Anarchism

[Communist Chris]

marx says that the last step is anarchism. he says since that there is only one social class ( the working class) there should be no order because they all are the same. I think that this is half possible and half not. It is very hard to make everybody think and be the same. I also think that there should be rule and there also should some type of laws. I would like to here your answers.

[nz revolution]

I think that Anarchsm is the last step, it can be acheived after socialism.

I think trying to from capitalism to anarchy is well... just anarchy. Complete craziness, as most people will still have the petty-bourgeoise mind set, socialism is needed to erase that.

Is that what you meant commie chris?

[Som]

When everyone is equal and theres no property ownership, the state is really unneeded.

All the functions of the state are generally unneeded at the point, and the minor things, like police, can be put in place by voluntary local organizations.

While the first world wouldnt have it, much of the rest of the world could be organized into an anarchist society immediately, without the marxist order of things.
Again i point out spains success with anarchism in the 30s, (im getting repetitive with that i know).

I'll leave it at that for now.

[Anonymous]

Well not so much complete anarchism as Proudhon envisioned, but i do beleive in a communist system Anarcho-syndicalism could be useful. It is kinda the last and complete step in worker rights and democracy. Should i explain?

Because i think its a useful system(anarchism), but one of our (the left wings) major downfalls is the lack of unity in the diffirent belifs, but in this way (should i explain it?) two systems can work together under one flag.

So do you want to know it?

[BOZG]

one of our (the left wings) major downfalls is the lack of unity in the diffirent belifs, but in this way (should i explain it?) two systems can work together under one flag.

That lack of unity can also be one our strengths. Because of it, there will never be any single leader or small group of leaders elected on our behalf and therefore the movement remains non=hierarchal. This also proves a difficulty to any state services as they can never get a highly ranked agent to work for them as there are none. And finally, if one group demand's are met by the government, the whole movement isn't going to fall apart because each movement works autonomously from the other.

[nz revolution]

That is true. It is always good to have an opposition party I believe. You need the criticism to help you learn, and for people to disagree or you end up another Stalinist state. not good

peace

[redstar2000]

I think it's a mistake to envision classless society as some kind of conflict-free "utopia" where everybody thinks alike and always does the right thing, etc., etc.

Personally, I think humans love to argue, to think differently, to figure out new ideas and struggle for them, to innovate and discover, etc., etc. I also think that SOME (a few) humans are "cursed" with a lust for prestige and even power over others.

The difference between communism and all previous human social orders is that the playing field will be level and will be kept that way. No small group will have a "built-in" edge, able to enforce their will through wealth and violence.

Whatever your idea may be, your ONLY option will be to PERSUADE others that it's a good one.

Kind of like che-lives...with 8 billion posts!

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from Social_Democratic on 3:34 am on Nov. 12, 2002
Well not so much complete anarchism as Proudhon envisioned, but i do beleive in a communist system Anarcho-syndicalism could be useful. It is kinda the last and complete step in worker rights and democracy. Should i explain?

Because i think its a useful system(anarchism), but one of our (the left wings) major downfalls is the lack of unity in the diffirent belifs, but in this way (should i explain it?) two systems can work together under one flag.

So do you want to know it?


Sounds good. I think anarchy is the final ideal and one day, if we don't destroy ourselves first, we'll reach it. However I don't think it will last forever, nothing ever does (see buddhism-anicca = impermanence). Some one will disrupt the new way of living and we'll be back with capitalism all too soon. Don't get me wrong, i'm still going to fight for socialism, but it won't last forever, human nature won't let it.

[ThunderStrike]

anarchy can't work, that is next to capitalism.. capitalism will crush it, maybe after years of communism (world-wide communism that is, without any capitalists left) then anarcy can work after a couple of centuries when all people are free of capitalist/fascist thoughts..

[oki]

lack of unity is the strength of an anarchist system,in anarchy everybody can vent their opinion and take part in the desision making.nobody needs to be shaped into an ideal person for it,we only need to accept responcibility for ourself and others,and respect others freedom.this is not as hard as it sounds,all greed and hate comes basiclly from the system we live in now,that forces us from birth to fight eachother and win or loose.
I think anarchist principles are very well possible,it won't be perfect all at once but nothing is.anarchosyndicalism is a good way of acheaving it ,it's a process toawards anarchy just like communism is only more direct and to the point.

[BOZG]

anarchy can't work, that is next to capitalism.. capitalism will crush it, maybe after years of communism (world-wide communism that is, without any capitalists left)

You like many people confuse the principles of anarchy and believe that our goal is to establish anarchistic countries. Anarchy is an extremely international theory and will only work properly on a worldwide basis. Yes, small anarchistic communes have worked well but they will always be destroyed by outside influences.

[mentalbunny]

Wouldn't it be brilliant if we could achieve it in our lifetimes?! Of course, it won't happen, but maybe we can make a difference, bring the possible closer to being a reality...

[trebboR]

First of al, the last product of communism isn't anarchy. In fact, Marx had a lot of argruments with anarchist people and anarchist thinkers in his time. The end product of communism looks like an anarchist state but it's different, the government will dissolve, but their will always be people checking if everything goes correct. Police man, judges etc. In an anarchist state, you don't have that. There will be nobody keeping order and that will never work, because, even now, while we live in a capitlist world, we still have communist. The same will be in a communist state, no mather how long, their will always be capitalist.
And a total "utopia" will never be. Their are always people not happy with it, or people that have a mental problem and, for example, start killing people. Who will stop these people? An angry mob with torches and pitchforks? Don't think so, because if that starts, we'll never see a glimp of an "utopia", only chaos.
We have got to stay realistic. A 100% "utopia" will never be, but we can try and make the best of it, and in my opinion, communism is a system that comes most close to a "utopia".
There will always be an rotten apple in society.

[socialist ballistix]

Anarchism can only come after socialism. Socialism can reeducate the people after the evils of capitalism are dispelled from the world. some may say that reeducation cannot occur if there is capitalism still in the world. I want to know your thoughts on this, fellow leftists.

[trebboR]

SB, read my post. Anarchism doesn't come after socialism, communism or whatever. The last stage of communism is communism. Or else if would have been called anarchism don't you think so?
But back to your post, reeducation can occur when there is captilism in the world, but it will not be very affective. But I ain't so happy with reeducation. Most of the time, you force people to say that communism is great. And if you do that you ain't better than any cappie. Than your just the same. Brainwashing children. One of the points of communism is freedom. Freedom of speach, thoughts etc. So communistic propaganda is wrong too. People may make their own decissions about in what they belive in. Because if we couldn't, then we coldn't be on this forum right now. There will always be cappies, just as there will always be commies. Left and right will always exist. Even if we have worldwide communism. The opposition will always exist. We have billions of people on this world and everyone is unique. You can't change that, not even with reeducation or whatever.

[Som]

Trebbor, You, like many others laeave out, or underestimate, one of the fundamental pillars of anarchist theory, voluntary organization and association.
This includes everything to make a society function rationally.
There can be a semblence of police in an anarchist society, though they will be quite different from modern day police, they will be a voluntary organization, completly created and accoutable to the community it protects.
There is no such thing as a utopia, thats agreed, but those who don't share your version of it, you don't have to associate with, its back to the free association, those who have become detrimental can be dealt with.
Yes, there will always be those who oppose the system, capitalists and such, but if the people are truly free, then the masses will not support them, and will not let them take away their rights to their society. There will always be difference, and people will either embrace the difference, or freely associate with those more like themselves.
It is of course, a populist theory in the first place, and in no way can be imposed on the people, quoting emma goldman "Liberty will not descend to a people, a people must raise themselves to liberty"

As for those who say anarchism can't work in a capitalist society, I disagree. The conditions merely havn't been fitting. Unfortunately the few previous anarchist revolutions have been crushed, though these were extenuating circumstances, and they were even betrayed by their allies, (the communists in spain in the 30s, and ukraine, among other places, during the russian revolution).
Generally you underestimate the ability for these anarchist societies to organize themselves. The workers militia they form were very good fighters, the makhovists fought and won constantly, untill trotsky used the red army to crush them.
A revolution can be successful, it merely hasnt.

[BOZG]

In fact, Marx had a lot of argruments with anarchist people and anarchist thinkers in his time.

Will people ever stop saying that anarchists today follow the words and actions of Bakunin exactly. While many modern anarchists, do follow Bakunin's works it does not necessarily mean that they follow them exactly. Bakunin believed that the state must be destroyed overnight as it has no useful purpose but that will just lead to chaos. There must be some sort of structure first to prepare the communes for decentrilisation.



but their will always be people checking if everything goes correct. Police man, judges etc.

Marx believed in a classless society. The existance of a police force and judicial system like today deny the idea of a classless society.



As for those who say anarchism can't work in a capitalist society, I disagree.

I disagree with that statement Som on the basis that outside influences will crush any sort of anarchistic commune. Anarchism is an internationalist movement and will only function under one.

[Jaha]

personally, i feel that commuism and anarchism can work side by side. the type of thinking necessary for communism is the same as the thoughts needed for anarchy. the only difference is that a commune would be when many anarchists decide to help each other. one man alone cannot do much, therefore, they would unite and make a commune to become more productive and increase the status of living. but, the other anarchists could still live freely.

i dont think complete anarchy is possible though. people apparently need structure. this is shown by people joining religions and governments. the want structure, and anarchy gives no structure.

[Fengel]

Truthfully an anarchist system would never work. Hence why Communism is so attractive. Even if a utopian society could live like that, a strongman from another country(or even in the country) will rise and take power. Communism stops(and always has!) at the dictatorial state, and the utopian idea could never be possible. A world-wide commnist government is far fetched. Communism ignores the personal greed of people while capitalism takes advantage of it. I'd personally like to see it happen but that type of world or even country is impossible. If you started a revolution, seized power, would you give it up?

[Communist Chris]

Thanks guys. I think that trebbor is right. What the fuck are we gonna do about the rotten appels in our society? It is true that there should not be an angry mob to go after him because then start the disagrements between society. I think also that what other guys have said is true that Anarchism should be after Communism or Socialsm. But what did Marx want us to learn after his steps to his perfect society. I also agree that even though there is not a state or state services there should at least be a small law enforcement. Continue discussing.

[Fengel]

A small law enforcement? Who will lead the enforcement? Whats to stop him from rising to power? And if you want to counter with: "The People", will you put 200 people ahead of the small law enforcement group? I just see a repeat of Hitlers SA here.

[BOZG]

If you started a revolution, seized power, would you give it up?

This is one of the reasons why I don't believe in a Vanguard. It is too easily corrupted by power. Anarchy is a grassroots movement and works from the bottom up not the top down. Because of this power never falls into the hands of a small group of people. The true power lies within the people as a whole.



Even if a utopian society could live like that

Anarchy isn't utopian. It is a common misconception.



I also agree that even though there is not a state or state services there should at least be a small law enforcement.

And the class society remains. The majority of crime actually can be contributed to poverty. Erase poverty and you erase much of the crime. Not all but quite a lot. And for the rest of the crime, why not just have a voluntary group who investigate major crimes but have no prosecuting powers without the communities backing.



As for the rotten apples in society, it isn't a genetic disorder and it isn't human nature, it is society that corrupts. As I have said hundreds of times before, education is the key. There needs to be an influence put on social education in schools with intellectual intelligence taking the backseat.

[BOZG]

If you started a revolution, seized power, would you give it up?

This is one of the reasons why I don't believe in a Vanguard. It is too easily corrupted by power. Anarchy is a grassroots movement and works from the bottom up not the top down. Because of this power never falls into the hands of a small group of people. The true power lies within the people as a whole.



Even if a utopian society could live like that

Anarchy isn't utopian. It is a common misconception.



I also agree that even though there is not a state or state services there should at least be a small law enforcement.

And the class society remains. The majority of crime actually can be contributed to poverty. Erase poverty and you erase much of the crime. Not all but quite a lot. And for the rest of the crime, why not just have a voluntary group who investigate major crimes but have no prosecuting powers without the communities backing.



As for the rotten apples in society, it isn't a genetic disorder and it isn't human nature, it is society that corrupts. As I have said hundreds of times before, education is the key. There needs to be an influence put on social education in schools with intellectual intelligence taking the backseat.

[oki]

in anarchism people will take responcibility themselves.there will not be a chance for someone to take power because people will protect themself and their community,and the an.system.where do some of you get the idea that anarchism is passiveness?or that it's chaos?syndicalist anarchism is a structured system that takes the power away from the gouv and back to the people.first economicly and then,when 95% of the gouv.tasks have been organised by the people themselves on base of equality ,the gouv. can be disolved.

in an an. society people will not stand by passive and let people take power.that's teh whole point actually,that people take responcibility again in their own lives and the community.
and someone said that communism has no anarchist stage?!well,parcticed communism uptill now didn't,but real communist theory DOES.that's what it's all about,freedom and equality,and if you cancel that out of your ideology you throw away the soul of communism.the dictatorship of the prol. is not a permanent stage,how can it be?it's a dictatorship by one class,and that is not the same as a stateless society.

[trebboR]

Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 8:54 am on Nov. 13, 2002


As for the rotten apples in society, it isn't a genetic disorder and it isn't human nature, it is society that corrupts. As I have said hundreds of times before, education is the key. There needs to be an influence put on social education in schools with intellectual intelligence taking the backseat.

Education isn't the key. Reeducation is just as propaganda, something all the leftist hate but a lot of leftist believe leftist propaganda and support reeducation. That is a bit strange I think.
And BOZG, you believe that reeducation is the key, but there will always be individuals that are different. There are always people who will try and get power. There will always be people who are a threat for the anarchist or communist society.
The "rotten apples" aren't changed by reeducation. We communist, haven't been changed by cappie propaganda haven't we? A lot of people have been changed by it, but a lot of people haven't. Brainwashing ain't a 100% succesfull.
Look at these examples. You can train a dog day in and day out not to bite you, but there will always be the chance that the dog bites you. Another example. Almost every parent tells there kids to not do drugs. But there are kids who still do, and offcourse you can always say that that is because they want to be "cool" in front of there friends, but someone has to start with taking drugs. Another example. People know that killing is wrong. But people do kill. And not every killer has mental problems. Some of them just want to know how it is to kill.
Another thing, if you reeducate people, the people who aren't happy with the system will start saying: there brainwashing us, we got to stop this communism. A lot of people will think there right and join them, you will get even bigger groups that oppose communism.
And if communism has a 100% equality and utopia. Then we don't need to reeducate the people, because everyone will be happy with that.
We have to stay realistic, a 100% utopia will never be. Reeducation isn't the key because propaganda doesn't work on anyone and the people that don't believe the propaganda will only be more against the system. And brainwashing people, programming them to communist. That isn't real communistic I think, programming people takes away there free thoughts, that is not what we want.
But what do we have to do with the people that don't believe in communism and oppose it?
We have to make sure they will never get enough power. That they will never have the power to start a cappie revolution. How to do that? Well not reeducate them, the people think that way, changing that is hard, real hard. As you see now, most people are cappie because they live in that system and live a good life. Those people don't think about politics. But if we live in an communist world, more people than now will think, he, I live a good life. Why chance it? That is enough to ensure us that there will never be a cappie revolution. As you see these day, to start a communist revolution is hard, real hard, but when we live in an communist country, even less people will be cappie and so it will be even harder to start an revolution. I think that secures communism enough. I think reeducating people will give the cappies more power. But he, that is my opinion. You think else BOZG, you may always try and change my mind, but I think, we can only see who's really right, after we have communism.

[BOZG]

Education does not necessarily mean brainwashing. By education I mean putting more emphasis on social education rather than intellectual education. Encourage people to work together, educate them on the importance of helping others and contributing to society. That is not brainwashing.


There are always people who will try and get power. There will always be people who are a threat for the anarchist or communist society.

There are two fundamentals in human nature. To survive and to reproduced. Neither of these need power to work. People's lust for power is created by society, it does not come natural. Change society and that lust ends. Granted there will still be a smallnumber of people who will lust for power but you have another 6 billion people against them.

As for your utopia, you like every other anti-anarchist use that argument. ANARCHY IS NOT UTOPIAN and no one has claimed it is.

As for your examples, they have no relevance to whether anarchy will work or not.

[redstar2000]

For probably 99% of human history, humans practiced cannibalism (as ritual if not as part of daily diet).

Yet now, 99.99% of humans regard cannibalism as repugnant and disgusting. And all this without a big re-education campaign.

It doesn't seem at all impossible to me that humans will someday feel about wealth and power the way they feel about cannibalism now.

[Corvus Corax]

I agree with your point there mate!

[socialist ballistix]

You guys are all right. Reducation would and wouldnt work in a sense. Reeduaction could convert the majority of the people to any system. However, there will always be a few who are dissatisfied. I ask you: are these people dissatisfied because of the actual society, or is it just human nature to be unsatisfied with conditions?
I think that society causes these 'rotten apples"


"Anarchy is order: gorvernment is civil war"

[oki]

since freedom is the thing people in general value the most important,it will be possible to educate people that the system that provides the most freedom has to be protected.this is working now with democracy.so if people realise taht other systems improve their freedom and equality then they will want that system.

[lostone]

Anarchism is probably the best definition of freedom in a form of political description. And yes, there should be some laws to prevent any possible acts of violence towards others. But as i think about it, i'd say it like this: I've seen the order, I choose chaos !

[Guardia Bolivariano]

Politicaly and in our modern society Anarchism is almost imposible to be accepted for the simple reason that is the exact opposite of a goverment.

[oki]

it's the absense of a gouv. and ruling ,not the absense of organisation.all the stuff a gouv. is doing,people can do themselves.

[DeathToAmerica]

If you know your history of anarchism, especially anarchist tribes and groups. They all have one thing in common, all were conquered by imperialists. Some human beings are greedy in nature, and living with capitalism for so long(I am talking about the 1st world right now) it would be impossible for an anarchism. It would be also next to impossible for socialism.

Now to get to my thesis(that I will prove in Economics in university), Socialism is essential for the third world today. The third world will lead the revolution, and as they risk their lives we must lean towards socialism also! I honestly don't think anarchism could work, it's a beautiful dream, because there will always be greedy people. I think an anarcho-communist state could be acheived though. If only America could fall, then we'd be in a much better position...

[BOZG]

DTA,

I just want to point out for about the 10th time Anarchism is an international movement. It works on the basis of a worldwide revolution and the crushing of all imperialist nations.
As for human nature, that is your personal opinion but I beg to differ. In my opinion hunams are not greedy by nature, society has created this.

[Som]

Even if there are greedy people in an anarchist society, the majority isn't, and they won't let these few people interfere, no one will allow someone to claim more than his fellow man.

And again the strength of the workers militia is underestimated. While it is in nature international, it can be enacted wherever the masses want it. The few that happened were some of the best fighters around, and a good portion of their downfall was betrayal by their allies, mostly communists oddly enough (reffering to the stalinists in the spanish civil war, and the red army under trotsky crushing the makhovists).

Though i do agree that the first world is no where near in a position for anarchism, the seeds of materialism run too deep. As well as the fact that anarchism has to be a populist theory. For the first world, im inclined to a more marxist order of things, in the sense of social evolution.

(Edited by Som at 9:42 pm on Nov. 20, 2002)

[Ari HR]

Comrade Som was right about how the strength of the workers militia is underestimated, but TOTAL lack of laws corrupts people. I think that some order must be held.

[BOZG]

The media has been successful in making people believe that anarchy is a lawless society in chaos. There are laws in society to protect the people. One person's freedom ends where anothers begins.

[Ari HR]

BornOfZapatasGuns, your last words were very wise, but ISN'T anarchy a lawless society by definition?

[BOZG]

There are a limited number of laws. They exist only to prevent people from interfering with another's person's right. Such as murder, assault etc
Anarchy is not lawless by defintion. It has just been portrayed that way as to give it a bad reputation in the media, just as communism has had its reputation tarnished by the media.

[RGacky3]

I think anarchism could work if it was a small scale, like anarchos communes. Infact they have worked in the past. But on a large scale, it could never happen.

[Som]

It is lawless. Laws are products of the state and top down organization, not of a free society.

Law and order are not the same thing in any manner.

People will have their basic sense of agreed on morality. An infringement of someones rights will be dealt with accordingly by the community or other agreed on unit.

"One person's freedom ends where anothers begins."

This is a basic principle, yes, but it does not involve laws. Agreed on rules and morality perhaps, but laws are not part of a free society.

Almost playing rhetoric here, but like i said, 'laws' are characteristic of involuntary government.

And to gacky, all anarchist societies, work on the small commune at the most basic level, the only difference between small scale and large scale is the amount of federations and confederations.

[BOZG]

Law and order are not the same thing in any manner.

Please stop with the technicalities of the meaning of the word.

[Iepilei]

no. anarchy is too ideal a concept. to believe that one man is capable of controlling himself to the betterment of the existance of the combined is simply too ideal - if that were possible capitalism wouldn't nearly be as bad a system was it is.

we need checks on government and we need checks on economy. democratic socialism / international communism is probably the best we'll get.

(Edited by Iepilei at 9:25 pm on Nov. 21, 2002)

[Ari HR]

Right you are Iepilei, anarchy is just too fucken utopian to work. The remark about capitalism is also correct: if the man could estabilish such measure of selfcontrol even the capitalism would work pretty fine!

[BOZG]

ANARCHY IS NOT UTOPIAN

[Len]

As much as I hate police there has to be someone to keep order. there are still gonna be the greedy old bastads who have to have everything. you need some order. Anarchism woud be great if every did the right thing, but people are too greedy.

[Iepilei]

Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 10:19 pm on Nov. 21, 2002
ANARCHY IS NOT UTOPIAN


Well, it's in my opinion that it's a border of old and new world concepts - advocation of a free market as well as utter destruction of government (republicans advocate this for their own gain). To keep man in line without regulatory means is a concept that is nice, but not exactly possible.

Granted, it may be in the distant future - but as long as humans are they way they are (an may remain for years), communism will be our peak.

Now, with years of development - communism could become exceedingly libertarian in it's practicies, making it regulated - yet the main structure of the state dormant, until crisis. That's the only way I could 'anarchy' (a loose term) working.

(Edited by Iepilei at 5:02 am on Nov. 22, 2002)

[Ari HR]

BOZG,
Sorry, but anarchy IS utopian, the world without laws where everyone lives happily looks pretty utopian to me!

(Edited by Ari HR at 10:31 pm on Nov. 22, 2002)

[Som]

Quote: from Ari HR on 10:27 pm on Nov. 22, 2002
BOZG,
Sorry, but anarchy IS utopian, the world without laws where everyone lives happily looks pretty utopian to me!

(Edited by Ari HR at 10:31 pm on Nov. 22, 2002)


Its really not, your simplifying it.

Its organization, theres nothing utopian about the idea that you and your neighbors will make descisions affecting your own welfare instead of a government. There will still be problems, there will still be the occasional bad person, and its not utopian, your dogs still going to die, your neighbors still loud, but its the best way.

Iepilei, When you say the free market, i hope your not referring to anarcho-capitalists. Because no one here is argueing a philosophy of that nature. If the masses, the workers of the same industry choose to compete, which is less likely, its their choice.

I would hardly dismiss a philosophy that worked fine in its few implications utopian. Its incredible, but not utopian.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Iepilei on 9:23 pm on Nov. 21, 2002
no. anarchy is too ideal a concept. to believe that one man is capable of controlling himself to the betterment of the existance of the combined is simply too ideal - if that were possible capitalism wouldn't nearly be as bad a system was it is.

we need checks on government and we need checks on economy. democratic socialism / international communism is probably the best we'll get.

(Edited by Iepilei at 9:25 pm on Nov. 21, 2002)


my thoughts exactly. All of those anarchist hippie communes were disgusting. Unless someone could give me a good example of an anarchist society, I really don't think that it can really work......beneficially in that case.

[oki]

checks on gouv.? what does that mean?

[Som]

Quote: from man in the red suit on 5:51 am on Nov. 23, 2002


my thoughts exactly. All of those anarchist hippie communes were disgusting. Unless someone could give me a good example of an anarchist society, I really don't think that it can really work......beneficially in that case.


About the hippy communes, theyre poor examples because they tried to be self-sufficient entities, instead of as intended highly organized interdependent federations and organizations. Kropotkin even wrote quite a bit on this.

An example, and im getting quite repetitive on constantly brining it up, is the spanish revolution in the 30s.
Catalonia, a region of spain where barcelona is, run under anarcho-syndicalist principles for two years.

Most of the society organized into communes and the worker run-industries cooperated with eachother through the use of free organization and confederation, instead of through a state.

Unfortunatly it didn't last very long before the fascists took over, but the feats of organization in spain in this time were incredible.

(Edited by Som at 9:09 pm on Nov. 26, 2002)