Anarchism

[I crush capitalists]

Can you please fill me in on your main beliefs and that type of shit....I only met a few anarchists and they have all really, pissed me off. <_<

Basically, I dont get the point of destroying government controls........ :huh:

Oh, and I dotn want a recording of the beliefs, I want your personal opinion.

[LSD]

Can you please fill me in on your main beliefs and that type of shit

Anarchism aims, like communism, to create a classless stateless society.

The differences, in simplest terms, is that clasical communism (Marxist-Leninism, Trotkyism, Maoism, etc...) believes that a transitional state (socialism} is required before communism can be achieved, while Anarchism rejects this.

We aren&#39;t saying that a transformation towards this society can happen "overnight", but we are saying that the way to make this transformation successful is to crush the state at once.

Without the state apparatus, which we view to be intrinsically reactionary and coercive, the workers are free to organize themselves into a truly communistic society.

Remember, Anarchism does not mean no rules, it merely means no hierarchy.


Basically, I dont get the point of destroying government controls........

The point is that Anarchists believe that the state is in and of itself an oppressive institution and that no matter who is controlling it, it is fundamentally a coercive instrument of domination and control.

Anarchists seek to abolish all forms of hierarchy in society, be they political or economic. We see the state itself as one of the most blatant examples of political hierarchy.

Whereas, most communists would claim that the state can be "used" to further communistic aims, Anarchists believe that any elite "leadership", whether it rules in the "name" of the people or not, is a destructive thing.

Because of history and an understanding of power dynamics, we severly doubt the classical Marxist contention that socialist power will "wither away". From what we have seen, it never seems to happen.

Rather, we must crush the state at the earliest possible time and build from there. A true workers&#39; state doesn&#39;t need any state ever.

[Warren Peace]

any elite "leadership", whether it rules in the "name" of the people or not, is a destructive thing.

This is one of my problems with the anarchist Book of Resistance (http://socialnerve.org/resist/). I strongly agree with the book on the Class War, and I agree with anarchists on a lot of issues, but I don&#39;t get your problem with all leadership.

Every revolution has a leader. How do you expect to defeat the fucking Class Enemy without strong leadership? Che Guevara, for example, was a selfless leader that put the lives of the people before his own life. Did he only become a leader because he was greedy? What about other leaders?

[LSD]

Every revolution has a leader. How do you expect to defeat the fucking Class Enemy without strong leadership?

There&#39;s a difference between an entrentched "leadership" and temporary revolutionary leaders.

Obviously any revolution has to have some sort of organization and some method of making decisions. And it makes strong logical sense for those with experience and knowledge to make practical decisions on revolutionary activity, but those decisions must not be binding.

That is, there can be "leaders" in the emotional sense, but they will have no functional authority. They serve an advisoral role and any decisions they make are accountable to the whole of the revolutionary organization. These people are recallable at any time and, ideally, would be rotated often among the revolutionary whole to ensure that no entrentched power structure emerges.

It is the workers who are revolting and the workers who must have the final say in any revolutionary decision.


but I don&#39;t get your problem with all leadership.

After the revolution, of course, all "leadership" in any form will be abolished.

[Warren Peace]

After the revolution, of course, all "leadership" in any form will be abolished.

You made a good point, but don&#39;t you think you&#39;re being kind of closed-minded? After the revolution, couldn&#39;t there be a compromise between anarchism and communism?

At the very least, there should be some elected authority that persecutes racist right-wingers. Like modern Germany&#39;s persecution of racists, and China&#39;s persecution of the racist Falun Gong cult. Both countries have problems, but they&#39;re right to crack down on racism.

Without elected authority, who&#39;s to stop right-wingers from brainwashing the people to rise up and destroy our revolutionary society? Or do you believe in absolute freedom of speach?

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by Revolt Now&#33;@Jul 9 2005, 03:08 AM
You made a good point, but don&#39;t you think you&#39;re being kind of closed-minded? After the revolution, couldn&#39;t there be a compromise between anarchism and communism?

At the very least, there should be some elected authority that persecutes racist right-wingers. Like modern Germany&#39;s persecution of racists, and China&#39;s persecution of the racist Falun Gong cult. Both countries have problems, but they&#39;re right to crack down on racism.

Without elected authority, who&#39;s to stop right-wingers from brainwashing the people to rise up and destroy our revolutionary society? Or do you believe in absolute freedom of speach?
Um, communism and anarchism stand the same on hierarchy (i.e. none).

Marxists and all schools of Marxism believe in needing a transitional socialist state, however I am a communist and don&#39;t wish for this transitional state.

[LSD]

Without elected authority, who&#39;s to stop right-wingers from brainwashing the people to rise up and destroy our revolutionary society?

Not "who", what.

We don&#39;t need "persecution", the best way to discredit "reactionaries" is to let them express themselves.

For every right wing nutjob, there will be a hundred people countering his every "argument".

Right-wingers will find about as much support in communist society as Feudalists do in capitalist societies.


At the very least, there should be some elected authority that persecutes racist right-wingers.

You&#39;re only illustrating my point.

You want an elite "authority" to control and suppress speech. Such a body goes against the fundamental principles of communism. Communism doesn&#39;t seek to replace the capitalist rulling class with a bureaucratic one, it seeks to abolish class society.

Once you set up a select class with the authority to determine what is and what isn&#39;t "reactionary" or "right-wing", you give that class immense power over the rest of society. This undermines the very foundation of communism, namely fundamental equality.


Or do you believe in absolute freedom of speach?

Yes, I do.

The dangers of suppression are far greater than the dangers of allowing free expression.

[Warren Peace]

Once again comrades, you both have good points. Anarchism is definatley better than capitalism, after all.


For every right wing nutjob, there will be a hundred people countering his every "argument". Right-wingers will find about as much support in communist society as Feudalists do in capitalist societies.

Yes I see, in a communist society we won&#39;t need to supress reactionary ideas because the people will reject them on their own. Sort of like how communism/anarchism is not popular in the US.

That&#39;d be kickass, but how will we phase out right-wing ideas if we jump to a stateless society right after the revolution and there is no transitional socialist state?

Reactionary ideas will still be around if we jump from a reactionary state to no state, and there won&#39;t be a government to keep them from coming to power. It just seems like anarchism needs a government to maintain anarchism, which is fucked up because if it has a government it isn&#39;t anarchism in the first place&#33; So how can anarchism exist, without a transition first to phase out right-wing ideas?

The only solution I can think of is, during the revolution, we could have a massive purge and totally exterminate the Class Enemy and their supporters. Then when the revolution was over and we have anarchism, we won&#39;t need a government because there will be no threat. But that doesn&#39;t seem very nice, lol.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Revolt Now&#33;@Jul 9 2005, 06:02 AM
Once again, comrades, you both have good points. A statelees society is definatley better than a capitalist one, after all.


For every right wing nutjob, there will be a hundred people countering his every "argument". Right-wingers will find about as much support in communist society as Feudalists do in capitalist societies.

Yes I see, in a communist society we won&#39;t need to supress reactionary ideas because the people will reject them on their own. Sort of like how communism/anarchism is not popular in the US.

That&#39;d be kickass, but how will we phase out right-wing ideas if we jump to a stateless society right after the revolution and there is no transitional socialist state?

Reactionary ideas will still be around if we jump from a reactionary state to no state, and there won&#39;t be a government to keep them from coming to power. It just seems like anarchism needs a government to maintain anarchism, which is fucked up because if it has a government it isn&#39;t anarchism in the first place&#33; So how can anarchism exist, without a transition first to phase out right-wing ideas?

The only solution I can think of is, during the revolution, we could have a massive purge and totally exterminate the Class Enemy and their supporters. Then when the revolution was over and we have anarchism, we won&#39;t need a government because their will be no threat. But that doesn&#39;t seem very nice.
Getting rid of those annoying right wingers would be extremely easy in a commune. It would be the people&#39;s choice, after all, to revolt against their &#39;superiors&#39; and create the commune in the first place. Why would the newly liberated people want their oppressors hanging around?

Also, you think in too large of terms. There won&#39;t be any &#39;state&#39; revolution or mass revolution of any kind. Rather, I envision far more localized revolutions developing, and creating small, autonomous, and essentially self-sufficient communes. So every time we have such a localized revolution, the people themselves will cleanse their commune of their former oppressors. Such localized tactics make carrying out this justice far easier.

I&#39;ve been reading this forum, and it seems to me that the only comparisons between communism and anarchism relate the two, I never see anyone contrating the two. So, this leads me to ask, what is the difference between anarchism or communism? Or are the goals and the ends the same, but the difference is in thinking? Any communists and/or anarchists care to explain?

[LSD]

That&#39;d be kickass, but how will we phase out right-wing ideas if we jump to a stateless society right after the revolution and there is no transitional socialist state?

Any communist revolution is, by definition, a populist affair.

For such a revolution to occur, let alone be successful, it requires that a significant proportion of the working class is aware of the exploitative and oppressive nature of capitalism. By the time such a revolution has finished, it is not unreasonable to assume that virtually the entire working class population will recognize the flaws of "reactionary" thinking.

The only people, in such a society, who will still promote right-wing thinking will be the capitalists ...and it is unlikely that they will stay long.

One thing we have seen from past revolutions, is that once the exploited rise up, the exploiters are always quick to run.

Right-wing ideas may still be around, but no one will be left to promote them, save, perhaps, some lone ideologues. Reactionaries who either can&#39;t get out or are so deluded that they honestly believe that they can "convince" the workers to restore capitalism. Undoubtable, many of them will be religious fundamentalists certain that they are doing "God&#39;s work".

Such people&#39;s claims will be largely ignored, much as a website promoting Feudalism would be today. Debunking it would be so pathetically easy that hardly anyone would even bother.

After a long, and undoubtably bloody, revolution has just been fought to abolish capitalism, it is highly doubtful that anyone would still consider capitalism to be a viable option&#33;


Reactionary ideas will still be around if we jump from a reactionary state to no state, and there won&#39;t be a government to keep them from coming to power.

That&#39;s the point. There is no "power" to come to&#33;

Reactionaries, those who stay, will, theoretically, be able to spout their bullshit, but there will be no political apparatus for them to sieze control of.

Whereas in a "transitional" state, "closet" right-wingers could always "sneak" into power, in a stateless society there is no potential for abuse, corruption, or deception because there simply is no position that can be abused, corrupted, or snuck into&#33;


So, this leads me to ask, what is the difference between anarchism or communism?

Basically, the difference is in methodology.

Communists (the Marxist kind) believe that a transitional state is nescessary to achieve a classless society, Anarchists do not.

[anomaly]

But I do not believe a &#39;transitional&#39; state is neccesary, nor does redstar, nor do many other self-proclaimed communists on this board. However, we call ourselves communists because that is what we specifically want. I interpret anarchism as the general movement to overthrow the state, and create a new society devoid of rulers. Though the likely name of that new society with no rulers is communism, some anarchists do not want communism (admittedly few). So I think the label of &#39;communist&#39; for us who want communism but oppose the transitional state is right. Also, I am wary of calling myself an anarchist because some (but few, and certainly none of the anarchists on this board) anarchists are &#39;capitalist&#39; anarchists, namely Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.

In light of this, we see that there is no difference between the &#39;direct&#39; communists (those who oppose the state) on this board and anarchists on this board.

[LSD]

But I do not believe a &#39;transitional&#39; state is neccesary, nor does redstar, nor do many other self-proclaimed communists on this board. However, we call ourselves communists because that is what we specifically want.

As do I, in fact&#33; :lol:


Also, I am wary of calling myself an anarchist because some (but few, and certainly none of the anarchists on this board) anarchists are &#39;capitalist&#39; anarchists, namely Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.

Those people are not anarchists in any way.

In fact, for the most part, they acknowledge this and don&#39;t even claim to be Anarchists, but prefer to call themselves "libertarian".


In light of this, we see that there is no difference between the &#39;direct&#39; communists (those who oppose the state) on this board and anarchists on this board.

Often true, which is why labels are so damn misleading.


I interpret anarchism as the general movement to overthrow the state, and create a new society devoid of rulers. Though the likely name of that new society with no rulers is communism, some anarchists do not want communism (admittedly few).

Which is why I would call myself an Anarchist Communist.

But again, such labels are largely meaningless.

[anomaly]

Yes. You&#39;re right. The important thing is that we want the same thing, and fight for the same thing; in short, we&#39;re comrades...despite what these &#39;labels&#39; may imply.

[Warren Peace]

Yes. You&#39;re right. The important thing is that we want the same thing, and fight for the same thing; in short, we&#39;re comrades...despite what these &#39;labels&#39; may imply.

I say in my political statement:

I support a United Front. We need to put aside our differences and form an armed revolutionary movement, a new Red Army. Conflicts between revolutionaries should come second to the conflict with our common and eternal enemy: the Class Enemy&#33; The reactionaries, the government, the rich ass coorporations, the Christian/Zionist fundementalists, all the fucking right-wingers.

But with communists and anarchists, there aren&#39;t many differences to put aside.


After a long, and undoubtably bloody, revolution has just been fought to abolish capitalism, it is highly doubtful that anyone would still consider capitalism to be a viable option&#33;

You&#39;re right, the revolution itself is the only transition we need.

[Donnie]

At the very least, there should be some elected authority that persecutes racist right-wingers. Like modern Germany&#39;s persecution of racists, and China&#39;s persecution of the racist Falun Gong cult. Both countries have problems, but they&#39;re right to crack down on racism.
It doesn’t take a genius to find a racist. Why do we need an authority to do this? Surely all of us could come to a collective decision about what should be done with racists.


Without elected authority, who&#39;s to stop right-wingers from brainwashing the people to rise up and destroy our revolutionary society? Or do you believe in absolute freedom of speach?
Why would there be racist in an anarchic communist society? Mostly all problems would wash away when we have an anarchic communistic society. Because as anarchist/communist we know that the root of all crimes and oppression lie within capitalism and the state. So surely once the state and capitalism has been demolished scapegoat ideas like “immigrants taking our jobs” would disappear and so would racism because they would understand that it was capitalism and the state that was at the root of everything.

[Forward Union]

Getting rid of those annoying right wingers

You can get rid of right-wing people, but it will be much harder to get rid of &#39;the right wing&#39;

[Warren Peace]

It doesn’t take a genius to find a racist. Why do we need an authority to do this? Surely all of us could come to a collective decision about what should be done with racists.

You&#39;re right, like I said before, the revolution is the only transition we need to wash away dumbass reactionary ideas.


You can get rid of right-wing people, but it will be much harder to get rid of &#39;the right wing&#39;

That&#39;s sort of the point I was trying to make earlier. But if right-wing people and ideas are wiped out, then where&#39;s the right-wing?

[Patchy]

Ok, heres my big question with Anarchism (this thread has informed me greatly, I never really knew much about it&#39;s ideas), whats to stop people from blatantly killing, stealing, and being a pain in the ass once there is no government, no police?

Vigilante Justice?

[evolution of a rebel mind]

I just strated to read up on anarchism.

and this discussion you all had was great, it cleared some things up for me i enjoyed everyones response.

i have one question, under anarchism if the goal is to get rid of goverment controls how do you introduce law

sorry if this is a stupid question.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 12:44 PM
Ok, heres my big question with Anarchism (this thread has informed me greatly, I never really knew much about it&#39;s ideas), whats to stop people from blatantly killing, stealing, and being a pain in the ass once there is no government, no police?

Vigilante Justice?
whats to stop it in communism? stealing while still would happen in some cases would largely stop, because everyone has what they need and can obtain what they want more easily. murder would still happen to yet we wouldnt imprison or murder this person its the communities decision on how to "rehibilitate" them, whatnot. but there is no real reason to think people are gonna just start killing people, what would be the point?

[LSD]

whats to stop people from blatantly killing, stealing, and being a pain in the ass once there is no government, no police?

While crime will undoubtable go down, it will, of course not disapear.

If a crime is committed, it will be investigated by those interested in such things. When a culprit is identified, there will be a trial and if he is found guilty he will be punnished / rehabilitated depending on the severity / nature of the crime.


Vigilante Justice?

In a manner of speaking.

There will be no "professional" justice-enforcers, so I suppose then you could call it "vigilante", but it really doesn&#39;t apply.

Crimes would be stopped by anyone who&#39;s in a position to stop them. But there will be no need for "patrols" or the like.

Most crimes that police prevent today are against propert, obviously that will no longer be an issue&#33;


have one question, under anarchism if the goal is to get rid of goverment controls how do you introduce law

Societal rules would be decided communaly by the whole society and then voted on by that society.

Rules which are supported will be enforced, those which are not will not.

That&#39;s all the "law" that we need.

[Donnie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:44 PM
Ok, heres my big question with Anarchism (this thread has informed me greatly, I never really knew much about it&#39;s ideas), whats to stop people from blatantly killing, stealing, and being a pain in the ass once there is no government, no police?

Vigilante Justice?
Killing people? First of all we need to think of why people kill in this society? Greed, stress, oppression and inequality
But surely in a free and equal society free from dominance killing people would certainly decrease, obviously there are going to be the odd mishaps due to too much drink etc.
For example in the "ghetto" people kill each other for money because there in such poverty. People also kill others due to stress and oppression in their jobs. For example if a man/women has worked non stop at work then their stress levels when they come home are going to be certainly high and so it only takes family problems to spark something.
Humans a social beings and cannot cope with stress and oppression and so they try to relieve this stress in many ways e.g. drinking, fighting, domestic violence and even killing someone.

Stealing? In an anarchic communist society everything is held in common and there is no private property, so why would an individual want to steal when he in essence already owns it with the rest of the community?
Stealing in today’s society is a product of the gross inequalities.

[Seeker]

there is no real reason to think people are gonna just start killing people, what would be the point?

To establish yourself as a Warlord, gain feudal control of a patch of land, and found an Empire.

To eliminate a bloodline your own family is feuding with.

Genocide in the name of eugenics.


Humans are a filthy pack of rat bastards. We don&#39;t need a reason to act like violent, drunken monkeys. It is who and what we are.



Vigilance and a massive purge during the revolution may seem distasteful, but I think it may be necessary in the face of our beastial human nature. In fact, if I were a diety, I would smite 95% of the population right now.

[LSD]

To establish yourself as a Warlord, gain feudal control of a patch of land, and found an Empire.

And killing people would accomplish this ...how?

In order to do those things one must first have people willing to obey him. A warlord / feudal chief / emperor must have subjects&#33; Murder is not sufficient to garner followers, you must have something to give them as well.

In a capital-based system it is obvious what one can give: land, money, riches, property, etc...

But in an Anarcho-Communist environment in which people are already afforded all that they need and want ...what do you have to offer them?


To eliminate a bloodline your own family is feuding with.

Or to put it in slightly less 14th century terms, "personal reasons".

And such "crimes of passion" would indeed probably still occur. But, even know, they are the vast minority of murders.


Genocide in the name of eugenics.

Well, that&#39;s just plain ludicrous.

Eugenic Genocide cannot be carried out by an individual or even a select group of individuals. It requires concentrated institutionalized power to be at all successful.


Humans are a filthy pack of rat bastards. We don&#39;t need a reason to act like violent, drunken monkeys. It is who and what we are.

And your evidence for this is?


In fact, if I were a diety, I would smite 95% of the population right now.

Maybe when you were writing about "violent, drunken monkeys" you were thinking of yourself.

The only one here who has promoted "Genocide in the name of eugenics" is you&#33;

[Donnie]

To establish yourself as a Warlord, gain feudal control of a patch of land, and found an Empire.

Why would an individual in a free and equal society want that when he already has everything?
Even if one individual wanted to do that, why would the rest of the community follow him when they already have everything they could possibly desire? Love, equality and liberty.


To eliminate a bloodline your own family is feuding with.

Personally I&#39;m for the destruction of the family. I believe people in a communist society should be brought up by the whole community, that way the child gets all points of view and not a narrow minded view of just one family.
Also if you’ve got a problem with someone you can bring it to a collective meeting where we as a community can resolve.


Genocide in the name of eugenics.

Why do people commit eugenics? Eugenics is normally a scapegoat idea for society being fucked up. But then why in a free and equal society where mutual aid is rife would people want to uphold the idea of eugenics?


Humans are a filthy pack of rat bastards. We don&#39;t need a reason to act like violent, drunken monkeys. It is who and what we are.

Blame capitalism for that not human beings, humans are easily influences by there environment. If children are brought up in an environment that is greedy and violent they will learn to greedy and violent. We need to challenge these ideas. As I&#39;ve clearly stated before if society is free and equal like a communist society children will be brought up to be kind to their fellow comrade.
You clearly have a narrow minded of human nature. But I&#39;m sure with a few trips to this forum and getting you&#39;re head in a couple of books on human behaviorism you’re view on human nature will change.


Vigilance and a massive purge during the revolution may seem distasteful, but I think it may be necessary in the face of our beastial human nature. In fact, if I were a diety, I would smite 95% of the population right now.

Read above.

[Seeker]

Why would an individual in a free and equal society want that when he already has everything?
Even if one individual wanted to do that, why would the rest of the community follow him when they already have everything they could possibly desire? Love, equality and liberty.

Our society is not free or equal. Too often children are taught dominance, fear, and humiliation instead of love, equality and liberty. When those children grow up, what do you think they will teach to their children?

As for "why", it has to do with the way humans interact with one another. We feel the need to define ourselves, both personally and as a social unit (a group of friends, a neighborhood, craftsmen of a common skill, and so on). A necessary component for creating a definition is contrast. You cannot know who you are without knowing who you are not and who you are similar to. So our brains invent ways of creating contrast; we compartmentalize "others" in terms of their group (not necessarily class) associations.

Now that we have "us" and "them" all it takes to start a crusade is an issue and a charismatic person who&#39;s opinion people respect. Issues are not hard to manufacture (people upstream dump too much waste in the river, you are getting sick, and they are delaying negotiations; a community leader takes too much acid, goes crazy, and founds a new religion; the perception that a group is generally lazy and does not contribute as much as everyone else . . . ).



Personally I&#39;m for the destruction of the family.

Agreed. It eliminates the near-inevitability that an abused child will spawn a long line of abusers. Also, a community of right headed parents are able to attend to a pool of children in such a way that each child gets more love and attention overall than they would get from just being looked after by a pair of biological parents.

The problem is getting people educated regarding good parenting. How do you propose dealing with folks that are determined to go to their grave believing "spare the rod, spoil the child"?




Why do people commit eugenics? Eugenics is normally a scapegoat idea for society being fucked up. But then why in a free and equal society where mutual aid is rife would people want to uphold the idea of eugenics?

This one too can be tied into the way humans form into social units. Similar personalities are attracted to one another. People of similar intellect readily become friends. This means that eventually a group of very clever, slightly crazy, and morally bankrupt individuals, probably biologists or the future equivalent, will organize. The motive could be benign enough. Perhaps they are very upset by the natural deaths of close friends and they decide to use their genius to speed along evolution and make us all healthier by "culling the weak" so future generations can avoid their pain. While I&#39;ll be the first one to say that it is a far out stretch of the imagination, I feel the need to quote Murphy: "Anything that can go wrong, will." And add: eventually.



Blame capitalism for that not human beings, humans are easily influences by there environment. If children are brought up in an environment that is greedy and violent they will learn to greedy and violent. We need to challenge these ideas. As I&#39;ve clearly stated before if society is free and equal like a communist society children will be brought up to be kind to their fellow comrade.

I don&#39;t think we can blame Capitalism for ALL of it. I understand very well how much we are influenced by our environment. The study of the simultaneous effect of man on the environment and the environment on man is a lot like the study of fluid dynamics. Most of our problems, maybe, can be traced to the imbalances caused by Capitalism. However, cruel people existed before there was Capitalism.

I&#39;ve yet to see a coherent plan to get people to want a just and equal society. What I&#39;ve read basically said "education is needed." Obviously. But how do you teach someone who is unwilling to learn something they don&#39;t want to hear? Have you any suggested reading for me?



You clearly have a narrow minded of human nature. But I&#39;m sure with a few trips to this forum and getting you&#39;re head in a couple of books on human behaviorism you’re view on human nature will change.


Trips to anywhere will change my views on everything. I&#39;ve read quite a bit on sociology, psychology, and especially behavior modification. I studied Psychology for 4 years at a University. With the right audio equipment I could do a decent job of brainwashing an individual or an audience. With a little practice/research, I bet it could even be done with a TV. I would not be here if I didn&#39;t think there was a way around the problem. I&#39;m looking for it.

*edit*
In case you are curious about my wording, I didn&#39;t say I had a degree in Psychology because I do not. I switched Majors and studied Computer Science. The change paid off big time - I was able to land a job sitting behind a computer with T3 internet access for 7 hours a day, doing practically nothing. I used the time and the internet to make myself aware of what was going on in the world. Up to that point all my knowledge was theoretical, and I was perfectly happy to believe my Macro Economics Professor as she explained why trade is good. It was not until I started interacting with the broader world that I learned about cost externalizations and the race to the bottom. Since then, in a similar manner I&#39;ve been able to see through many such illusions, in the process becoming disillusioned, dissatisfied, angry, rebellious, and lets face it, a bit cynical.

[black]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2005, 02:22 AM

Anarchism aims, like communism, to create a classless stateless society...

Because of history and an understanding of power dynamics, we severly doubt the classical Marxist contention that socialist power will "wither away". From what we have seen, it never seems to happen.

Communism (cap C) has actually never in any real terms been for the establishment of a

state-less
class-less
society.

These ideas were formulated in response to anarchist presence and critique but are certainly not found in the writings of Marx. Marx himself changed his position on the dissolution of the State several times, varying from a liberal state apparatus to outright control and centralisation. The phrase "the withering of the state" is in fact misinterpreted and never meant the literal removal of a State system from society, that was implied by later followers of Marx&#39;s politics.

Communists and communists (small c and a term precluding Marxists and synonymous with anarchists) are not, and this obvious to anyone with experience, working for the same goals. Even theoretically there is a difference, but assuming Authoritarian Marxists do eventually want to dissolve their beloved State apparatus how is this possible when they do everything to achieve the opposite of that society?