Anarchism Or Socialism

[The Feral Underclass]

I just read some of Stalin's pamphlet called 'Anarchism or Socialism' in which his entire argument finds its basis in this paragraph.


Originally posted by Stalin+--> (Stalin)"The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual.""[/b]

Stalin then says in the same paragraph...


Originally posted by Stalin+--> (Stalin)"The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses.""[/b]

Anarchism does to a certain degree assert "Everything for the individual," but not at the expense of the collective. What is implied by this pamphlet is that anarchism asserts the individual to the negation of the masses. That isn't right.

Bakunin says...


Originally posted by Bakunin
"I am truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise and confirmation."

He also asserts...


[email protected]
"No individual can recognise his own humanity, and consequently realise it in his lifetime, if not by recognising it in others and cooperating in its realisation for others. No man can achieve emancipation without at the same time working for the emancipation of all men around him"

He goes on to say...


Bakunin
"My freedom is the freedom of all since I am not truly free in thought and in fact, except when my freedom and my rights are confirmed and approved in the freedom and rights of all men who are my equals"

Social Anarchism, which is how it was intended, does not take the individual to be the sole basis of class struggle, but asserts that in order for anarchism to achieve it's objective, the individual must recognise that a struggle exists, but that their struggle is a struggle which exists and is interconnected with the struggle for all.

[PRC-UTE]

anti-marxist and anti-anarchist rants usually rely on cartoon stereotypes that don't actually represent either side well. These arguments from stalin are a good example.

marxists rely on objective conditions and anarchists on idealism yet the two are meeting, imo at a crossroads.

[Guest1]

Anarchists rely on idealism?

[Subversive Pessimist]

Anarchists rely on idealism?

That was my first thought, too. OglachMcGlinchey, please explain.

[STI]

From what I understand (and I may be wrong here), Anarchism was *originally* based on morality. A material basis for Anarchism has developed, though.

I could be wrong about this, though.

[Anarchist Freedom]

I dont know who said this originally but the quote goes as such.


every anarchist is a socialist but not every socialist is an anarchist.

[PRC-UTE]

as socialist tiger was saying, originally anarchism was just an ideal and then it grew into different varieties. It borrowed heavily from marxism, especially anarcho-syndicalism and platformism.

Many anarchists I've read of and talked to consider themselves idealists and even moralists, which you would never hear a marxist saying.

I wasn't criticising or slagging them off, I admire it.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by OglachMcGlinchey
Anti-marxist and anti-anarchist rants usually rely on cartoon stereotypes that don't actually represent either side well.

I completely agree!

Perhaps it's because the origins of the respective ideas are so inextricably linked with one another that when either side wants to polemicize against the other, only a "cartoonish opponent" can be made to look "really different".

I think that thoughtful critiques of both views are possible...but it seems as if most of the people who undertake such projects "have an ax to grind" and are not "fussy" about what lengths they'll go to in order that "the other side" can be made to "look really bad".

In my opinion, it's sectarian bullshit.

:redstar2000:

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

[Hate Is Art]

Well, Stalin Was Wrong, whoda thunk it?

[apathy maybe]

Considering my self an Anarchist (but not a Social Anarchist, if I had to attach a label at all, I'ld probably call my self an Indervidualist Anarchist), I think that Stalin was wrong. Like TAT said, Anarchists recognise the need for society and helping the mass achieve our revolution. Unlike TAT I don't think that Social Anarchism is the only viable type though.

(And I could (and TAT too) be wrong that all Anarchists care about the mass of people.
While TAT may argue that they aren't then Anarchists, if they follow the basic principles of Non-Hierarchy, Equal Decision-Making Power (which is a subset of the previous), Voluntarism and Due Process I would consider them an Anarchist.)

[Palmares]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 15 2004, 05:48 AM
every anarchist is a socialist but not every socialist is an anarchist.
I thought the quote was about communists, not anarchists? :unsure:

I find it strange that Stalin equated anarchism to be tantamount to individualism (irrespective of the fact that he said anarchist theory then led to collectivism). How many anarchists believe we must be free as individuals before the collective is free? Surely we would have to destroy the structure that chains us? Would that not entail freedom both individually and collectively to be released almost simulltaneously?

[apathy maybe]

Wow, that is so right. We must free the world, before we can free ourselves.

And if this is freedom, then freedom is in chains. And we must break those chains that bind us. Once we have destroyed the state and hierarchy, then, only then can we be truly free.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 17 2004, 03:12 PM
...if this is freedom, then freedom is in chains.
Rarely have I been quoted. :lol:

[ComradeChris]

Anarchism does to a certain degree assert "Everything for the individual," but not at the expense of the collective. What is implied by this pamphlet is that anarchism asserts the individual to the negation of the masses. That isn't right.

How is there a collective if there is no state? I mean somewhere along the line, someone has to become dictorial and say: "that goes to them", "that goes here" etc. Or else how do we keep everything equal? And if it is about the individual, shouldn't it be placed on the far right?

[PRC-UTE]

How is there a collective if there is no state?

How could there be a collective if there is a state? Communists aim to replace the state with collectives.


I mean somewhere along the line, someone has to become dictorial and say: "that goes to them", "that goes here" etc.

Like it is now?


Or else how do we keep everything equal?

Through solidarity and stigmatising greedy behaviour.


And if it is about the individual, shouldn't it be placed on the far right?

No because in the anarchist paradigm, the individual can only be liberated through collective freedom. "Individaulist Anarchist" is just a contradiction in terms that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[ComradeChris]

How could there be a collective if there is a state? Communists aim to replace the state with collectives.

I understand that's how communism works. In collectives. I don't understand how it would work in anarchism.


Like it is now?

If you kept my replies together, I meant, how can you keep it equal without someone telling where things go in a redistributional society.


Through solidarity and stigmatising greedy behaviour.

So anarchism is based on greed? You can count me out. That's a hegemony I want to eliminate.


No because in the anarchist paradigm, the individual can only be liberated through collective freedom. "Individaulist Anarchist" is just a contradiction in terms that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I was told that the right can also stand for less government, and therefore much lower taxes. Anarchism is about the individual. You can't have a collective without someone dictating it.

[Dio]

Generally i find people who rant on how Marxism is the epitome of lunacy, at the bottom of the intellect "barrel."

[Guest1]

You are not a Communist.

You also don't understand basic english, "stigmatising" means to make into a social taboo. In otherwords, people would react to someone being greedy the same way people react today to a murderer.

And once again, there is no difference between the society Anarchists envision, and the one Marxists envision, only in how some would like to get there.

Marxists and Anarchists wanna give power to the working class, what do you want to do?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 19 2004, 02:48 AM
You are not a Communist.

You also don't understand basic english, "stigmatising" means to make into a social taboo. In otherwords, people would react to someone being greedy the same way people react today to a murderer.

And once again, there is no difference between the society Anarchists envision, and the one Marxists envision, only in how some would like to get there.

Marxists and Anarchists wanna give power to the working class, what do you want to do?
I think we should do it the way Marx invisioned or not at all. Not through the vague "Anarchist" way. Like I never heard of that method before I cam on this forum. Marxism is much more reknown.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 02:47 AM
Generally i find people who rant on how Marxism is the epitome of lunacy, at the bottom of the intellect "barrel."
Who was ranting about Marx being a looney?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 12:50 PM
I think we should do it the way Marx invisioned or not at all.
And how was that? And why should we only do it that why?


Not through the vague "Anarchist" way.

How is it vague?


Like I never heard of that method before I cam on this forum. Marxism is much more reknown.

So that makes it right?

[YKTMX]

Stalin's "Marxist" theory was almost as poor as his "Marxist" praxis, so I don't see why any Socialist would wish to defend him.

[STI]

Originally posted by ComradeChris+Oct 19 2004, 10:50 AM--> (ComradeChris @ Oct 19 2004, 10:50 AM)
Che y [email protected] 19 2004, 02:48 AM
You are not a Communist.

You also don't understand basic english, "stigmatising" means to make into a social taboo. In otherwords, people would react to someone being greedy the same way people react today to a murderer.

And once again, there is no difference between the society Anarchists envision, and the one Marxists envision, only in how some would like to get there.

Marxists and Anarchists wanna give power to the working class, what do you want to do?
I think we should do it the way Marx invisioned or not at all. Not through the vague "Anarchist" way. Like I never heard of that method before I cam on this forum. Marxism is much more reknown. [/b]
Right. Lenin and Trotsky did it the way Marx envisioned :lol:

Wrong.

Try again.

Contemporary anarchism is one hell of a lot closer to Marxism than Leninism could ever have hoped to be.

[gaf]

anarch,lidetad,marx,lenin,stalin,mao,trotsky,etc.. .etc.....libertarian test .... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Dio]

Originally posted by ComradeChris+Oct 19 2004, 10:52 AM--> (ComradeChris @ Oct 19 2004, 10:52 AM)
[email protected] 19 2004, 02:47 AM
Generally i find people who rant on how Marxism is the epitome of lunacy, at the bottom of the intellect "barrel."
Who was ranting about Marx being a looney? [/b]
I think i posted in the wrong thread... dismiss that comment.

[YKTMX]

Contemporary anarchism is one hell of a lot closer to Marxism than Leninism could ever have hoped to be.

Please.

[STI]

What?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by socialist_tiger+Oct 19 2004, 01:30 PM--> (socialist_tiger @ Oct 19 2004, 01:30 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 10:50 AM

Che y [email protected] 19 2004, 02:48 AM
You are not a Communist.

You also don't understand basic english, "stigmatising" means to make into a social taboo. In otherwords, people would react to someone being greedy the same way people react today to a murderer.

And once again, there is no difference between the society Anarchists envision, and the one Marxists envision, only in how some would like to get there.

Marxists and Anarchists wanna give power to the working class, what do you want to do?
I think we should do it the way Marx invisioned or not at all. Not through the vague "Anarchist" way. Like I never heard of that method before I cam on this forum. Marxism is much more reknown.
Right. Lenin and Trotsky did it the way Marx envisioned :lol:

Wrong.

Try again.

Contemporary anarchism is one hell of a lot closer to Marxism than Leninism could ever have hoped to be. [/b]
That wasn't communism. PLain and simple. They all had their own ideologies tacked on to them last I heard. Maybe you heard different? :rolleyes:

[ComradeChris]

And how was that? And why should we only do it that why?

Overthrow of the Bourgeois and a proleteriat take over.


How is it vague?

Maybe vague was the wrong choice of words. It's not as well known is what I meant to say. And it doesn't appear to be a stable system by any means.


So that makes it right?

Nope, just means its harder to get support. It doesn't have my vote I'll tell you that for sure.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 12:43 AM
And it doesn't appear to be a stable system by any means.
What do you think anarchism wants?


Maybe vague was the wrong choice of words. It's not as well known is what I meant to say.

That doesn't make it wrong.


And it doesn't appear to be a stable system by any means.

Stop making these wild fucking assertions. If you're going to say something then make sense. It doesn't appear stable? How would you know that? Evidence!

[YKTMX]

What?


Contemporary anarchism is one hell of a lot closer to Marxism than Leninism could ever have hoped to be

Marx spent his entire political career arguing against Anarchists so that is a complete insult.

What exactly are the tenets of "Leninism" Marx would have disagreed with?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20 2004, 11:14 AM
Stop making these wild fucking assertions. If you're going to say something then make sense. It doesn't appear stable? How would you know that? Evidence!
Your other arguments were junk. Explain, how a lawless system, with no centralizing body can have any defence from foreign invaders? Hell, I'd take it in a coup just to show your sorry ass how weak the system is. Then maybe I'd rape your family, because there's no laws against it. That's how it's not stable dipshit. Most of that has already been said, and I thought didn't bear repeating. :rolleyes: But people of your intellect needs things repeated constantly I guess.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 03:48 PM
Explain, how a lawless system, with no centralizing body can have any defence from foreign invaders?
Organisation and people.


Hell, I'd take it in a coup just to show your sorry ass how weak the system is. Then maybe I'd rape your family, because there's no laws against it

People rape and murder now, and there are laws against it. There are even hundreds of law enforcement agencies to try and stop it, but it still happens. Laws don't prevent people from commiting serious crimes like this.

If someone raped or murdered someone then they would have to deal with the consequences. A community assembly would deal with such a problem I expect.


That's how it's not stable dipshit

Your basing your argument on common misunderstandings and plain stupidity, and if you carry on with the insults boy you'll find yourself in trouble.


Most of that has already been said, and I thought didn't bear repeating. :rolleyes: But people of your intellect needs things repeated constantly I guess.

Yes, you keep repeating the same unfounded argument. Your argument is, if there are no laws then there will be rape, but you fail to see that rape exists even though there are laws.

It's not a question of intellect, its a question of logic. You have none.

[ComradeChris]

People rape and murder now, and there are laws against it. There are even hundreds of law enforcement agencies to try and stop it, but it still happens. Laws don't prevent people from commiting serious crimes like this.

If someone raped or murdered someone then they would have to deal with the consequences. A community assembly would deal with such a problem I expect.

So every person would get a say on every criminal (which wouldn't even be a term in an anarchist society as there is no laws to break)? That would make for a very slow and painstaking judicial process. Rape and murder are just some examples; theft, extortion, assault, and any number of laws that exist now could occur with no consequences.


Your basing your argument on common misunderstandings and plain stupidity, and if you carry on with the insults boy you'll find yourself in trouble.

I'm sorry, who's stupid? Once you have any sort of "Organisation and people" as you would say, you have people making decisions for other people, therefore enacting a rule! I mean, go buy an island and do a test run of your anarchy. I think I'd find it quite amusing.


Yes, you keep repeating the same unfounded argument. Your argument is, if there are no laws then there will be rape, but you fail to see that rape exists even though there are laws.

It's not a question of intellect, its a question of logic. You have none.

Excellent, you brought up logic not me. I like how you didn't refer to my defence of your Anarchist state example. I mean there would have to be one, in order for self-defence of a collective. Because if not, you fight for INDIVIDUALITY! Which is more or less a capitalist idea. So who do you fight for? The non-extistent state, without laws, but has restrictions? Talk about lack of logic on your behalf. :rolleyes:

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 11:10 PM
So every person would get a say on every criminal (which wouldn't even be a term in an anarchist society as there is no laws to break)? That would make for a very slow and painstaking judicial process. Rape and murder are just some examples; theft, extortion, assault, and any number of laws that exist now could occur with no consequences.
Actually, in a Communist society, most "crimes" wouldn't happen. There would be alot less to deal with. Theft just wouldn't happen except in extremely isolated cases. The theft you speak of would probably be someone just taking alot more than they contribute, and that's something that wouldn't be too difficult to deal with. Especially if, as some suggest, computer systems moniter consumption and production, and how much each individual does of each.


I'm sorry, who's stupid? Once you have any sort of "Organisation and people" as you would say, you have people making decisions for other people, therefore enacting a rule! I mean, go buy an island and do a test run of your anarchy. I think I'd find it quite amusing.
The whole people is organized under Communist society. Rules are a part of Communism, it is the state and classes that aren't. No one makes decisions for anyone, people make decisions together.


Excellent, you brought up logic not me. I like how you didn't refer to my defence of your Anarchist state example. I mean there would have to be one, in order for self-defence of a collective. Because if not, you fight for INDIVIDUALITY! Which is more or less a capitalist idea. So who do you fight for? The non-extistent state, without laws, but has restrictions? Talk about lack of logic on your behalf. :rolleyes:
Communism is not individualistic, the lack of a Capitalist, a boss, does not mean that the workers can't run things themselves. Communism is the organization of people running things together, democratically, free of bosses and rulers in federated collectives.

Communism doesn't include a state, but definitely isn't individualistic.

I think soon I may have to introduce you to our rules here at Che-Lives, namely that Capitalists belong in OI. So answer me this, do workers need a boss in the factory? Cause if your answer is yes, you either need to learn more about the Marxism you think you believe in, or you need to admit you aren't a Marxist at all.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 03:10 AM
So every person would get a say on every criminal
No. If someone broke the rules of the collective in your community then the community assembly would most probably deal with it. A community assembly would be voluntary and the criminal would be detained until the community had decided what to do with them.


(which wouldn't even be a term in an anarchist society as there is no laws to break)?

Laws in the sense you understand them would not exist, no. But there would be rules and guildelines people would be expected to follow in a community or workplace.


That would make for a very slow and painstaking judicial process.

Not really.


Rape and murder are just some examples;

Why do rape and murder exist? We don't know the answer to that. Do they happen because people are alienated from society or because it's a medical defect. It's the former then in a communist/anarchist society rape and murder in most cases wouldn't exist. If it is the latter then there maybe progressive ways to treat it. Maybe it can be cured. If it is a medical defect rapists and murderers would be sent to medical treatment centres to be analysied and helped, i would imagine.


theft, extortion,

Theft and extortion wouldn't exist because people wouldn't need to steal or extort anything.


assault,

Anarchist society is based on solidarity and co-operation. In order to live in such a society people want to want to live in it, along side other people. I doubt assault as you imagine in would exist.

If people did fight, then it would be up to those particular people, friends or families, or even communities to deal with.


any number of laws that exist now could occur with no consequences.

This doesn't make sense. assualt, rape etc are not laws, they're crimes. You mean "any number of crimes that exist now could occur". I disagree.


Once you have any sort of "Organisation and people" as you would say, you have people making decisions for other people, therefore enacting a rule!

Organisation does not go hand in hand with control. You can have decision making through consensus rather than through someone telling you what to do.

I understand what you're saying, I understand that it's difficult to comprehend, but if you honestly believe that human beings cannot organise themselves without leaders/rulers etc, please provide evidence.


I mean, go buy an island and do a test run of your anarchy. I think I'd find it quite amusing.

Anarchy has existed throughout history. It existed in Spain, Ukraine, Mexico and exists now all over the world and in many movements and works well.


I like how you didn't refer to my defence of your Anarchist state example.

This doesn't make any sense.


I mean there would have to be one, in order for self-defence of a collective.

Making assertions is not good to anyone. You have stated this as fact over and over again, what I want is for you to do is prove that it is fact.


Because if not, you fight for INDIVIDUALITY! Which is more or less a capitalist idea.

Explain this.


The non-extistent state, without laws, but has restrictions?

What restrictions? Not to rape or murder. They aren't restrictions their unjustified acts of domination. People shouldn't do those things because it isn't justified, not because there is a law stopping them. That's the point of anarchism. Human beings behaving with rationale and compassion.

[ComradeChris]

No. If someone broke the rules of the collective in your community then the community assembly would most probably deal with it. A community assembly would be voluntary and the criminal would be detained until the community had decided what to do with them.

But who detains who, and how do they decide whether these rules have been broken? There won't be police, because that's evidence of a state.


Laws in the sense you understand them would not exist, no. But there would be rules and guildelines people would be expected to follow in a community or workplace.

But that in itself is evidence of a state. Whether you call them rules, guidelines, or laws.


Why do rape and murder exist? We don't know the answer to that. Do they happen because people are alienated from society or because it's a medical defect. It's the former then in a communist/anarchist society rape and murder in most cases wouldn't exist. If it is the latter then there maybe progressive ways to treat it. Maybe it can be cured. If it is a medical defect rapists and murderers would be sent to medical treatment centres to be analysied and helped, i would imagine.

Rape, it's usually a "supermale" trait. They are overly agressive especially towards females, and that can't be controlled. I heard a huge percentage of male inmates are these "supermales." (I can't remember the exact percentage, I think it's around 25%, but I hate guessing)

You can probably eliminate murder in respects to organized crime (Mafia, gangs, murder thiefs, etc). Because many of those people do what they do out of money.


Theft and extortion wouldn't exist because people wouldn't need to steal or extort anything.

I agree that would be the case in a communist society. But in an anarchist society, if someone has more than their neighbour, they will get envious, and the capitalistic cycle will renew.


This doesn't make sense. assualt, rape etc are not laws, they're crimes. You mean "any number of crimes that exist now could occur". I disagree.

Thanks for correcting that for me, that is what I meant. I mean, it sounds like your society would be nice, but I don't think it should have the term "Anarchy".


Organisation does not go hand in hand with control. You can have decision making through consensus rather than through someone telling you what to do.

I understand what you're saying, I understand that it's difficult to comprehend, but if you honestly believe that human beings cannot organise themselves without leaders/rulers etc, please provide evidence.

I mean, it seems as though the few would still decide for the masses. I mean Che y Marijuana suggested I don't belong here. If that's the attitude the people who are essentially running this "Anarchist" society get when questioned, it doesn't sound too appealing. Anytime someone makes a rule, they are restricting someone elses freedom. The fact that the people who are organizing this "revolution" are going to be the same people who create these "guidelines" (as you would call them), only lead to people leading people. Every mass organization has to have a leader, otherwise it's chaos. I mean protests have ralliers and coordinators. There isn't an example I can think of, where someone in a group isn't leading. I don't believe in "mob mentality." But organized direct democracy, under a light form of authority to me, would be a good thing.


Anarchy has existed throughout history. It existed in Spain, Ukraine, Mexico and exists now all over the world and in many movements and works well.


Key word: EXISTED. Obvious not stable enough to stand the test of time. I'll admit, anarchy has existed in history too. But it was never very stable, and it hence, why the term has the alternate meaning of political chaos.


Making assertions is not good to anyone. You have stated this as fact over and over again, what I want is for you to do is prove that it is fact.

We're discussing an ideology, that has never been enacted successfully. So I find it laughable, that you're talking about discussing fact :lol: .


What restrictions? Not to rape or murder. They aren't restrictions their unjustified acts of domination. People shouldn't do those things because it isn't justified, not because there is a law stopping them. That's the point of anarchism. Human beings behaving with rationale and compassion.

Like you even said, we don't know what causes crime. There would always be crime. And the judicial, and protection systems in an Anarchist state would be minimal. I would trust a police officer more than morals and ethics.

And to your:

This doesn't make any sense.
&

Explain this.

I've already explained many of those things. But usually, I explain them in the following sentences of the paragraph. And it doesn't make sence to you, because your taking every sentence and putting it independantly. I'm all for the collective, in writing too. So please try to take into account the whole paragraph before you write, "doesn't make any sence." And if it still doesn't, I apologize, and will do my best to explain if it already hasn't been.

[ComradeChris]

Actually, in a Communist society, most "crimes" wouldn't happen. There would be alot less to deal with. Theft just wouldn't happen except in extremely isolated cases. The theft you speak of would probably be someone just taking alot more than they contribute, and that's something that wouldn't be too difficult to deal with. Especially if, as some suggest, computer systems moniter consumption and production, and how much each individual does of each.

I completely agree, in a communist society, a lot of crime wouldn't happen. A lot of causes of crime would be eliminated. But I think skipping right to anarchy is too detrimental. If we follow the stages Marx described, there will be a lot more consolidation.


The whole people is organized under Communist society. Rules are a part of Communism, it is the state and classes that aren't. No one makes decisions for anyone, people make decisions together.

Well, the prolateriat would when you pass through the stage of socialism. If you skip right to anarchy you will still have many "bourgeois" rules still enacted. I believe that there should be a rule, hence I gave myself the label of democratic socialist, because I'm tired of you people saying you aren't communist.


Communism is not individualistic, the lack of a Capitalist, a boss, does not mean that the workers can't run things themselves. Communism is the organization of people running things together, democratically, free of bosses and rulers in federated collectives.

Communism doesn't include a state, but definitely isn't individualistic.

I think soon I may have to introduce you to our rules here at Che-Lives, namely that Capitalists belong in OI. So answer me this, do workers need a boss in the factory? Cause if your answer is yes, you either need to learn more about the Marxism you think you believe in, or you need to admit you aren't a Marxist at all.

Ok, this is a huge change of face on your behalf. We were discussing ANARCHY and achieving anarchy and maintaining a collective. Now we're discussing communism which I fully agree with you on (as long as you go through the stages Marx laid out as a "guideline'). So why you keep calling me a capitalist is beyond me. You're ignorant assumptions would be my best guess. Putting words in my mouth, putting me under labels. Wait! That sounds pretty capitalistic to me! Dictating people under labels given by the upper classes. *tsk tsk* I'm ashamed to even be associated with your dictorial stupidity!

[Guest1]

No, I'm trying to get it into your head that Anarchists and Marxists want the exact same society.

It is, as you have said, the method that is different. If you want to argue that, fine. That we can understand. But this debate is "do we want workers' control?". In otherwords "are both Marxism and Anarchism bullshit?". That has been your argument from the beginning, though you didn't really realize it.

Look, what I meant by maybe you don't belong here, is to show you that you are taking a bourgeois line. You are arguing that workers need bosses, that they always need a "guiding hand".

It wasn't a change of face on my part to bring up Communism, you've been arguing against Communism all along. If you agree with Communism, then you agree with the society these Anarchists envision. Then we can discuss what you disagree with about how they want to get there. We can't do both at the same time. How can you argue about how best to get to Communism, if you don't think we should get there at all?

Do you understand why people are giving you a hard attitude?

So let's try to start afresh, maybe we'll get somewhere without tearing each other apart. Answer the following:

Do workers need a boss in the factory?

[ComradeChris]

No, I'm trying to get it into your head that Anarchists and Marxists want the exact same society.

It is, as you have said, the method that is different. If you want to argue that, fine. That we can understand. But this debate is "do we want workers' control?". In otherwords "are both Marxism and Anarchism bullshit?". That has been your argument from the beginning, though you didn't really realize it.


Different methods mean different ideologies. I don't think you can destroy society completely, then have some perfect Utopia. If you want MARXISM, you have to do it the way Marx envisioned.


Look, what I meant by maybe you don't belong here, is to show you that you are taking a bourgeois line. You are arguing that workers need bosses, that they always need a "guiding hand".

That's exactly why you asked my age directly prior to saying I don't belong here.


It wasn't a change of face on my part to bring up Communism, you've been arguing against Communism all along. If you agree with Communism, then you agree with the society these Anarchists envision. Then we can discuss what you disagree with about how they want to get there. We can't do both at the same time. How can you argue about how best to get to Communism, if you don't think we should get there at all?

Tell me once where I argued communism. In fact, as soon as you switched your argument into communism, I agreed completely with you. God you're ignorant.


Do you understand why people are giving you a hard attitude?

So let's try to start afresh, maybe we'll get somewhere without tearing each other apart. Answer the following:

Do workers need a boss in the factory?

Not a boss, just someone to organize. He/she shouldn't have any more "authority" so to speak. And as I've said, authority should always be questioned. The "Boss" if you wish to call them that, shouldn't be paid anymore for sitting on their asses.

I agree. Maybe we both have been ignorant.

[STI]

Different methods mean different ideologies. I don't think you can destroy society completely, then have some perfect Utopia. If you want MARXISM, you have to do it the way Marx envisioned.


1)Anarchism doesn't want to "destroy society completely", whatever that means...
2)Marx "envisioned" (ie: saw and agreed with) the Paris Commune - a highly anarchistic model.


That's exactly why you asked my age directly prior to saying I don't belong here.

I think it's more because you communicate the way somebody much younger than yourself would.


Tell me once where I argued communism. In fact, as soon as you switched your argument into communism, I agreed completely with you. God you're ignorant.


You've missed the point totally and have resorted to personal attacks.

Communism = classless, stateless society.
Anarchism = classless, stateless society.


Not a boss, just someone to organize. He/she shouldn't have any more "authority" so to speak. And as I've said, authority should always be questioned. The "Boss" if you wish to call them that, shouldn't be paid anymore for sitting on their asses.


Why is somebody like that necessary?

[apathy maybe]

I find it fascinating that people still argue on this board that anarchism can't exist. Then they provide arguments like "human nature", "lack of rules" & "crime", "lack of existence" (the same can be said of communism), etc.

The human nature argument is not worth arguing. Lack of existence is just wrong; the reason that big anarchist societies aren't around anymore is that they were crushed by outside forces.
The only worthwhile argument is that there are no rules or there is lots of crime. This is however, just as spurious as the others. Anarchy is no rulers. This does not mean that there are no organisers or organisations. Nor does it mean that there will be lots of crime. A lot of what is considered crime today, won't be. Assault and other violent crimes will be dealt with by the community how they see fit. Crimes that are just a nuisance (reading someone else's mail), can be dealt with again, how the community thinks they should be, in cases like this, the distrust or dislike of the community will generally be a deterrent.

One final gripe, who says that anarchism isn't about individuals? Sure communism may not be, but many people want a non-capitalist society with all the advantages of self-sufficiency. And I see no problem with that (ignoring arguments about whether it is possible or not). While this individualism is unlikely to be possible with in a city, in a village or farm, it could well be. (Someone farms, brings produce to town, exchanges for other goods, goes home. This can still happen in an anarchist society.)

[ComradeChris]

1)Anarchism doesn't want to "destroy society completely", whatever that means...
2)Marx "envisioned" (ie: saw and agreed with) the Paris Commune - a highly anarchistic model.

An end means. Did the Paris commune last? Did any of the other "Anarchist" states that the other person describe last? NO! And how do you achieve anarchist then? By keeping the current system in tact? Sounds to me like you DESTROY it. But then again, I could be wrong according to you oxymoronic ideolgy.


I think it's more because you communicate the way somebody much younger than yourself would.

Actually, I've found the content in these arguments against me very uneloquent, almost childish. :rolleyes:


You've missed the point totally and have resorted to personal attacks.

Communism = classless, stateless society.
Anarchism = classless, stateless society.

Personal attacks after others have attacked me. You really are ignorant. And as I said in a prior post, the ends don't justify the means.


Why is somebody like that necessary?

If somebody didn't organize things, please, tell me how things would get accomplished. You're upotian anarchist state apparently has thought all this out. You must know better than I.


One final gripe, who says that anarchism isn't about individuals? Sure communism may not be, but many people want a non-capitalist society with all the advantages of self-sufficiency. And I see no problem with that (ignoring arguments about whether it is possible or not). While this individualism is unlikely to be possible with in a city, in a village or farm, it could well be. (Someone farms, brings produce to town, exchanges for other goods, goes home. This can still happen in an anarchist society.)

Sounds like the same thing as capitalism in its ideal form. Those people who work more, still get more.


Lack of existence is just wrong; the reason that big anarchist societies aren't around anymore is that they were crushed by outside forces.

Exactly one of my points which everyone has ignored. There's no self-defence machanism in a goovernmentless, orderless society.

[apathy maybe]

NO!
The people who work more, get more respect yes! But no more goods etc. The farmer would take surplus goods into town and exchange for what he/she needed. Thus even if the surplus was great, the farmer would not take more then was needed on the farm. The probably wouldn't be any body or group to enforce this rule, but it wouldn't be needed.

How are communities of a few hundred, a few thousand or whatever supposed to defend against an modern army with modern weapons? The Spanish Anarchists had a very good defence system and were viewed as the best fighters on the front. The fact that they had to fight with weapons from the 19th century, the fact that the Stalinists betrayed them, this was why they lost. Not because they couldn't organise. Please do research on the Spanish Civil war, read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia (http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/books/homagetocatalonia.htm) read other books.

Organisation? Who says there is no organisation? What anarchists are against, is hierarchy, the possession of power by people. Power is a hard concept to define, but if a person can get someone to do something that the second would not otherwise do, then the first has power over the second. This is what I at least want to abolish.
But by abolishing this, does not mean that organisation does not exist. And it might not happen overnight, it might need a few years to implement, but people aren't going to fight when they see that the new society is better then the old.

[ComradeChris]

NO!
The people who work more, get more respect yes! But no more goods etc. The farmer would take surplus goods into town and exchange for what he/she needed. Thus even if the surplus was great, the farmer would not take more then was needed on the farm. The probably wouldn't be any body or group to enforce this rule, but it wouldn't be needed.

That's not what you said though. If a farmer produces more, he gets more, therefore has more to trade. Seems a lot like currency to me.


Organisation? Who says there is no organisation? What anarchists are against, is hierarchy, the possession of power by people. Power is a hard concept to define, but if a person can get someone to do something that the second would not otherwise do, then the first has power over the second. This is what I at least want to abolish.

Leadership is a form of power. It can be used to coerce people. I mean I may want to consume more, but people saying I can't. (In actuality, I think living in piety, being less harmful to the environment is something I'd want to do). Someone will be told things they cannot and can do according to someone's vision of anarchy.


How are communities of a few hundred, a few thousand or whatever supposed to defend against an modern army with modern weapons? The Spanish Anarchists had a very good defence system and were viewed as the best fighters on the front. The fact that they had to fight with weapons from the 19th century, the fact that the Stalinists betrayed them, this was why they lost. Not because they couldn't organise. Please do research on the Spanish Civil war, read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia read other books.

That's what the US does during any revolution. Aids the side that will help them the most. Of course they have the most superior weapons. But if you have any sources (internet) of the Spanish Revolution please send them. But as I said, it didn't last, which means it is susceptable to foreign influence. Regardless of technology. Because I don't think that anytime soon teh US is going to support an Anarchy, and their weapons are vastly superior to any other.


But by abolishing this, does not mean that organisation does not exist. And it might not happen overnight, it might need a few years to implement, but people aren't going to fight when they see that the new society is better then the old.

I hear ya. But I mean, people don't like the means (for some it's just too much at one time). And during the route to your ideal anarchy, you'll be especially susceptable to foreign influence. It will practically be chaos if you totally destoy a society.

[ComradeRed]

If a farmer produces more, he gets more, therefore has more to trade. Seems a lot like currency to me. Yes, one who cuts down trees and makes paper out of them "produces more" than he would have before. Now his labor maintains and the output increases, making value drop. True, s/he does have more to "trade with" but it is of less value!


Leadership is a form of power. Then it must be abolished, in any socialist society.


Someone will be told things they cannot and can do according to someone's vision of anarchy. A classical fallacy, anarchy is not the same as anarchism, although it does have the same root, it does not have the same meaning.


But as I said, it didn't last, which means it is susceptable to foreign influence. It didn't last because the Stalinists betrayed them!!! The only "foreign influence" was the USSR, Italy and Nazi Germany. The latter sent aid, weapons, airplanes, etc., whereas the former sent practically nothing.


And during the route to your ideal anarchy, you'll be especially susceptable to foreign influence. It will practically be chaos if you totally destoy a society. How do you not know that material conditions will trigger an anarchist revolt? Historical Materialism, "comrade".

[DaCuBaN]

The only "foreign influence" was the USSR, Italy and Nazi Germany. The latter sent aid, weapons, airplanes, etc., whereas the former sent practically nothing.

... except of course the politically conscious from around Europe, and pretty much every fascist-hater for a thousand miles...

[ComradeRed]

I am sorry, what I meant was that the governments of those nations intervened... true, fascist haters from everywhere(including the U$!) came to fight against Franco, but only Germany and Italy, as well as the USSR, actually sent any "official" aid.

[apathy maybe]

Ba. I'll probably get into trouble for this, but heck. I don't actually see what is wrong with any society that meets a few basic principles.
No hierarchy. This means that there are now power relationships. This does not mean that there are no organisers.
Volunteerism. Everybody volunteers to do anything, including being part of society. (No forcing anybody).
Due Process. No lynch mobs.
Equal rule. All who have a stake, have a equal say and a equal vote.
Needs meet. Even if people don't do any work, their needs should be meet if possible.
Individualism. All people are individuals. All people own their own bodies and can do whatever they want with it.
Freedom. All people are free to do anything they want with a condition, it doesn't have any adverse effects on another (without their consent) or environment (natural and man made).

If this means a form of individual capitalism, so be it, though I would contend that it wouldn't be capitalism if all these principles are met.

[Daymare17]

The anarchists are idealists. "Idealist" and "materialist" in philosophic language doesn't mean the same as it does in common language. Simplified, idealism means the notion that all matter comes from ideas, and materialism means the notion that all ideas come from matter. Although many anarchists deny that they are idealists, in practice they expose themselves all the time. To be blunt, the difference between Marxists and anarchists is that Marxists have a grip of reality.

They think that identical causes always produce identical effects no matter the objective conditions. They believe the original sin of "Leninism" is its "despotic centralism", which will always result in totalitarianism no matter what, no matter the objective level of the productive forces of the country. They believe that the state and money can be abolished overnight after the revolution, without realising that the state and money arose for objective reasons, namely the division of society into rich and poor, and that they can only dissolve once those objective reasons have disappeared.

This was shown in a funny way during the Paris Commune, when Bakunin went to a hotel in Lyons and printed out a manifesto claiming "all authority is abolished"! :blink: The police cracked down soon enough, proving that authority was indeed "abolished" - in Bakunin's silly little mind. ;)

[ComradeChris]

Yes, one who cuts down trees and makes paper out of them "produces more" than he would have before. Now his labor maintains and the output increases, making value drop. True, s/he does have more to "trade with" but it is of less value!
You could have farmers revolts though. If they bust their humps for 40 hours a week, while a computer technician only fixes 20 computers a week maybe amassing 20 hours, how is that fair? I mean the farmers are the essential to society, anything else is just a luxery basically. Which is why I support the end means (more agricultural, somewhat primitive, that the Kmher Rouge tried to acheive; I do not by any means approve of their methods.)


Then it must be abolished, in any socialist society.

I agree. And I think slowing weening the masses away form their hegemony, rather than putting them shockfully into a new society would be the best way.


A classical fallacy, anarchy is not the same as anarchism, although it does have the same root, it does not have the same meaning.

As I said, it sounds great, like the end terms of communism. I just don't think it should be called anarchy.


It didn't last because the Stalinists betrayed them!!! The only "foreign influence" was the USSR, Italy and Nazi Germany. The latter sent aid, weapons, airplanes, etc., whereas the former sent practically nothing.

See, the Anarchists are DEPENDANT on outside help. Can't survive with, or without it, it seems.


How do you not know that material conditions will trigger an anarchist revolt? Historical Materialism, "comrade".

I can only guess you're being snide when you put my comrade in quotes :lol: . No matter, your points are frivolous. Events throughout history have triggered ANARCHY. It is not a stable form of government, as history has shown us, speaking of HISTORICAL events and ideologies. :rolleyes:

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 24 2004, 06:04 AM
Ba. I'll probably get into trouble for this, but heck. I don't actually see what is wrong with any society that meets a few basic principles.
No hierarchy. This means that there are now power relationships. This does not mean that there are no organisers.
Volunteerism. Everybody volunteers to do anything, including being part of society. (No forcing anybody).
Due Process. No lynch mobs.
Equal rule. All who have a stake, have a equal say and a equal vote.
Needs meet. Even if people don't do any work, their needs should be meet if possible.
Individualism. All people are individuals. All people own their own bodies and can do whatever they want with it.
Freedom. All people are free to do anything they want with a condition, it doesn't have any adverse effects on another (without their consent) or environment (natural and man made).

If this means a form of individual capitalism, so be it, though I would contend that it wouldn't be capitalism if all these principles are met.
I don't either, it looks good, much like my ideal society. I just think anarchism is a mislabelled concept.

[gaf]

althought i always want to avoid cliches and etiquettes

a concentrated juices of my mind.....

respect for individues no need a flower or a joint to do it even if you can't speak inglish you will be heard(everybody does have a +)
constructive and creative (no taboe, no arrogance)
you know wat shit(cheat) is and were it's coming from
education to learn where shit(cheat) come from.
word as democraty and anarchy and communism and the many faces of fascisme must be realearned(recognised)
without any biased informations(throught information points and collectivities.where everybody can speek free,without punishment)
and of course "we all want to be happy"

stalin was wrong,crazy paranoiac and schizo.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 11:27 AM
The anarchists are idealists.
"Idealists...they have advanced mankind and have enriched the world."


idealism means the notion that all matter comes from ideas, and materialism means the notion that all ideas come from matter.

You’re confusing the issue. Ideas come from material conditions, not from matter. A table does not influence your beliefs. An ambulance does not turn you into a communist.

A hunter/gatherer had to have conceived the idea of a spear in order to make it. The spear could not have been made before he conceived the idea of it.

However, he could not have become a communist before the material conditions of society forced him to recognise what those conditions are?

It's the same now. Anarchism and Marxism exist because the material conditions of society and the effects that they have on human beings have forced those ideas to exist.

The concept of authority in all forms is an effect of the material conditions we live in, and should be challenged just as much as capitalism itself.


Although many anarchists deny that they are idealists,

To believe that matter creates ideas is absurd. What is an idea? It's a thought, a concept, usually a logical conclusion drawn in the mind. What is matter? it is the touchable creations. Things which you can see, touch, smell and which create vibrations. In order to create such things one has to draw a logical conclusion, a concept and thought in the mind.


To be blunt, the difference between Marxists and anarchists is that Marxists have a grip of reality.

Reality? I don't think anarchists differ to greatly with the material conception of history.


They believe the original sin of "Leninism" is its "despotic centralism", which will always result in totalitarianism no matter what

Which is has.


no matter the objective level of the productive forces of the country.

It has nothing to do with production, it is the conditions, which the dictatorship of the proletariat, under a Leninist paradigm create. There are levels of contradictions within the theory, that when applied into practice creates the opposite effect.

You create a one party state, you oppress opposition, of any kind, you centralise society into the hands of an admitted elite, because you have to, while at the same time awaiting the day when the state will suddenly wither away and this central government will just relinquish its power.

There has to be a point of withering away! There has to be a period when it begins, and unfortunately government has many aspects, not just production. While you wait for production to equal out you still have a central apparatus of control and even when production has equalled out you will still have this apparatus of control, unless of course you begin to dismantle the army, the police, and the institutions of bureaucracy at the point of material equality.

But how can you? Opposition still exists because of the amount of opposition you have had to oppress. Shooting someone because of their beliefs will only create more beliefs to shoot. Imprisoning people who wont do what you say will only create more people who don't want to do what you say. You can of course brainwash everyone to obey the party, but at that point liberation has been lost.

The state, the vanguard, the dictatorship gets wrapped up in itself, turning over to create new powers, new legislation, new offices of government all so we can have no power, no legislation and no offices of government.


They believe that the state and money can be abolished overnight after the revolution

The need for centralised government and armed forces, institutionalised law enforcements etc will not be necessary during a revolution. The state exists to maintain the control of a political elite, whether liberal, conservative or Leninist.

As for money, nobody believes that money can just be abolished over night. It’s absurd to think that.

[Zavara]

I think people are constantly confusing communists with leninists.
Not every communist is a Leninist. I myself am a communist but I agree on more issue's with Anton Pannekoek then with Joseph Stalin.

I think the main problem between Communists and Anarchists is the discussion about the state. This doesn't seem to be a major issue here. To be honest I think Stalin asked himself a question, tried to answer, wasted a lot of paper & ink and came up with... pretty much nothing.

Not much suprise there, Stalin just wasn't a very strong theorist and contributed little to the ideoligie (wich he admitted).

I think these kind of 'talks' between communists and anarchists is absolutely useless. I see two anti-capitalist movements breaking each other down...
When you give critique it should be in a positive way.

Don't forget that Red & Black have the same origin; the International.

they are twins.

[Dyst]

I am not able to write as long posts as some others here do, about their/my feelings towards anarchism/socialism, but here's what I mean.

In a way, anarchism is being used by capitalism. It is popular to be "against the laws" and "against authority" in many places and cultures, especially in the West, and amongst youth. This is, of course, created by capitalism, and capitalists probably profit a lot of it. However, this is only the "lifestyle" of anarchists that are being used to profit, not the true meanings. You may say your anarchist but still don't know anything about what it actually means (like the creation of a stateless society) other than against laws and authority.

I think this shines through into the more established anarchist society as well. Personally, I often get this weird feeling, while discussing with anarchists, that they don't really care about politics. Some of them only do it for the style, and I know this not only because I've discussed with them, etc. but because I once upon a time called myself an anarchist.

I called myself an anarchist because I hated school, and allthough I knew that socialism was much more "correct," I fell in love with the anarchist lifestyle. Allthough it is the case with quite many, not all anarchists are like this, though. I know many probably are anarchists because they feel the state has oppressed them and their friends, or something like that.

Still, I think what the state does wrong is very little compared to capitalism. I also think what the state does wrong is more shown in the media than capitalism.

Anyways, anarchism and socialism goes together well, in my opinion. I mean that anarchism without socialism is hell, and communism without anarchism is also very bad. You get what I mean, I suspect.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 11:02 PM
I am not able to write as long posts as some others here do, about their/my feelings towards anarchism/socialism, but here's what I mean.

In a way, anarchism is being used by capitalism. It is popular to be "against the laws" and "against authority" in many places and cultures, especially in the West, and amongst youth. This is, of course, created by capitalism, and capitalists probably profit a lot of it. However, this is only the "lifestyle" of anarchists that are being used to profit, not the true meanings. You may say your anarchist but still don't know anything about what it actually means (like the creation of a stateless society) other than against laws and authority.

I think this shines through into the more established anarchist society as well. Personally, I often get this weird feeling, while discussing with anarchists, that they don't really care about politics. Some of them only do it for the style, and I know this not only because I've discussed with them, etc. but because I once upon a time called myself an anarchist.

I called myself an anarchist because I hated school, and allthough I knew that socialism was much more "correct," I fell in love with the anarchist lifestyle. Allthough it is the case with quite many, not all anarchists are like this, though. I know many probably are anarchists because they feel the state has oppressed them and their friends, or something like that.

Still, I think what the state does wrong is very little compared to capitalism. I also think what the state does wrong is more shown in the media than capitalism.

Anyways, anarchism and socialism goes together well, in my opinion. I mean that anarchism without socialism is hell, and communism without anarchism is also very bad. You get what I mean, I suspect.
When it comes to your whole rebelliosness being marketable, hypothesis, it seems to me that you are reffering to rock&roll culture. In my experience anarchists are just a little too radical to be sold. ;)

At least here in Vancouver.

I'll agree I have met anarchist activists who were as clueless as me about historical materialism, but most of them aren't so naive as to completey blame the state as the only symbol of authority. Most do focus on free-market capitalism, but I'd imagine the scene where you live must be quite different.

I seem to be getting more radical by the day, and as this happens I am becoming more and more open to anarchism. Right now I would have to agree with you that there is a bit of an image obsession in the anarchist communty, which has made me very reluctant. Aswell I still need to get my head around historical materialism, before I can realy start acting on my anarchist tendancies.