Anarchist, Communist?

[Hiero]

I didnt know where to put this in Chit Chat or in here, its not really in depth discussion. It's not a discussion on which is better,.


Some people like The Anarchist Tention, CYM, Nonsectarian basterd etc who are open anarchist have also stated they are Communist, and most of the time refer to there selfs as communist.

There was a thread awhile back about anarchist calling themselves communist. Many communist are iritated when Anarchist call themsleves Communist yet criticise almost every Communist and everything about Communism.

Anarchist call themselves Communist on the grounds that Communism and Anarchism are the same things. A classless, statless society.

So is it right for me to call myself a Anarchist then? When i am a Marxist-Leninist.

[Iepilei]

Just call yourself "you" and don't worry too much about what others might say. Classifications are simply ways to break us apart and keep us from learning from each other.

[Forward Union]

No Marxist-Leninism is closer to fascism than Anarchism. Real Communism and Anarchism are almost identical.

Im Anarcho-Communist.

[Hiero]

All people who call themselves communist are Marxist-Leninist.

It is only people who can fit the ideology of Anarchism that call themselves Communist but are not Marxist-Leninist.

And Fascism is Bourgiose systems, Marxism-Leninism is a Proleteriat system.

[Guest1]

To call it Fascism is a little messed up.

To say that all people who call themselves communist are Marxist-Leninist is also a little messed up. Not only are Marxist-Leninists not the only faction of communism, but they also can't hold that claim to Marxism itself.

No, you wouldn't be considered an Anarchist, cause while our long-term goals are exactly the same, the methods you believe in are considered to be contrary to the goals by Anarchists.

Anarchism is a rejection of the idea that the workingclass should seize state power, and a belief that that power could never be used to abolish itself. The only way forward is to smash it, rather than risk attracting the worst elements of society and degenerating into bourgeoisie-infested party rule.

Instead of leaving the very tools used to enforce Capitalism and oppress the workingclass, the workingclass should smash those tools that can be used by a minority to oppress the majority, forcing any "counter-revolution" to rely only on its own strengths rather than the strength of a state that controls armies and police forces.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

First off Marxism-Leninism doesn't equate Marxism. Lenin added a few ideas of his own and scraped a few of Marx. On the other hand, I have done the same. Probaly the most notable of them would be my full rejection of the state and hierachy. Marx's word isn't holy, the man was right about a lot of stuff. But quite some proofed to be wrong. His advocation for voting, or the idea that the capitalist state could be used by the workingclass.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 08:22 AM
All people who call themselves communist are Marxist-Leninist.
I consider myself a Communist, but in no way a Marxist-Leninist.

I feel that the industrial institutions give birth to stronger desire for material possessions because they're more readily abundant. I'd much rather live in a smaller, rural commune.

How to get there would take almost an Anarchist movement only further. Not only destroy the ruling class, but also destroy it's standing industrial institutions (whereas Anarchists and Communists would leave them standing).

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 12:22 PM
All people who call themselves communist are Marxist-Leninist.
What utter ignorance.

I'm an anarcho-commie and my views are more akin to ComradeChris's. I believe in a peaceful social revolution based around what could basically be called a kibbutzim movement, minus the zionism of course ;)

May I suggest you do some research... wikipedia should have everything you need. I suggest you read up on council communism, anarcho-communism, and the first and second internationales.

[Yazman]

I am Marxist/communist, Lenin's stuff is not bad, but I am definitely not an anarchist.

*edit* I just realised I had written "marxist" in there along with leninist. I am most definitely Marxist - I agree entirely with Hiero's post, I suggesy you read it.

[Hiero]

No, you wouldn't be considered an Anarchist, cause while our long-term goals are exactly the same, the methods you believe in are considered to be contrary to the goals by Anarchists.

That what my point was in the other thread. Since our methods are differen't how can an anarchist call himself a communist.


What utter ignorance.


I consider myself a Communist, but in no way a Marxist-Leninist.

Every popular communist from Che to Trotsky to Mao has stated they are a Marxist Leninist.

It is commonly known that a communist belief fo the transition period sits on the dictatoship of the proleteriat which is center to a party.

And anyone who has ever opposed this have called themselves "anacrhist" "anarcho communist" "Council Comunist" etc.

So i find it reall ironic when people call themselves Communist but not being Marxist Leninist, and if i were to call myself a Council Communist i would be criticised on the grounds that i am a Marxist Leninist.

I think that if the rule is applied to Marxist-Leninist then why isn't it applied to non Marxist-Leninist.

Communist first starting with Marx and Engels first used the word to disassociate themselves from Social Democrats, Anarchist etc. Bakunin didn't call himself a communist he called himself a Anarchist. Bakunin did this as he criticised the Dictatorship of the proleteriat. Every non Marxist Leninist has criticised almost every Communist leader to date, yet they still call themsleves communist. Why don't you follow the lead taken by traditional Anarchist and call your selfs something other then Communist, or use the add on wors like "anarcho" or "council".

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Simply, because most Communists were Marxist-Leninist doesn't mean that there is no other possiblity. For example, Marx wasn't a Marxist-Leninist. So would you count Marx as a non-communist?

The basic idea behind the dictatorship of the proletariat is that the workingclass fights off the capitalist attacks directly after our revolution. I think that our experiences in the past have shown sufficiently that a party, hierachy or using capitalist structures is very damaging to our ambition towards communism.

Whetever you like it or not, but Anarchism and Communism have both had a significant influence on each other.

[comradesteele]

i suggest everyone should check out http://www.politicalcompass.org/ its rather interesting, you may not be what you think you are.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:27 AM
I didnt know where to put this in Chit Chat or in here, its not really in depth discussion. It's not a discussion on which is better,.


Some people like The Anarchist Tention, CYM, Nonsectarian basterd etc who are open anarchist have also stated they are Communist, and most of the time refer to there selfs as communist.

There was a thread awhile back about anarchist calling themselves communist. Many communist are iritated when Anarchist call themsleves Communist yet criticise almost every Communist and everything about Communism.

Anarchist call themselves Communist on the grounds that Communism and Anarchism are the same things. A classless, statless society.

So is it right for me to call myself a Anarchist then? When i am a Marxist-Leninist.
No, thats not the same thing. If it is right for an anarchist to call himself a marxist-leninist, then it is right for tou as a marxist-leninist to call yourself an anarchist.
But now it is not that way. These anarchists calls themself communists, not marxist-leninists. Marxism-leninism and communism is NOT the same thing.
Not marxism and communism either, even if all marxists are communists.
Most communists are either of the marxist or the anarchist tradition. And under each of these main-traditions there is like hundreds of sub-traditions like: Council communism, leninism, platformism, etc. Some of the anarcho-communist traditions might even be closer to marxism then some of the marxist traditions, etc. It is really a mess.

[The Feral Underclass]

Considering the amount of threads on this issue, started by you mostly, I find it hard to believe that you can keep asking the same question over and over again...It isnt going to change.

[ComradeChris]

Hiero, a Marxist-Leninist believes that industrialization is required for communism. I don't believe that and actually would prefer a non-industrialized commune. I don't see how I can be a Marxist-Leninist with such a strong confliction. I still feel collectivization and equality are the ideals of human society. Therefore communist in nature.

[gnat]

In a communist society is there no government? Who runs things?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 10:24 PM
In a communist society is there no government? Who runs things?
Everyone should get an equal say as to how things are run through a direct democracy.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 12:22 PM
All people who call themselves communist are Marxist-Leninist.


I consider myself a marxist, not a marxist-leninist <_<

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:12 PM
Hiero, a Marxist-Leninist believes that industrialization is required for communism. I don&#39;t believe that and actually would prefer a non-industrialized commune. I don&#39;t see how I can be a Marxist-Leninist with such a strong confliction. I still feel collectivization and equality are the ideals of human society. Therefore communist in nature.
I&#39;m not an ML, but like the old-fashioned commies I believe industrialisation is necessary to achieve classless society, as an increased technological base smooths over the material differences in localities, as opposed to non-industrialised communes which are limited to &#39;what the land can provide&#39;

A communist is someone who wants to achieve classless egalitarian society. It doesn&#39;t really matter by what means.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 06:39 PM

I&#39;m not an ML, but like the old-fashioned commies I believe industrialisation is necessary to achieve classless society, as an increased technological base smooths over the material differences in localities, as opposed to non-industrialised communes which are limited to &#39;what the land can provide&#39;


Me too

[KuliNeMeL]

as far as i know
Marx thought industrialisation is necessary to achieve classless society, not Lenin or Mao (who was a Marxist Leninist) for example....

anyway.
Marx used the term &#39;Anarchy&#39; to describe the last part of the socialist revolution, an Anarchist society based on communist ideas...

the main difference between Communists and Anarchists is that Communists believe that the "Dictatorship of the proletrait" is necessary after the revolution to arrange stuff towards an Anarchist society (means, no state), while Anarchists think that after the revolution, the move towards an Anarchist society should come immediately after taking power...

[gnat]

Everyone should get an equal say as to how things are run through a direct democracy.

So, how&#39;s that work with 6 billion people?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 28 2005, 03:19 AM
Considering the amount of threads on this issue, started by you mostly, I find it hard to believe that you can keep asking the same question over and over again...It isnt going to change.
No this time i asked if i could call myself a Anarchist on the ground that i am a communist but im still a Marxist Leninist.

But this thread has gone to the shit house anyway. Fucking pathetic that people can&#39;t even keep on topic and start spitting useless rubish.


I don&#39;t believe that and actually would prefer a non-industrialized commune.

Like Pol Pot, HAAHHAHAHAHAHA

[TheKwas]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 10:10 PM

Everyone should get an equal say as to how things are run through a direct democracy.

So, how&#39;s that work with 6 billion people?
Breaking society down into sydicates, communes, nested councils, ect.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 08:55 PM

I don&#39;t believe that and actually would prefer a non-industrialized commune.

Like Pol Pot, HAAHHAHAHAHAHA
Why is that funny. Pol Pot probably got the closest to acheiving any form of communism. Unfortunately he had to kill all those people along the way. It kind of Stalinized him.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by ComradeChris+Mar 5 2005, 05:18 PM--> (ComradeChris @ Mar 5 2005, 05:18 PM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 08:55 PM

I don&#39;t believe that and actually would prefer a non-industrialized commune.

Like Pol Pot, HAAHHAHAHAHAHA
Why is that funny. Pol Pot probably got the closest to acheiving any form of communism. Unfortunately he had to kill all those people along the way. It kind of Stalinized him. [/b]
Which aspect of his policies reflected communism?

[workersunity]

every socialist who is an internationalist, must believe that industrialization doesnt have to come, and thus contribute some of their beliefs to trotsky

[Guest1]

What are you talking about

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Mar 22 2005, 01:27 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension &#064; Mar 22 2005, 01:27 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 05:18 PM

[email protected] 28 2005, 08:55 PM

I don&#39;t believe that and actually would prefer a non-industrialized commune.

Like Pol Pot, HAAHHAHAHAHAHA
Why is that funny. Pol Pot probably got the closest to acheiving any form of communism. Unfortunately he had to kill all those people along the way. It kind of Stalinized him.
Which aspect of his policies reflected communism? [/b]

I just decided to clean this post up a bit. I didn&#39;t have any actual documentation on me at the moment so there were too many "was told" and the like.

He declared year zero; which eliminates the religious use of dates (the current hegemony)
He abolished money; and
he abolished property.

Everyone was farm labourers so its kind of hard not to be equal.