only read bits and pieces of Lenin through...what, the Anarchist FAQ or the Blackened Flag? Moron.

He also says that DEMOCRACY itself disappears with the state..so he obviously doesn't expect centralized police forces to exist in this time.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 01:49 PM
YOu said he wanted no strong courts or centralized police forces, prove this.
How could you have something which was centralised without a state? As Lenin wanted to create a stateless society it follows that he didn't think a centralised police force could exist, or was even necessary.

Strong court. Strong for whom? With what purpose? Again, courts are institutions of the state, and as Lenin wanted to create a stateless society, how could these strong courts exist?


Yes, you fucking dumb ass

You turn me on so much...


it's a TRANSITION period, and about the time DURING THE REVOLUTION. He isn't talking about having police forces in a classless society.

Minioswald specifically refers to a Leninist state. Re-read the thread and get on track elijah.


Once again you prove that you have only read bits and pieces of Lenin through...what, the Anarchist FAQ or the Blackened Flag? Moron.

Look, it isnt my fault your inept at life elijah...Just because you're wrong doenst mean you have to insult people...This isnt a competition...Daddies not watching now elijah!

[elijahcraig]

How could you have something which was centralised without a state? As Lenin wanted to create a stateless society it follows that he didn't think a centralised police force could exist, or was even necessary.

He speaks of what will exist under the socialist transition. The same answer for the court issue.

He does not speak in the book about "what will exist under communism" beyond a vague and general description. He obviously believes there will be no centralized forces under the state in stateless communism because it is an obvious contradiction.

Not that hard to understand.


You turn me on so much...

You're very masochistic so I talk dirty to you to get you hard and big (well, how big you CAN get, which isn't "big" in any sense), then press your head to the mattress and do my job. I usually let you masturbate afterwords if you haven't already cummed. Then I throw you out into the street to go make me money turning tricks with the elderly business men. You suck them off, but they're usually to limp to assfuck (or so your journal says).


Minioswald specifically refers to a Leninist state. Re-read the thread and get on track elijah.

Yes, a STATE, not a stateless communist society. I don't understand what you mean by a "Leninist state" if you don't mean the transitional socialist state.

[The Feral Underclass]

Like I said...re-read the thread and get on track.

[elijahcraig]

So we're agreeing really? I'm confused because the guy at the top of the page doesn't know the difference between "communism" and "leninist society" (where he uses it as a term describing the socialist transition).

I'm glad I wasted my time.

[The Feral Underclass]

You shouldn't hate me so hard...

[elijahcraig]

[insert dirty joke]

[MiniOswald]

kk fine in which case i guess i aint leninist then, cos id rather keeps a state, id keep it as a means of organisation and as a way of having centralised forces that could stop rogue factions breaking out, i mean it wouldnt be hard for someone in the vast expanses of russia to get a well trained gang and start runnin into towns and stealin everything, shooting anyone who gets in the way. I mean whos gonna stop these people? a lynching mob with no direction?
I still dont see why the power must always corrupt as well, as long as you have the right people getting into power you should be ok, and if u dont, then roit and kill him and get another one.

[DaCuBaN]

There's a fundamental flaw in your thinking here...


whos gonna stop these people? a lynching mob with no direction?

and


as long as you have the right people getting into power you should be ok, and if u dont, then roit and kill him and get another one

So the same mob that has no direction is expected to overthrow the guy who runs the entire country ?

One of these has to be incorrect for the other to stand.

For the record, it would seem you are a Leninist.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 05:49 PM
kk fine in which case i guess i aint leninist then, cos id rather keeps a state, id keep it as a means of organisation and as a way of having centralised forces that could stop rogue factions breaking out
No, it means you're not a Marxist :P

*puts the sectarian-pointy-finger down*

Seriously, you should think about the sources for most crime these days. I think you'll be surprised to find that both Marx and the Anarchists were right to say that a state will not be needed when there are no classes.

Or should I say neither a state nor classes are needed? :blink: It all depends on how you look at it...

[MiniOswald]

i thought leninists wanted the state to gradually dissolve?

anyways, with my lynching mobs, i mean with enough people they can simple swarm into wherever mr dictator is and chuck him out cant they? i mean imagine if all of london swarmed 10. downing street, lynching works there, but if 50 well armed, well trained guys attacked a village in north scotland, what could a mob of some scotish villagers do?

[DaCuBaN]

Wait for them to leave, and if they don't we'll set the haggi on them. Evil little buggers they are ;)

[MiniOswald]

didnt think of Haggi, changes the situation somewhat