Anarchism vs. Communism

[MKS]

Which idealogy do you think is better at serving the Movement. Anarchism or Communism with a big "C", by Communism I am refering to Leninism-Communism not to the noun communism.

My thoughts:
Anarchism allows for greater liberty, it allows the people to decide thier fate without the "leadership" of a vanguard or any other hirearchy. Anarchism can destory racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination.

Communism (Leninism-Vanguardism) Is a poision that allows for the growth of new tyranny to replace the old. It is failed, as seen in the models of Russia, China, Vietnam and N. Korea. Communism rules over the people.

Anyways these are my thoughts on the subject.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 08:09 PM
Which idealogy do you think is better at serving the Movement. Anarchism or Communism with a big "C", by Communism I am refering to Leninism-Communism not to the noun communism.

My thoughts:
Anarchism allows for greater liberty, it allows the people to decide thier fate without the "leadership" of a vanguard or any other hirearchy. Anarchism can destory racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination.

Communism (Leninism-Vanguardism) Is a poision that allows for the growth of new tyranny to replace the old. It is failed, as seen in the models of Russia, China, Vietnam and N. Korea. Communism rules over the people.

Anyways these are my thoughts on the subject.
Then why are you in the Commie Club? I thought that with such a name it was exclusive to Communists.

Though we do have an Anarchist mod.


I guess they are all Comrades on the United Front, anyways. So it doesn't much matter.

If it was me, I'd say Communism, though I haven't much researched Anarchism, I admit.

[bombeverything]

Which idealogy do you think is better at serving the Movement. Anarchism or Communism with a big "C", by Communism I am refering to Leninism-Communism not to the noun communism.

My thoughts:
Anarchism allows for greater liberty, it allows the people to decide thier fate without the "leadership" of a vanguard or any other hirearchy. Anarchism can destory racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination.

Communism (Leninism-Vanguardism) Is a poision that allows for the growth of new tyranny to replace the old. It is failed, as seen in the models of Russia, China, Vietnam and N. Korea. Communism rules over the people.

Anyways these are my thoughts on the subject.

Well Leninism-Vanguardism is not really communism, although it is often thought of as such within the general community. Yet I have no problem using both of the words as both of them are often misunderstood in this way.


Then why are you in the Commie Club? I thought that with such a name it was exclusive to Communists.

Though we do have an Anarchist mod.

I guess they are all Comrades on the United Front, anyways. So it doesn't much matter.

If it was me, I'd say Communism, though I haven't much researched Anarchism, I admit.

Clearly. We are communists.

[MKS]

Well Leninism-Vanguardism is not really communism, although it is often thought of as such within the general community. Yet I have no problem using both of the words as both of them are often misunderstood in this way.

Communism with a capital "C" is Leninism-Vanguardism, every Communist Party subscribes to Leninism in one way or another.

communism in just the noun form can be used to describe an egalitarian society or practice of an eqalitarian society.

[bombeverything]

Communism with a capital "C" is Leninism-Vanguardism, every Communist Party subscribes to Leninism in one way or another.

communism in just the noun form can be used to describe an egalitarian society or practice of an eqalitarian society.

And you made it clear you were referring to the former. But my issue is around your question of what will best serve the movement. I thought you were referring to terminology. I agree. I don't see the point of replacing one oppressive system with another.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 01:01 AM
every Communist Party subscribes to Leninism in one way or another.

The KAPD in Germany didn't.

[novemba]

i think if youre not leninist then youll keep moving farther to the left and anarchism is just a progression of mental thought and theoretical maturity

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 12:09 AM
Which idealogy do you think is better at serving the Movement.

There's more than two options y'know.

But more importantly, I couldn't possibly vote for 'anarchist', despite being closer to anarchism than leninism, because anarchists can't seem to define what they are. I can't wrap my head around the idea that primitivists, or obnoxious petite bourgeois ****s like crimenthic could be part of the same movement as syndicalists . . . :huh:

[Led Zeppelin]

For anyone who is interested in Lenin's version of the "story" read What Is To Be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/index.htm).

[donnie_middel1]

my opinion is pretty obvious by my pic lol, iam a stalinist and i think at this moment we gotta be stern in order to build up to statless society

[Led Zeppelin]

iam a stalinist

You do know that "Stalinists" don't call themselves that, right?

[bcbm]

I can't wrap my head around the idea that primitivists, or obnoxious petite bourgeois ****s like crimenthic could be part of the same movement as syndicalists

I think Crimethinc does more for anarchism than Trotskyist troglodytes selling boring newspapers do for socialism. At least crimethinc encourages direct action. ;)

In anycase, I don't think either one is "better" per se, and I'm not concerned what course people choose, as long as I'm not getting shot in the back...

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 01:23 AM
Then why are you in the Commie Club? I thought that with such a name it was exclusive to Communists.



Commie Club is meant to taken more as a joke then seriously.


Though we do have an Anarchist mod.

We have way more then that.


I guess they are all Comrades on the United Front, anyways. So it doesn't much matter.


Very very doubtfull.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 03:27 AM
anarchists can't seem to define what they are.
Yes they can. :huh:

[ack]

I think that anarchy would only work in a small group of people.
With a few exceptions, of course.

[YKTMX]

I'd like to someone explain exactly what they think Leninism-Vanguardism is.


It is failed, as seen in the models of Russia, China, Vietnam and N. Korea. Communism rules over the people.


The Russia revolution was Marxist to begin with, but it was defeated by a murderous counter-revolution. A counterrevolution which spread to the countries you mentioned.

They have nothing to do with Marxism or Leninism.

[RASH chris]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 21 2005, 07:51 AM

I can't wrap my head around the idea that primitivists, or obnoxious petite bourgeois ****s like crimenthic could be part of the same movement as syndicalists

I think Crimethinc does more for anarchism than Trotskyist troglodytes selling boring newspapers do for socialism. At least crimethinc encourages direct action. ;)

In anycase, I don't think either one is "better" per se, and I'm not concerned what course people choose, as long as I'm not getting shot in the back...
Crimethinc does more for middle class bourgeois college student situationalism than it does for anarchism.

Anarchism is not a lifestyle. Crimethinc is not anarchism.

[YKTMX]

middle class bourgeois college student situationalism


anarchism.

Six and two threes :lol:

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by anarchopunkchris+Sep 21 2005, 03:28 PM--> (anarchopunkchris @ Sep 21 2005, 03:28 PM)
black banner black [email protected] 21 2005, 07:51 AM

OglachMcglinchey:
I can't wrap my head around the idea that primitivists, or obnoxious petite bourgeois ****s like crimenthic could be part of the same movement as syndicalists

I think Crimethinc does more for anarchism than Trotskyist troglodytes selling boring newspapers do for socialism. At least crimethinc encourages direct action. ;)

In anycase, I don't think either one is "better" per se, and I'm not concerned what course people choose, as long as I'm not getting shot in the back...
Crimethinc does more for middle class bourgeois college student situationalism than it does for anarchism.

Anarchism is not a lifestyle. Crimethinc is not anarchism. [/b]
Exactly my point. Thanks, you wrote my response for me. ;)

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Sep 21 2005, 12:11 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Sep 21 2005, 12:11 PM)
[email protected] 21 2005, 03:27 AM
anarchists can't seem to define what they are.
Yes they can. :huh: [/b]
What definition of anarchism could include crimenthic under its banner alongside class struggle anarchism.

Syndicalism and 'platformism' can define themselves alright, and they should cut all ties with reactionaries like petite bourgeois primitivists.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 21 2005, 07:51 AM

I can't wrap my head around the idea that primitivists, or obnoxious petite bourgeois ****s like crimenthic could be part of the same movement as syndicalists

I think Crimethinc does more for anarchism than Trotskyist troglodytes selling boring newspapers do for socialism. At least crimethinc encourages direct action. ;)

In anycase, I don't think either one is "better" per se, and I'm not concerned what course people choose, as long as I'm not getting shot in the back...
That's certainly debatable. I am an anarchist, and honestly, I'd rather read the Socialist Worker's report on strikes, union-happenings, and so-on, than have some crusty (formerly middle-class, and probably soon to return) CrimethInc.-er tell me "class doesn't exist" and insist I take up dumpster diving.

What actually works in achieving the goal of communism is best - regardless of what it's labled . . . but I think it's safe to say that listening to Ballast and going to ClitFest every year isn't going to fucking do it.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Leninism was an idea that was spawned from the objective conditions of Russia in the 20th century. It would be wrong to go along with that model for todays society and to think that Leninism is applicable to all countries.

Also there were many other Communist who disagreed with the idea of a vanguard dominating labour unions and the soviet system. A vanguard should be a working-class unit that just makes demands ,raises class conciousness and supports strikes.

All anyone can do is learn from the teachings and the errors of the former Communist movements and revolutionaries, and study the objective conditions of todays society of their countries.

But, I consider myself a revolutionary-Marxist, doesn't mean I'm some focoist looney or a bureaucrat-in training, no, I wish to aggitate class-conciousness.

If Anarchism can really be desrcibed, then what is it?

Is it a class-concious movement such as the AF that supports strikes?
Is it a bunch of crusty vegans who go to gigs?
Is a group of people who wear black bandanas over their faces and spraypaints police cars?

[bcbm]

Crimethinc does more for middle class bourgeois college student situationalism than it does for anarchism.

I know a great number of bourgeois middle class students who are involved in radical politics. I also know a number of working class crimethincers. I think the accusation of "middle class bourgeois college student" is thrown around far too much and has very little meaning given the reality that many radicals are exactly those things.



Anarchism is not a lifestyle. Crimethinc is not anarchism.

Crimethinc is not a single ideology or group, it can encompass many things. Crimethinc is simply a banner under which actions can be done. I know all different kinds of anarchists who use the crimethinc banner or use crimethinc resources. Ultimately, its what you make it.

Anarchism may not be a lifestyle, but being an anarchist should affect your lifestyle.


That's certainly debatable. I am an anarchist, and honestly, I'd rather read the Socialist Worker's report on strikes, union-happenings, and so-on, than have some crusty (formerly middle-class, and probably soon to return) CrimethInc.-er tell me "class doesn't exist" and insist I take up dumpster diving.

If you think that's all crimethinc is about, you're wrong. Class is a complex issue but I don't think most crimethincers hold the position that it doesn't exist. Just that it isn't everything.


What actually works in achieving the goal of communism is best - regardless of what it's labled . . . but I think it's safe to say that listening to Ballast and going to ClitFest every year isn't going to fucking do it.

And Crimethinc certainly isn't advocating that as a revolutionary strategy. Nice attempt at a strawman argument though.

[STI]

It&#39;s true, Crimethinc. does say that class exists, they just follow it with "ya, but the rich people will be on our side of the revolution" <_<

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 03:48 PM
It&#39;s true, Crimethinc. does say that class exists, they just follow it with "ya, but the rich people will be on our side of the revolution" <_<
No crimethincer I&#39;ve ever met has had anything but vitriol for the rich.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by "CrimethInc."
. . . that is good political action, but only if you enjoy it.

&#39;Nuff said.

[STI]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Sep 21 2005, 10:18 PM--> (black banner black gun @ Sep 21 2005, 10:18 PM)
[email protected] 21 2005, 03:48 PM
It&#39;s true, Crimethinc. does say that class exists, they just follow it with "ya, but the rich people will be on our side of the revolution" <_<
No crimethincer I&#39;ve ever met has had anything but vitriol for the rich. [/b]
That&#39;s not what "Days of War, Nights of Love" has to say on the issue.

Who am I going to believe, some joker who, for some reason other than picking up girls at the bar, supports Crimethinc., or Crimethinc.&#39;s own publication?

Come now. Get off your pomo high-horse and join the rest of us down here in the real world.

And making up words (Vitriol?&#33;?) doesn&#39;t make you the king of drunken theory, because I already hold the crown for that.

[Internationalism]

If we are to answer the question of "communism versus anarchism", then surely one of the first things is to have some idea of what communism is and is not (same for anarchism).

So here what communism is not: it is not any of the regimes in the ex-USSR (following the defeat of the 1917 workers&#39; revolution by the Stalinist counter-revolution); much less is it any of the regimes established in Eastern Europe by the Red Army, which by then was nothing but the armed force of yet another imperialist power - the USSR; and it is certainly nothing at all to do with the regimes established in China, North Korea, or Cuba.

Communism, as Marx put it, is "the real movement that abolishes the existing state of things". In other words, to have some idea of what kind of new society could come out of the existing one, we need to look at the present society and try to understand its fundamental contradictions which a communist society would have to resolve: an effort to do this can be found in this article: Only one other world is possible: communism (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/116_antiglob_edito.html)

Any reactions to the ideas raised here, received with interest.

ICC

[Decolonize The Left]

I think this topic has strayed from the original question which I will now attempt to address:

The reason why communism cannot function:
Communism demands the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Let us begin with the word &#39;dictatorship&#39;. This implies the suppression of a group of people by another. Can this function forever? Is this right? Now let&#39;s look at &#39;proletariat&#39;. What does that mean? How do you define it? Who is a member of the proletariat and who isn&#39;t? What if you arn&#39;t, but still support a change in the system? Are you suppressed as well?

The main problem I have with communism is that it puts one group of people in control of another, and this breeds greed, corruption, and inequality. (The problems we have today?) Communism has some merit on the ideas of workers controlling their industries, but I see little else of value that will solve the problems today.

Anarchism is a much more solid, simple, option. It levels the playing field where no one has the opportunity to gain power over another and therefore eliminates all classes, and inequalities in society. Is that not what we want?

Anarchism proposes that everyone have complete liberty, equality, and freedom. How can you say this is wrong, or not the "right" way to address the future. I see no other option than to give everyone what is rightfully theirs: control over their own life.

-- August

[Donnie]

Then why are you in the Commie Club? I thought that with such a name it was exclusive to Communists.
Where ever did you get that.


anarchists can&#39;t seem to define what they are.
Complete and utter rubbish; I’m Anarchist Communist and I’ve never hidden it&#33;

I believe that we can only achieve communism through the anarchist tendency and that is through the libertarian communist organisation which is based on free association.

[Leif]

I supose I could be called an Anarcho-Communist, and I have read things from CrimeThInc., but that certainly doesn&#39;t mean I believe everything they say. I read Socialist articles about as friequently, I suppose "Libertarian Communist" would also describe me, but the bourgeoisie Libertarian party has spoiled the term.

Also "dictatorship of the proletariat" means that the dictatorship (control) will by administered by the proletariat, meaning that the people will decide what to do, not some state capitalist. In the countries listed that have spoiled the name of Communism, it was mostly State Capitalists who controlled things. Socialism from above doesn&#39;t work, period.

Back to the real question, if I were asked which is better: Anarchism or Communism, I would say both. For they both (to me) mean the same thing: Freedom.

(the defintion form Wikipedia) When he did use it, the term "dictatorship" describes control by an entire class, rather than a single sovereign individual, over another class. In this way, according to Marx, the bourgeois state, being a system of class rule, amounts to a &#39;dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.&#39; In the same sense, when the workers take state power into their hands, they become the new ruling classes. The workers, in other words, rule in their own interest, using the apparatuses of the courts, schools, prisons, and police in a manner required to prevent the bourgeoisie from regrouping and mounting a counterrevolution. Marx expected the victorious workers to be democratic and open in dealings with one another. Theirs is to be a dictatorship of and by, not over, the proletariat.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by AugustWest
Anarchism is a much more solid, simple, option. It levels the playing field where no one has the opportunity to gain power over another and therefore eliminates all classes, and inequalities in society. Is that not what we want?

Anarchism proposes that everyone have complete liberty, equality, and freedom. How can you say this is wrong, or not the "right" way to address the future. I see no other option than to give everyone what is rightfully theirs: control over their own life.
Of course both communists and anarchists agree that complete freedom is desirable and the abolition of the state is required for this but how do you propose we get there? I want to live in that free world but I’m not naïve enough to think that its just around the corner. You need socialism, a transitional phase in which society is prepared for the freedom. You need to clean up the loose ends of the Revolution and set the foundations for the free society. And then, when the state has withered away, we’ll have our liberty.

The problem with Anarchism is that it assumes that humanity is ready for communism. You want to smash the state but there’s nothing afterwards capable of picking up the pieces. Let’s use common sense here, if all the governments and states were to suddenly disappear today what would be the result? You’d have anarchy with the strong running roughshod over the defenseless and authority stemming from the barrel of a gun. We all want liberty but go about it the wrong way and we’ll merely end up with chaos.

[Donnie]

The problem with Anarchism is that it assumes that humanity is ready for communism. You want to smash the state but there’s nothing afterwards capable of picking up the pieces.
What, that’s tosh&#33; We already have our system ready to replace the state and that is as I said before the communist organisation. We see the communist organisation as the boat for revolution and for after. For example in Britain the Anarchist Federation is set up for revolution and is prepared for it replacing the state. We replace the state with a system of federalism and free association. Instead of hierarchical organisation in society we have federal organisation&#33; &#39;organise, organise and more organisation&#39; is what is herd from the present anarchist communist movement today.


I read Socialist articles about as friequently
I agree with you on this one; just because I&#39;m an anarchist I should not limit myself to just reading anarchist literature. I mean yes I&#39;m an anarchist communist and will be for the rest of my life but it doesn&#39;t stop me from reading some of the ideas from the Marxist position.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 12:08 PM

The problem with Anarchism is that it assumes that humanity is ready for communism. You want to smash the state but there’s nothing afterwards capable of picking up the pieces.
What, that’s tosh&#33; We already have our system ready to replace the state and that is as I said before the communist organisation. We see the communist organisation as the boat for revolution and for after. For example in Britain the Anarchist Federation is set up for revolution and is prepared for it replacing the state. We replace the state with a system of federalism and free association. Instead of hierarchical organisation in society we have federal organisation&#33; &#39;organise, organise and more organisation&#39; is what is herd from the present anarchist communist movement today.

snip
Which is all well and good if you’re an anarchist but what percentage of the world’s population are ready? What will you do with the remaining capitalists? What if world revolution has not been accomplished? These are hard questions had will require hard answers from a party/group that can expect to face both internal and external threats. In the immediate aftermath of the Revolution the values of leadership and decisiveness will be crucial. In the longer term the socialist state will have to build the economic, social and political foundations for its successor.

I’d also question whether human nature itself is ready for communism. You can’t hold a revolution and then expect a planet full of self obsessed and petty individuals to suddenly meld into one harmonic collective. It may take many years before mankind’s central values and drivers have been adjusted.

[Donnie]

Which is all well and good if you’re an anarchist but what percentage of the world’s population are ready? What will you do with the remaining capitalists? What if world revolution has not been accomplished? These are hard questions had will require hard answers from a party/group that can expect to face both internal and external threats. In the immediate aftermath of the Revolution the values of leadership and decisiveness will be crucial. In the longer term the socialist state will have to build the economic, social and political foundations for its successor.
This is utter Leninist rubbish. What makes you think that a party or a group of intellectuals can withstand threats and attacks? Surely we learnt from Russia that the theory of Leninism has failed; I mean it used the idea&#39;s of Marxist-Leninism and the party collapsed from power.

Two heads are better than one and 50,000 heads in an organisation are better than 15 party members.

Besides if everything is being controlled by the party it&#39;s easier for reactionaries to target it where as with a system of federalism it’s harder because everybody is federated from all over the land.


What will you do with the remaining capitalists?
What we the anarchist communist workers seem fit to do with them.

The anarchists are far more prepared for revolution than the Leninist intellectuals because we are the workers and we the workers control our organisation and we work within our communities stirring up ideas of class struggle anarchism.

[ComradeOm]

The Revolution in Russia failed? That’s news to me. Lenin’s theories may have become perverted after his death but the act of revolution itself passed off without a hitch. And I remind you that it was the Bolsheviks – not any anarchist group - that brought down the bourgeoisie dictatorship. You can debate whether the Party&#39;s practices led to the reign of Stalin but the Russian Revolution remains the most successful worker’s revolt in history. Correct the undemocratic mistakes made and I see nothing wrong with repeating the past success. and, like it or not, leadership is a requirement of the Revolution. Virtually every successful movement in history has been spearheaded by charismatic leaders able to raise the masses.

[Black Dagger]

The Revolution in Russia failed? That’s news to me.

You&#39;ve got to be kidding? If the Russian Revolution had been sucessful, Russia would not be a robber-baron capitalist hell-hole right now. You can&#39;t confine the &#39;Russian Revolution&#39; to just the events of the Bolshevik seizure of power, a revolution is a process, socialism remember? That process, the revolutionary process, failed in Russia, they did not even achieve a meaningful socialist state.


and, like it or not, leadership is a requirement of the Revolution. .

Because Lenin said so? Why is it a requirement?


Virtually every successful movement in history has been spearheaded by charismatic leaders able to raise the masses.

How have these faired? Maybe we need to try new methods when the old ones keep producing degenerated regimes?

[Donnie]

The Revolution in Russia failed? That’s news to me. Lenin’s theories may have become perverted after his death but the act of revolution itself passed off without a hitch. And I remind you that it was the Bolsheviks – not any anarchist group - that brought down the bourgeoisie dictatorship. You can debate whether the Party&#39;s practices led to the reign of Stalin but the Russian Revolution remains the most successful worker’s revolt in history. Correct the undemocratic mistakes made and I see nothing wrong with repeating the past success. and, like it or not, leadership is a requirement of the Revolution. Virtually every successful movement in history has been spearheaded by charismatic leaders able to raise the masses.
We may have not brought down the bourgeois dictatorship but we helped you defeat the whites.


leadership is a requirement of the Revolution.
Leadership is not necessary at all; you do know there are other ways in order to carry out revolution other than leadership and hierarchy. I feel that as a worker a revolutionary federal organisation is the way forward to communism because it puts communism into practice within the organisation which is equality, free association and acting for ourselves.


Virtually every successful movement in history has been spearheaded by charismatic leaders able to raise the masses.
What would these historical successful movements be, because the last time I checked the Soviet Union collapsed and China is not even state socialist anymore, oh and Cuba? Cuba in my opinion will no doubt revert back to a pure form of capitalism. This is what Leninism does.

I&#39;ve said it before and I&#39;ll say it again the Leninist’s are not and have never been ready for revolution because they do not work with the workers in the present capitalist system.
I fail to see the Communists working within working class communities like mine; no they prefer to stay within their party seats debating theory and critizing everyone else and when revolution does occur they feed us workers with Leninist nonsense like &#39;the workers can only reach trade union consciousness&#39; which is rubbish because there just trying to make up for the lack of effects they did before revolution.
The Anarcho-Communists and specifically the Anarchist organisation works within working class communities helping the working class people fight their everyday struggles while at the same time promoting ideas of class struggle anarchism.

The heart of the struggle is not within the party but within our own communities and this is where it should be fort. And a system of federalism has this advantage over a party.

[Forward Union]

Which is all well and good if you’re an anarchist but what percentage of the world’s population are ready? What will you do with the remaining capitalists? What if world revolution has not been accomplished? These are hard questions had will require hard answers from a party/group that can expect to face both internal and external threats. In the immediate aftermath of the Revolution the values of leadership and decisiveness will be crucial. In the longer term the socialist state will have to build the economic, social and political foundations for its successor.

Actually the Bolsheviks rode on the back of a bottom up revolution of the working class.

[ComradeOm]

The Revolution in Russia failed? That’s news to me.

You&#39;ve got to be kidding? If the Russian Revolution had been successful, Russia would not be a robber-baron capitalist hell-hole right now. You can&#39;t confine the &#39;Russian Revolution&#39; to just the events of the Bolshevik seizure of power, a revolution is a process, socialism remember? That process, the revolutionary process, failed in Russia, they did not even achieve a meaningful socialist state.
The Revolution placed the soviets in power. It wasn&#39;t until some years later (say early 1920s) that their grasp on society was secure enough for the revolutionary stage to end and socialism proper to begin. Unfortunately it was at the crossover point that things began to go wrong and the bureaucracy became entrenched. We know that and we&#39;ll know to take counter measures from the outset next time.

The Revolution is first step on the road to communism. This is where the blood is spilt and the capitalist state torn down. One argument I&#39;ve often heard for Cuba not arriving at socialism is that US pressure is strong enough to keep the country in the revolutionary stage.

On the vanguard and leadership:

Let me put it this way: leadership is a requirement for all successful movements. There always has to be the first over the top, the first to fire a bullet. I&#39;m not talking about some dictator or king, but a group of dedicated and educated revolutionaries to help organise and inspire the masses. No committee has ever won a war.

Granted, in a perfect revolution in which the entire proletariat rises up with one voice may succeed without a vanguard leading the way. But we&#39;ll not have such a revolution in the West in my lifetime and the creation of such a body is completely out of our hands. I prefer to look for those opportunities that we can grasp.

Again, its important to remember that when we speak of a vanguard we&#39;re not talking about a dozen intellectuals planning a revolution on their own. We&#39;re talking about the spearhead of the Party backed up by the worker&#39;s movement. Lenin would have achieved nothing if it weren&#39;t for the soviets and the masses of workers who supported him. You cannot divorce the workers and their organisations from the Party, which was what happened after the bureaucracy began to grow. But when the next revolution arrives, it will be led by Party members with the full support of the workers and masses - it can be no other way.


We may have not brought down the bourgeois dictatorship but we helped you defeat the whites.
The Black Army or Makhno were hardly decisive factors in the eventual Red victory. When the cards were on the table it was the soviets to whom the workers turned to.


Even if we assume that anarchists somehow achieve a revolution, if you somehow survive the counter-revolution and foreign interference, I still maintain that true communism cannot be arrived at immediately. Leaving aside practicals, people are simply not ready for a complete and utter absence of government. I&#39;d love to think that it was possible and that we could spare ourselves the effort and trouble of going through socialism, but I just can&#39;t see it happening.

[omegaflare]

ComradeOM, I have to agree w/ you. I just cant see how the masses would be ready for a world without govt. While there are quite a few that are ready for that, the majority isnt.