MARX NOT EQUAL TO SOCIALIST

[jon doe]

G'day

sorry this is just one of those things that pisses me off. marx was not the first person to come up with the idea of socialism. marxism is a form of socialism just because someone on this forum says something distinctly non-marxist does not mean they can be acussed of being a non-socialist. a lot of bloody anarchists consider themselves within the socialist tradition, and how about the fucking fabians and social democrats.

MARX WAS JUST A SOCIALIST THEORIST who happened to spawn his own tradition. he wasn't even the first socialist theorist.

thanks
-r.

[redstarshining]

Of course socialism evolved from the paris commune and the french humanism, however, Marx was the first person who used the term 'socialism' to describe a real political theory ( scientific socialism ). And social democrats have absolutely nothing to do with socialism. If you called a member of the social democrat party here in Germany a socialist he would take it as an insult. Although I have to admit that one can hardly compare the social democrat partys of the past to those of today :(


(Edited by redstarshining at 4:13 pm on Oct. 18, 2002)

[Wenty]

but marx was the first (and engels_ to make the distinctions between bourgois and proletariat as well as dreaming up the idea of communism, the highest state of socialism, no country in the world has ever been communist not completely they were all at stage 2 of what karl said, stage 3 was the ever elusive communist

[julian]

didn't marx regard anarchism as a higher state of socialism than communism?

hello everyone by the way :)

[Wenty]

couldn't answer that one from you but i don't see how it could. I might see if i can find out if thats true or not though

[Iepilei]

anarchism can't be socialism as anarchy destroys the concept of government as a whole. Conservative Libertarianism, as both the markets and governments are free ground.

it's one of those, idealist concepts.

[trebboR]

Well, if I'm not mistaking. The 1st step according to MArx is as the proletarians to rise up against a government, set up a proletarian government, get things running and the third step is to let this government dissolve. Now, if I'm not mistaking, a country without any form of an government is an Anarchist country, and it was said many times on this forum:
step 1 = socialism
step 2 = communism
step 3 = anarchism
But correct me if I'm wrong in this.

[PunkRawker677]

"Now, if I'm not mistaking, a country without any form of an government is an Anarchist country, and it was said many times on this forum"

Anarchism is a country without any authority. Having no goverment doesn't mean having no authority. For example, in a communist country the goverment would dissolve, but authority would not. there would still be community leaders, etc. etc.

[trebboR]

Ok, I get it PunkRawker, thanks for correcting me. I'm still learning about communism and this forum is one of the fastest ways.

[Wenty]

the idea according to marx was first capitialism socialism then communism. You can't just skip straight from capitialism to communism which is what mao tried to do in China with the 'Giant Leap Forward' scheme and also what che wanted to do in Cuba it seems, so i've read...

[Som]

Quote: from julian on 4:09 pm on Oct. 18, 2002
didn't marx regard anarchism as a higher state of socialism than communism?

hello everyone by the way :)


Not true, Marx was very much against anarchism, among other things, he said it didn't go with the natural evolution of society, which was in his mind, capitalism -> socialism -> communism. Him and Bakunin, one of the major anarchists thinkers constantly complained about eachother.

Communism is anarchy in the sense the state dissolves.


And to clear up a bit about anarchism, Anarchists most often are anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-syndicalists also called themselves libertarian communists. Most of the time its not against all authority, just all involuntary authority. There is still authority in the sense that you will probably go along with the descisions of the workers councils and collective leaders.

[trebboR]

Thanks Som, we are all a bit wiser communist now :-).

[Libertarius]

Yes, workers in anarchist will follow leaders, but they can leave that line of work any time and go start somewhere else. These leaders would only make suggestions according to the will of the majority, and they wouldn't force anyone to do anything. The minority who is against any decisions made has the option of leaving the commune to go somewhere else.

[EjercitoFidelista]

I been seeing alot in the streets about Anarchism.. i been seeing it on bags of kids in school.. and i been seeing it in the walls painted on .. i been seeing it in shirts.. just like i see che everywhere as well.. but why is Anarchism so great.? In my opinion and what i been studying and reasearch i did.. i think U take Anarchy as one step of a revolution. cuz yur being and fighting against the goverment.. and it means.. we should bring down the goverment and set a new type of goverment. thats the only time when you use and run Anarchism.. after you revolt.. theres no more Anarchism .. thats it.. you formed a new govt.. thats it.. But to keep Anarchism all the way int he revoltuon.. what kind of system is it going to benefit. you . lets just say you just revolted in the revoluton and you thinking of making it Anarchism .. No gvt. no notin.. cuz your against everything.. no cops.. nada.. what good is that going to make.. i tel you what .. more RACISM.MORE VIOLENCE, MORE DRUGS,RIOTS EVEYWHERE.. DESTRUCTION .. TERROR TO UR OWN REVOLUTION .. UR PEOPEL ARE GOING TO START KILLING EACHOTHER.. for me anarchism .. .. is not good.. not good at all.. and it should be brought down.. and it will fsall eventually. peopel well be late bloomers. im not goign to lie.. i considered my self anarchism once.. but once i knew the real deal of it.. i was wrong.. every system needs a gov.t for it could be under control.. and to keep people united.. - thank you ..

[Som]

Whats great about anarchism? simple question, freedom.

All authority is voluntary, and every decision effecting your life, you get a voice in, this even includes things like police, perhaps a community will decide it wants a police force to keep order, they will create it and it will directly accountable to the community it policies. It is not a violent theory, just the opposite, most violent acts are essentially forcing ones will against another, a free people, will organize to prevent that.
Its a million direct democracies and deals on top of eachother, so all parts of your daily life you have a voice in.

[Commandante Smit]

Are u crazy??

That' amountýng to vigilante rule, which, may I remýnd u comrade, was originated by the Imperialist Yankees. Socieites need rule and order, but the rule dealt to those societies must be equal for every man according to his or her value as a person, whých ýs of course the same.

May I add that socialism, as comrade wenty said, is the latest stage. I am currently on a trip ýn Turkey to spread the revolution! Wish me luck amigos!

[Wenty]

my comrade friend is right, anarchy is wrong wrong my friends!! Not all anarchists have good intentions. Some want to pilage, rape, murder and cause general destruction. boo!

[Jaha]

Quote: from EjercitoFidelista on 5:43 am on Oct. 19, 2002
for me anarchism .. .. is not good.. not good at all.. and it should be brought down..

bring down anarchism.... ....hilarious!

anyways, i say that if there is anarchism, isnt that like early humanity? everyone for themselves? and then people grouped together and oppressed each other. it ended with monarchies and now we are where we are.... anarchy is the first step, granted, but we took that step centuries ago. it is no longer an issue.

[EjercitoFidelista]

So your saying that Anarchy is not going to have a goverment.. cmon my friend.. Anarchy .. needs to be destroy.. people that are anarchist just have intension like Comrade Wenty said distruction and rape and more violence.. how good is that going to be.. freedom .. what is freedom>? do what ever you want.. ? sure.. yeah! anarchy!.. freedom.. then what .. how are you fucks goign to survive.. cultivate ur own food.? Cmon.. Open ur eyes..! every society! needs a system! it needs to be organized.. me totally agaisnt anarchism! its just uncall for.. and anarchy is never goign to reach a point of making a revolt.. thats because other countrys well be against anarchism..

[EjercitoFidelista]

So your saying that Anarchy is not going to have a goverment.. cmon my friend.. Anarchy .. needs to be destroy.. people that are anarchist just have intension like Comrade Wenty said distruction and rape and more violence.. how good is that going to be.. freedom .. what is freedom>? do what ever you want.. ? sure.. yeah! anarchy!..freedom.. then what .. how are you fucks goign to survive.. cultivate ur own food.? Cmon.. Open ur eyes..! every society! needs a system! it needs to be organized.. me totally agaisnt anarchism! its just uncall for.. and anarchy is never goign to reach a point of making a revolt.. thats because other countrys well be against anarchism..

[Som]

Maybe you should look into anarchism a bit more.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/pam_ch2.html

Thats a good read on anarchy in spain.


Keep in mind, anarchism most often is anarcho-syndicalism. It is in no way not a system. Anarchy is order. It is highly organized, merely with the direct consent of the people under it.

After this, I don't think i'm going to repeat myself. I went over the point about violence.

Its not the first stage of humanity, you could more accurately call that primitivism. As it is communism, its the final stage.

[Wenty]

anarcho-syndaclism, classic python sketch about that. In the holy grail film.That's what it's all about. If only people would hear of--
ARTHUR:
Please! Please, good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
WOMAN:
No one lives there.
ARTHUR:
Then who is your lord?
WOMAN:
We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR:
What?
DENNIS:
I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,...

...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...

..by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,...

...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major...

[Wenty]

and by the way, anarchy and anarcho-syndaclism are obviously two different things, the latter perhaps being more appropriate in reference to marx.

[Commissar Dawkovich]

I take a dim view at the Capitalist mocking of the great theories of our father Marx. the sketches on the Pythons Monty do not give insight into the teachings Marx.

Anarchy is a system where there can be no CONTROL and there can be no ORDER. The people cannot be trusted to handle their own lives and so the great organs of state must mobilise to teach and lead the people in the direction that they want.

[Som]

The monty python bit was classic.

Anarchy and anarcho-syndicalism are not two different things at all.
Though not all anarchy is anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-syndicalism definitly is anarchy, its an anti-statist philosophy. Not really any reference to marx in it, considering beyond his form of scientific communism, he was against any anarchist society. Bakunin, Proudhoun, Kropotkin, and Rocker are the founding anarchists. Them and marx were all bitter critics of each other.
Your definition of anarchism is just flawed.

As well as yours is commissar, history has shown that people are more than able to succesfully organize themselves.

[metalero]

well marx stated that workers organize and destroy the foundation of exploitation. anarchism took way in marx view that in communist state the goverment doesn't exist as a revolutionary elite but rather as a group of highly organized industrial organization where each sector of the economic forces is represented and people have direct participation( anarcho-syndicalism - i.e spanish revolution-) However marx said that to reach this concept all teh productive forces ahd to be fully developed, and this is where Guevera comes and say that u don't have to wait as if the revolution is gonna occur by itself, and this was very sensible of his taking into account the hsitory of subordination adn colonialism of latin-america and most of teh thirld world, conditons that still exist and that legitimize the latter theory. "Seamos realistas: exigamos lo imposible" Che guevara. saludos.

[Libertarius]

Just to let you know, most of what you've said is based on conjecture and simple guessing. Most people make judgements on Anarchism before they read into it, before they know its founders and success stories.

As for Anarchists just wanting to "rape, pillage, and destroy", i'm afraid that's the image Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious gave this wonderful theory back in the days of the Sex Pistols and Anarchy in the UK. They claimed to be Anarchists, but were really just punks. They would be precisely the problem in Anarchist society.

There is a simple way to prevent crime and tribalism in Anarchist society. Once someone violates a person's natural rights -- that is, their right to privacy in their home, and freedom from authority and coercion -- they have declared themselves not a part of Anarchist society. They would lose their priveleges to food distribution, shelter, and would be in effect, exiles. They would have no way to form outlaw bands like in the Middle Ages, because there is nothing for a person outside the commune.

Small militias could be kept to oust troublemakers from the collective, because excercizing authority or force on a person or people who have declared themselves apart from Anarchist society is not condemned anywhere in Bakunin's writings.

With the system of equality (much like socialism), the crime rate would be greatly reduced anyways, because everyone has what they want, and are supported by the commune, which is maintained and worked by voluntary labourers/specialists.

No, despite what people think about the lack of a government to pass laws and enforce them, there would be little to no crime in anarchist society simply because there would be no purpose for it. What small amount there is would be stamped out quickly, and criminals would soon find that they have no way to force people against their will, because they would become malnourished and exposed to the elements, shunned by the good, orderly folks.

[timbaly]

Som, are you saying that people will be able to govern themselves while thinking about the good of the whole right after the revolution? or are you saying that they need to br educated before they organize? I don't believe that the people will be able to control their own lives especially if they are still acustomed to capitalism and worring about themselves before the whole.

[Libertarius]

As for the Anarchist fashion trend, i've seen it too. Wherever I wear my circled-A hooded pullover, I am ready to explain to any intelligent people who question my knowledge of the symbol I wear exactly what Anarchy is. Most of the kids who wear Che and Anarchy clothing are just into the "revolution fad", and have no idea what these people and symbols are.

REPRIMAND THEM WHENEVER YOU CAN!

[Som]

Quote: from timbaly on 1:41 am on Oct. 22, 2002
Som, are you saying that people will be able to govern themselves while thinking about the good of the whole right after the revolution? or are you saying that they need to br educated before they organize? I don't believe that the people will be able to control their own lives especially if they are still acustomed to capitalism and worring about themselves before the whole.


Alittle of both really.

This has to be a popular revolution, It can't be imposed on people that don't want it, or are ignorant of it of course. But the concepts are not difficult, and in any revolution there will be eductated leaders to help guide it along.
They'll be able to govern themselves easily even though they were used to capitalism, because they will want to. Any sort of revolution would be the masses wholeheartedly abandoning capitalism.

There is no way they'd organize after the revolution, the masses organizing would be the revolution itself.

[EjercitoFidelista]

ANARCHY HAS NO ORDER WAHCT SO EVER.. ANARCHY IS JUST ANARCHY THATS ALL CHAOS.. PEOPLE DONT WANT HASSLES FROM THE GOVERMENT!.

[jon doe]

G'day


There is a simple way to prevent crime and tribalism in Anarchist society. Once someone violates a person's natural rights -- that is, their right to privacy in their home, and freedom from authority and coercion -- they have declared themselves not a part of Anarchist society. They would lose their priveleges to food distribution, shelter, and would be in effect, exiles. They would have no way to form outlaw bands like in the Middle Ages, because there is nothing for a person outside the commune.


all civilised countries have abolished the death penaltiy and here you are trying to impose something even worse than death. and how is the 'right' to privacy in one's own home even a right. Carving up the earth and saying this little bit of property is mine everybody else stay the hell away is exactly what capitalists do (unless of course you actually just want lennin style state capitalism).


my comrade friend is right, anarchy is wrong wrong my friends!! Not all anarchists have good intentions. Some want to pilage, rape, murder and cause general destruction. boo!

not all people who call them selves communists have good intentions either (just look at stalin mao lennin etc.). i know how about we all just believe absolutley everything the mass-media tells us.

IF YOU DONT BELIEVE WHAT THE MASS MEDIA SAYS ABOUT COMMUNISTS WHAY DO YOU STILL BELIEVE THEM ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE.


The monty python bit was classic.

amen brother/sister/other. any movment which can't stand it's self being paroied isn't worth it's salt. that's esp. the case when it's monty python (the greatest comics other than the goons (who monty python took a lot of there style from)) sending you up


As for the Anarchist fashion trend, i've seen it too. Wherever I wear my circled-A hooded pullover, I am ready to explain to any intelligent people who question my knowledge of the symbol I wear exactly what Anarchy is. Most of the kids who wear Che and Anarchy clothing are just into the "revolution fad", and have no idea what these people and symbols are.

REPRIMAND THEM WHENEVER YOU CAN!

so you want a populist revolution with out the revolution being popular???? everyone has as much right to wear what they like as you do. a neo-nazi has just as much right to wear a che shirt as you do. you have just as much right to wear a hitler shirt as the neo-nazi. what is more worrying is the COMODIFICATION of the image of che for comercial gain.


Anarchy is a system where there can be no CONTROL and there can be no ORDER. The people cannot be trusted to handle their own lives and so the great organs of state must mobilise to teach and lead the people in the direction that they want.

i know this is an overused quote but ill use it anyway
'power corupts; absolute power corrupts absolutley' -plato
this is why the USSR didn't work (that and thier ridiculossly large 'defense' and secret police budgets).

and anotherthing beurocracy is not productive labour so the state is automatically a burden on it's society.

thanks
-r.