Am I an anarchist or a communist?

[Subversive Pessimist]

I don't know... So I wanted to ask you guys...

- I'm anti death penalty...
- Believe in that work should be volentary, and that everyone should basically get what they need.
- I'm against authotarian systems.
- I don't think we should use methods like punishment, or putting people in a cage for the rest of their lifes.
- I think it's the individuals choice what they do with their own body, as long as it does not inflict pain or control over others.
-Anti capitalism

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Communist with a view to anarchism in the end which all communists believe, that state withers away.

[Subversive Pessimist]

I think it should be done systematically (sp?). I don't think it can just wither away. So basically, there is no difference between communists and anarchists, except, that the communists believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat?
:unsure:

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well communists believe in a kind of state to suppress the workers enemies, anarchists believe the sate should be ourtight destroyed because the dictatorship of the proletariat will lead to oppression again, greatest example of course USSR.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected]Jun 28 2004, 05:37 PM
Well communists believe in a kind of state to suppress the workers enemies
This is Marxism, who's objective is communism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Actually it is Marxist-Leninists who believe in a 'worker's state'

[T_SP]

Trotskyists too! :) :D :P

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:47 PM
Trotskyists too! :) :D :P
:rolleyes:

That's nothing to be proud of!

[Subversive Pessimist]

Can I just ask, I've been a little confused over the time... Why are Trotskyist being talked to like they are Quislings, traitors etc.? What is wrong with them, and what is Trotskyism? Thanks :)

[elijahcraig]

Actually it is Marxist-Leninists who believe in a 'worker's state'

No it's not. That's why Bakunin and Marx had the controversy.

It's amazing to me how much the words of an old geezer like RS have gone to some people's heads.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well coming from a Leninist I am not surprised. How low will you sink to protect your place among the 'special' people who form the vangaurd?

[elijahcraig]

^^That is so used-up, it's just sad you can't come up with your own comedy.

Do you even know what I am talking about when I say the "controversey between Bakunin and Marx"?

Or did RS tell you that one was a "Leninist invention" as well?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Frankly, I couldn't give a shit. Marx said that the state would 'wither away'. The USSR did not wither away. Therefore Marx was wrong.

[elijahcraig]

That's not the question, you little ****. I'm asking you if you KNOW what I am talking about, or have you simply attained your ideology through reading the posts of one RS (aka Allah, Krishna).

[Subversive Pessimist]

What the fuck am I? ('scuse my French) Communist or Anarchist?

[elijahcraig]

I think you should read up on both ideologies and decide for yourself.

From what you've said, I don't think it is right for me to attempt to label you, as you haven't said anything that defining about your beliefs that would put you completely in either category.

Maybe read the Communist Manifesto, God and the State or What is Communist Anarchism, and The State and Revolution. Then decide for yourself.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Thank you. I've tried to read stuff from Marx, but he's a complicated man, and I don't understand his way of writing. He writes if like he was high on something. I guess the most important thing is that I have the opinions I have, and that's what really matters.. Thanks

[The Feral Underclass]

"what is communist anarchism?" by alexander berkman is extremly easy to read and is written so that people with no or little knowledge can understand. Also for Marx, you can buy Beginners guides which are extremly easy to read and understand. You cannot just pick up Marx and be able to read him and understand him if you are not use to reading thick theoretical books. You have to start of reading simple explinations of his work and then progress. Eventually you will be able to read Marx and understand it easily. It just takes practice.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Thank you. Do you know if it is possible to read "what is communist anarchism?" on the net? If you got a link, that would be really nice. When you say beginners guide, do you mean like Anarchism/Communism for dummies, or perhaps FAQs?

[The Feral Underclass]

Depends where you're from. I bought a book from Waterstones in the UK for about 5 quid called 'Marxism for beginners.' Just go into any decent book store, such as Waterstones or Blackwells in the UK and there are books you can buy for cheap.

'What is Communist Anarchism?' (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)

[Subversive Pessimist]

Thank you. I live in Norway. I'm pretty sure you won't get that in a bookstore here. You can get works from Lenin and Marx at the library, but that's it. 'What is Communist Anarchism?' is really great. It's easy and I've already learned a lot (sounds like I'm directing a commercial, but what the hell). Again, thank you. :)

[The Feral Underclass]

No problem! :)

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Look into some Trotsky, this board is fairly anti-Trost, I can never understand that since they are also vehemently anti-Stalinists. Dosent leave much since its also anti-Leninist, so um good luck.

Read some Trotsky, great writer.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 05:01 PM
Look into some Trotsky, this board is fairly anti-Trost, I can never understand that since they are also vehemently anti-Stalinists. Dosent leave much since its also anti-Leninist, so um good luck.

Read some Trotsky, great writer.
What book are you recommending?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/index.htm

Anything here.

[The Feral Underclass]

Out of interest, what exactly are you expecting someone to learn from reading Trotsky?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Among others the transitional program, reasons for the problems in the USSR. Are you under the impression there is nothing to gain from reading Trotsky?

Can I ask why people hear dislike Trostsky, I have never heard a good argument except from Stalinists as to what is wrong with the guy?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 05:55 PM
Among others the transitional program, reasons for the problems in the USSR. Are you under the impression there is nothing to gain from reading Trotsky?
No, I was interested why you chose Trotsky specifically.


Can I ask why people hear dislike Trostsky, I have never heard a good argument except from Stalinists as to what is wrong with the guy?

Because he perpetrated a regime that destroyed communism.

[elijahcraig]

Because he perpetrated a regime that destroyed communism.

Did it ever exist?

[T_SP]

I'm a Trot, very obviously, I've never heard a good example. Stalin destroyed Communism in Russia. It was Stalin and his bueracrats that got too fuckin greedy. Also he had Trotsky killed. I want to shit on Stalins grave!! :D

[T_SP]

Trotsky Links (http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/russia/index.html)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 07:23 PM

Did it ever exist?
No, infact it didn't.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 07:28 PM
I've never heard a good example.
I think this quote sums Trotsky up very well...


"[We must condem those who] put the right of workers to elect their own representatives above the Party, thus challenging the right of the Party to affirm its dictatorship, even when the dictatorship comes into conflict with the passing moods of the workers democracy."

- L. Trotsky, Sochinenyia (Moscow 1925). p.89, p. 136.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Yeah Trotsky single handedly destroyed communism in Russia, this coming froma guy who says there was no workers gains in the USSR.

I choose Trotsky because he is misrepresented here.

[Essential Insignificance]

The Anarchist Tension,

An odd ball post follows...

Your anarchist dogmatism and obstinacy seems to be clouding your historical judgments of factual events.

I hadn’t read that quote by Trotsky before; and it is of no surprise that people as your self will look a upon it with anger and resentment. Yet, keep in mind that Trotsky said it in 1925, no more then 3-4 years post civil war and foreign imperialist invasion, by at least 14 other capitalist nations.

Admittedly by 1925 the little that there was of the bourgeoisie, landed aristocracy, the white’s, the pious and for that matter the kulaks; were put down vastly, and properly were not any threat to the infant soviet state.

Surly you can see the reasoning behind some of their motives, of internal agitation from the fear of domestic counter-revolutionary acts.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 11:59 PM
Yeah Trotsky single handedly destroyed communism in Russia
Now you're being childish. I didn't say that. What I said was, he perpetrated a regime which, correction, destroyed any hope of communism.


this coming froma guy who says there was no workers gains in the USSR.

If you look at it in terms of concessions, I am sure working peoples conditions did improve in some areas, but concessions was never the objective of the revolution. Communism was.


I choose Trotsky because he is misrepresented here.

And I don't agree with him or your representation of him.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Essential [email protected] 30 2004, 02:50 AM
Your anarchist dogmatism and obstinacy seems to be clouding your historical judgments of factual events.
When the truth is revealed it is often countered by those on the recieving end with accusations of stubborness, dogmatism, etc etc etc. It's not a new trick!


Yet, keep in mind that Trotsky said it in 1925, no more then 3-4 years post civil war and foreign imperialist invasion, by at least 14 other capitalist nations.

I am certain that Trotsky felt "compelled" to act the way he did. The nature of what he was trying to create forced him to. And this is my point. His actions were determined by his theory which ultimatly contradicted the necessary conditions needed to create the objective the whole point of those actions were about.

Trotsky may or may not have been a tyrant, that's of little interest, as he's dead. What is of interest is the ideas he and others in the world tried and try to perpetrate. There is a flaw in those ideas, and one that he proved existed, and which that quote epitomises.


Surly you can see the reasoning behind some of their motives,

Or maybe I can see the motives behind the reasoning. Either way the theory was wrong and as a revolutionary leader, as an intellectual he should have known that.


internal agitation from the fear of domestic counter-revolutionary acts.

There is no logic in what you are saying. Internal agitation by the working class (the class your freeing) should be suppressed in order to destroy counter-revolution?

Taking away workers democracy contradicts the purpose of the revolution and then what's the point other than a political party attempting to create its dictatorship. Which actually was what Trotsky believed was right.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:24 PM
Frankly, I couldn't give a shit. Marx said that the state would 'wither away'. The USSR did not wither away. Therefore Marx was wrong.
So you think that the whole idea of a dictatorship of the proliteriat is wrong, becuase something was methodically wrong with the USSR?

People naively misunderstand that with capitalism, people FEEL this is how they need to be. They never had a reason to trust any one before. Thats one main reason why marriage is such a sacred institution, they finally think they can trust some one. You think we are going to feel any different JUST becuase the bourgeoisie's institutions are gone? Its going to take alot to show ourselves we dont have to live that way any more.

What does anarchism suggest to do for this ?

Seeing is believeing. Why dont we have to live this way?

[socialistfuture]

i think the two often overlap, both can be desribed as socialism (depending on what definitoon you use). I dont see any reason why you cant be both - some kind of mixture. look at the icons at the top of this site.

in the past communists have made mistakes and so have anarchists, sadly the two have fought each other - really we are fighting for the same things. generally i think a lot of communists now are a bit scared of fighting for a strong centralized state for fear of stalinism, anarchists would fight against a strong state i'd imagine.

i guess one difference can be that some anarchists dont like to be part of organizations - parties. i see so much more simularities than difference - i hope the two continue to work together to fight capitalism, facism and religious extremism.

[elijahcraig]

If you look at it in terms of concessions, I am sure working peoples conditions did improve in some areas, but concessions was never the objective of the revolution. Communism was.

No it wasn’t. SOCIALISM was the objective. “Concessions”? You idiot, people had it as good in the USSR as in the US, and that’s saying a lot as they were a third world country until the socialist state improved their world position that much.

Concessions are John Kerry saying he doesn’t like Bush and will raise the minimum wage.

This was a revolution, and you are a **** for not acknowledging the major achievements it accomplished.


When the truth is revealed it is often countered by those on the recieving end with accusations of stubborness, dogmatism, etc etc etc. It's not a new trick!

Like when?

Like when a Christian reveals the "biblical truth" (you are very arrogant to claim to have the truth btw) and is called a "dogmatic Christian"?

You are a sad pathetic man.

Truth is usually revealed by the absence of dogma, and when you reveal a non-conventional truth, it is usually accused of being wrong based on its not being conventional, not its being "dogmatic."

When Chomsky discovered generative grammar, the Structuralists did not yell "dogmatist." Chomsky yelled that at them.

[redstar2000]

It's amazing to me how much the words of an old geezer like RS have gone to some people's heads.

Perhaps if you'd do something about your drinking problem, my words would "go to your head".

There'd certainly be plenty of room for them...once you cleared out all the irrationalist rubbish that's cluttering up your brain now.


I'm asking you if you KNOW what I am talking about, or have you simply attained your ideology through reading the posts of one RS (aka Allah, Krishna).

Worship me! Worship ME! :lol:


You idiot, people had it as good in the USSR as in the US...

Utterly preposterous. People in fucking East Germany lived better than in the USSR!

Sober up, Elijah! :D

---------------------------


Can I ask why people here dislike Trotsky, I have never heard a good argument except from Stalinists as to what is wrong with the guy?

Well, here is a sampling of Trotsky's ideas...


If we seriously speak of planned economy, which is to acquire its unity of purpose from the center, when labor forces are assigned in accordance with the economic plan at the given stage of development, the working masses cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers.

Deserters from labour ought to to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps.

They [the workers' opposition] have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy!...The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship...regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class...The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy.

We have been more than once accused of having substituted for the dictatorship of the soviets the dictatorship of our own Party...In this substitution of the power of the party for the power of the working class there is nothing accidental, and in reality there is no substitution at all. The Communists express the fundamental interests of the working class...

The militarisation of labour...is the indispensable basic method for the organisation of our labour forces...Is it true that compulsory labour is always unproductive?...This is the most wretched and miserable liberal prejudice: chattel slavery too was productive...Compulsory slave labour...was, in its time, a progressive phenomenon. Labour...obligatory for the whole country, compulsory for every worker, is the basis of socialism.

This stuff was all written while Trotsky was a "big shot" in the USSR. After being removed from office and going into exile, he was somewhat more modest...as befits one who must pay for his domestic servants out of his own pocket.

I think the reasonable assumption is that he would have been very much "like Stalin"...and possibly worse.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well thats fine Redstar, I just wanted to hear some reasons, nothing worse than people just outright dimissing somebody and when I ask why everybody goes silent.

[Wiesty]

your a communist with some anarchist views i believe

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 08:20 PM
when I ask why everybody goes silent.
That has to be the most pig ignorant thing I have ever heard. If you really believe that then you haven't been paying attention.

[elijahcraig]

[Perhaps if you'd do something about your drinking problem, my words would "go to your head".

There'd certainly be plenty of room for them...once you cleared out all the irrationalist rubbish that's cluttering up your brain now

*Redstar finds humor*


Utterly preposterous. People in fucking East Germany lived better than in the USSR!

Sober up, Elijah!

You can look at MIM for statistics on the living standards in the USSR as compares to the US.


That has to be the most pig ignorant thing I have ever heard. If you really believe that then you haven't been paying attention.

Pig ignorant? I own a talking fetus doll who likes that word.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:57 PM
Pig ignorant? I own a talking fetus doll who likes that word.
Two words elijah.

[elijahcraig]

Two words elijah 'pig ignorant' is two words.

The fetus' lips are still a little jellied up, not really into mouthing words very good.

Sounds something like "Pignorunt". He usually farts when he says it also. I sometimes have to stick him with those sticky shrubbery sidelinings on my house to make him be quiet.

Talking fetus doll...does anybody remember laughter?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 4 2004, 06:24 PM
That has to be the most pig ignorant thing I have ever heard. If you really believe that then you haven't been paying attention.

:P

[Kez]

heres a little lesson for so called "revolutionaries" who wish to "analyse" using quotes.

a) use quotes in their context, ie the entire section which is being talked about
b) give dates and place used
c) take into account what events have taken place

the quote about trotsky and the Party over riding swing in workers mood, try finding something pre-civil war.

Did Trotsky think this in any case scenario, or did he correctly justify it uunder the circumstances of the reactionary forces coming in and toppling the workers state, with it the gains of the workers, resulting in the blood of thousands of workers, unionists and activists.

fuck your petty politics, dont try to brainwash people just to take people to your little church.

It was Lenin or Trotsky who said "the truth is a very revolutionary thing", the trouble is, many pricks here know this, and dont want to give the truth, fearing it will weaken their pathetic church of thought. To hell with your idiotic methods and blatant secterianism.

[bobby]

To hell with your idiotic methods and blatant secterianism.

Here, here!

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What is this? Some sort of children's playground? Get a grip of yourselves and start acting like rational adults. Prove your point using arguments, not insults.

RedStar, are you familiar with the phrase "criticize the ideas, not the author"? If a person says two things, and one of them is wrong, that doesn't have any bearing on the validity of his other statement. You seem to dismiss Lenin and Trotsky out of hand because SOME of the things they said/done were wrong. I suggest you start paying a little more attention to all the OTHER things they said. The fact that Trotsky said something stupid in 1920 has no relevance on what he said in 1936 (for example). Here's a news flash for you: People can actually change their political opinions over the course of their lives.

Now, to address the original question of this topic, the general difference between communists and anarchists is the following:

Anarchists want to abolish the state right away, immediately after the revolution.

Communists want to keep the state as a tool of the people for some time after the revolution, and abolish it later.

Most communists argue that abolishing the state right away just isn't feasible, because it would lead to chaos rather than a working communist society. Anarchists disagree, and argue that the immediate abolition of the state is the only way to prevent the corruption of revolutionary ideals.