Anarchism and communism

[Proletar]

Hvad is the diffrence between Anarchism and Communism? and does anarchist and communist want the same society in the end?

[Vincent]

It would depend on the branch of Anarchy we are looking at. But yes, there are some parallels, and some differences. The first difference you need to grasp is that anarchism is first and foremost a sociological doctrine, whilst communism is more of an economic doctrine.

Someone else who has dealt with this question before can answer it properly, as I am afraid I cannot explain them 'simply'.

[Jadan ja]

I am not completely sure about this, but I will try to answer the question as well as I can.

The main (and only?) difference between communists and anarchists is that the anarchists believe that capitalism dissapears after state is eliminated while communists believe that state disapears after capitalism is eliminated. That means that communists believe that state exists only as an instrument of the burgeoise (or any other ruling class in different social and economic systems), while anarchists believe that capitalism (or any other social and economic system based on classes, such as feudalism, despotism or slavery) exists because there is a state.

Both anarchists and communists agree that revolution is required to overthrow the system. But, I think, they disagree on what they are exactly overthrowing. As a result they have different opinions on how should the world after the revolution look like. Anarchists believe that after the revolution a stateless society must be developed or, otherwise, new society will not be classless (as a result of the existance of the state). Communists, however, believe that a society after a revolution can still have a state, but the state will not be an instrument of the privileged class, it will be a state of proleteriat. That is why there will still be a state, but there will be no capitalism.

Do anarchists and communists want the same society in the end? Yes, I think so. Communists and anarchists both believe that state and class society must be both eliminated on the end. Communists believe that state will slowly disappear as a socialist society develops. On the end, both communists and anarchists believe, there will be a classless and a stateless society, communism.

I am not completely sure did I understand everything correctly, so please correct me if I am wrong on anything.

[ComradeOm]

Anarchism is a strain of communist thought. The question should be "What is the difference between anarchism and Marxism"

There are two major differences. Jadan has the first one basically right - anarchists place far more emphasis on the role of the state while Marxists believe that it is merely an off shoot of class struggle. Hence Marxists consider a proletarian state to be a good thing.

The second major difference is that anarchist theory has historically been ahistorical. Anarchism has no equivalent of Marx's historical materialism to give its struggle context. This is no longer the issue it once was as many anarchists today have recognized historical materialism for the useful tool that it is and have incorporated parts of it into anarchist theory.

[Lamanov]

[Discussed in this thread.] (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43765)

* * * *

Marx and Bakunin were both proletarian theoreticians, both with their own theoretical flaws due to the youth of the movement at that given time and the lack of the concrete practical revolutionary expression in such unripe conditions to which that thought could have been properly tested.

They both had two major confronting errors which stem from that fact. Bakunin made a mistake by overlooking it as meaningless, and Marx made a mistake by an attempt to transcend it. For anarchism - it resulted in superficial historical thought, and for Marxism - it resulted in ideologization and perversion of it's theoretical thought, both trapped in the one way street of their own organizational and ideological ground, separated from the revolutionary practical confirmation.


When both of these theories attempt to confirm their historical validity within the practical means of revolutionary situation, they both end up with a demand to drop their own ideological restraints which keep them apart, and act as a unified front on the two way field of theory-praxis.

While anarchism was confronted with the lack of own historical thought through recognition of historical materialism, Marxism, on the other hand, through its own method of historical analisys, is forced to recognize some of its own original conclusions as superficial and flawed.

[More Fire for the People]

Communism is based on the conclusions of dialectical materialism — revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat, classlessness. Anarchism is based upon a moral-philosophical objection to the state. Some people adhere to both dialectical materialism and a moral-philosophical objection to the state. The irony! The vast views diffrent communists all utilizing the same "objective" method.

[viva le revolution]

Although the end result of Communism and Anarchism are largely the same, the difference between the two is how to get there, ie. the tactics. This question opens up up a gulf between the two proletarian ideologies.
The concept of the state is a contentious one. As pointed out before, the anarchsists object to the state on principle. Therefore reject the state wholeheartedly. Calling for an abolition of the state almost immediately following an insurrection by the proletariat, whereas Marxists(communists), recognize the state as a useful tool for solidifying the rule of the proletariat over the defeated bourgeoisie and safeguarding the revolution against counter-revolution and foriegn imperialist aggression(dictatorship of the proletariat-hold your horses, it's a figure of speech.) Therefore the concpet of the state in anarchist ideology is purely on socio-philosophical grounds, whereas Marxists take a more scientific method.
Next is the concept of the vanguard of the proletariat. The Anarchists reject the the concpet of the Vanguard of the working masses, ie. the Communist party. On grounds that all heirarchy is bad and inevitably leads to oppression and exploitation. Whereas Marxists see the vanguard as the organization of the most politically conscious and class-conscious members of the working class. Therefore the Anarchists do not see the need for organization of the working class, whereas Marxists do. That is pricisely the reason why despite being around as long as Marxism, the philosophy of Anarchism has not had a major impact upon the proletarian front.
The concept of Anarchism, due to this refusal to recognize organization and proletarian vanguards, instead adheres to the theory of 'spontaniety', ie. a simoultaneous uprising of the working masses to overthrow capitalism and usher in 'communist society' almost immediately. Needless to say this is highly improbable and a rather utopian expectation. Whereas Marxists recognize the need for organization of the vanguard to continously raise the class-consciousness of the proletarin masses. The theory of 'spontaneity' requires the class-conscious elements to ride the coat-tails of the workers uprising, whereas Marxists recognize the need for conscious leadership of the proletarian masses according to the principle of class struggle and to treat every national crises accordingly. The theory of 'spontaniety', of course a given, keeping in mind the absence of a conscious element in the class struggle, known as the vanguard, is equivalent to trade-unionism.
The theory of Anarchism follows abstention from parliamentarism and electoral politics on principle. Whereas Marxists recognize the need to follow electoral politics closely and at times practioce 'entryism' in effect to corrode parliamentarism from within. however as regards the concept of parliament, both object to it, but follow different paths towards dealing with it. Friedrich Engels in his work, 'the Bakuninists at work' severly criticizes this policy of Anarchism, as an 'absurd policy' that denotes 'political bankruptcy'. According to Engels, this conspt then makes staying home at election times a 'revolutionary act', that leaves politics solely in the hands of the bourgeois political parties and denies the participation expression of opinion of representatives of the working masses.
Another disagreement of Anarchism is the concept of a socialist revolution in the third world. Marxists(primarily Leninists) support third world revolutions and the emergence of socialist societies in the third world, whereas anarchists reject third world revolutions and concentrate their 'methods' upon exclusively the first world. Therefore they do not recognize the validity of the previous revolutions in the third world as an expression of class struggle, instead they regale it in terms of 'bourgeois-democratic' or 'peasant revolutions'.
Therefore taking all these into account, the entire basis of Anarchism basically rests on a concept of petty-bourgeois revolutionism. refusing all aspects of organization of the working class, cloaking thier inadequacies with overly revolutionary sloganeering and catch-phrases.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Jadan ja+Feb 8 2006, 12:13 PM--> (Jadan ja @ Feb 8 2006, 12:13 PM)The main (and only?) difference between communists and anarchists is that the anarchists believe that capitalism dissapears after state is eliminated while communists believe that state disapears after capitalism is eliminated.[/b]

This isn't accurate, although it is a common Marxist distortion of Anarchism which is probably where you heard it. I'm an anarchist, and I don't believe that. I believe that the state and class society are two sides of the same coin: you can't have one without the other. If you try to abolish capitalism but do not abolish the state at the same time (eg. you set up a "proletarian" state instead of abolishing the state) then the state will become a new ruling class over the proletariat. You'll end up with a bureaucratic tyranny. This was predicted by anarchists decades before any attempt at a "proletarian state" was made, and every single one of the 30+ attempts made resulted in exactly what anarchists predicted. Marxism's record of predictions, by contrast, is mixed at best. They talk about being "scientific" yet the fact that this prediction was accurate actually makes the anarchist theory of the state much more scientific than Marxism, as accurate falsifiable tests are a key measure of scientific validity. The same, incidentally, is true if you do the opposite: abolishing the state without abolishing class will just result in the return of the state.

Anarchism is the belief that all forms of hierarchical authority should be abolished. Communism is the belief in a classless moneyless society organized along the means "from each according to ability, to each accord to need." The two overlap, because it's possible to have a society that is both non-hierarchical and communist. Some anarchists are also communist and vice versa, including me. Where anarchism differs with most non-anarchist versions of communism is over the role of the state. Most non-anarchist communists believe a "proletarian state" is necessary for a sucessfull transition from the present to communism. Overtime, the state would "wither away" and we'd eventually end up with non-hierarchical communism, but only after a transitional dictatorship. Such a dictatorship is incompatable with anarchism, because states (including "proletarian" states) are hierarchical. Anarchists advocate transitioning to non-hierarchical communism without the use of any kind of state.

Depending on what form of communism and what form of anarchism your'e talking about there may be other differences as well. For example, there are also non-communist anarchists who have a different economic vision (eg. mutualism or parecon), and they differ both with anarchist-communists and with non-anarchist communists on what kind of economy they advocate. There are also some (usually non-marxist) communists who don't even pay lip service to abolishing hierarchy in the far future, they advocate some form of hierarchy (often the state or central planning) forever. There may also be differences on elections, vanguardism and other issues. Also, not all anarchists agree that revolution is required to overthrow the system. Most do, but there's a minority of evolutionary anarchists who believe we should gradually change the current system into anarchy by setting up alternative structures like cooperatives or communes. This, supposidely, would gradually expand and break down the old authoritarian social structures.

There are more indepth introductions to anarchism at Basic Principles of Anarchism (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html) or An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html)


Originally posted by "Diego Armando"@
Anarchism is based upon a moral-philosophical objection to the state.

Anarchism is against all forms of hierarchy, including but not limited to the state. Most anarchists place equal weight on both class & the state, and most of those who don't emphasize those two emphasize some other hierarchy (like patriarchy or race) not just the state. The notion of anarchism merely being solely or primarily being an anti-state philosophy is a common distortion, both by marxists and by bourgeois sources. In addition some anarchists don't base their ideas on "moral philosophical" objects. I'd argue that historical and dialectical materialism are themselves moral-philosophical ideas, just dressed up in metaphysical garb.


"viva le revolution"
the Anarchists do not see the need for organization of the working class, whereas Marxists do. ... The concept of Anarchism, due to this refusal to recognize organization and proletarian vanguards, instead adheres to the theory of 'spontaniety', ie. a simoultaneous uprising of the working masses to overthrow capitalism

This is yet another Marxist distortion of anarchism. Some anarchists do fetishize spontaniety, but most are in favor of organizing against the system. We just advocate organizations without hierarchy. Platformists, syndicalists and synthesists are all examples of anarchist tendencies advocating organization against the status quo (and syndicalism has been the most popular form of anarchism for a century now).


Another disagreement of Anarchism is the concept of a socialist revolution in the third world. Marxists(primarily Leninists) support third world revolutions and the emergence of socialist societies in the third world, whereas anarchists reject third world revolutions and concentrate their 'methods' upon exclusively the first world.

This is yet another Marxist distortion of anarchism. I'm an anarchist and I think the "third world" is the most likely place for anarchist revolutions to break out in the near or medium term future. In fact, the first Marxist movements all claimed that revolution would come in the "first world" and disparaged the notion of revolution in pre-capitalist societies. Originally, anarchism was much more popular in the "third world" than in the imperialist countries in part for this reason. It wasn't until the Russian Revolution that Marxism really spread to the "third world", where it eventually eclipsed anarchism due in part to Soviet support. Today anarchism is bigger in the "third world" than in the first (though "first world" anarchists are much more prominent online because the "first world" has more and better internet connections).

Most anarchists do have a problem with the post-WW2 revolutions that happened in the third world on the grounds that they merely replaced one set of oppressors with another. That's not because they happened in the "third world", though, it's because they didn't abolish the state or other forms of hierarchy. The same would happen if it was tried in the "first" world. An anarchist revolution, in any part of the world, would unfold very differently. Even if these revolutions did some good by weakening imperialism, they're still deeply flawed. And even weaking imperialism may have only been temporary, as many countries that had these revolutions are now headinging towards monopoly capitalism and becoming semi-colonies.

[Proletar]

Thank you for the reply's

[rebelworker]

Just to start I think its important to point out that Marxism is not Communism, as is often mistaken.

Most marxists advocate communism but they are not one and the same thing.

Communism is the organisation of sociaty along directly democratic lines, with no class inequality, were the controll of the economy rests in the hands of the people who work in it.

Many peole advocate communism, Marxists, anarchists, and some primitivists and insurrectionists.

Anarchism is the Ideology that all power inequality is opressive and must be opossed. Most anarchists have historically, and continue to, advocate communism.

Marxism is a serries of philisophical thought, argued by its proponents to be scientific, that has a very acurate critique of economic development in many aspects.
Most Marxists have historically also advocated communism.

The difference is how the two expect to get there.

Theoretically the basis for Marxist vision of revolutionary change is that the working class is not ready(nor has been historically) to build a communist society.

At this point Marxists differ on what to do about this.

The largest body of marxists, Vanguardists, beleive that a minority of active revolutionaries must build a revolutionary party that will be able to seize controll of the state during revolutionary crisis and lead the counrty through a stage of socialism untill the working class is ready to govern on its own. They call this the Dictatorship of the proletariate, because they argue that the working class, through this revolutionary vanguard, will be able to crsh their enemies.

To their credit some marixts, council communists and autonomist marxists, opose this vanguardist model of change.

Anarchist who support communism(anarcho communists, anarcho syndiacalists) may feel that the working class is not ready to build communism(ie they arnt doing it right now) still fell that it is the working class alone who can build communism. This must be done through revolutionary struggle, trial and error, the process of making the revolution will give people the experience to build a communist society.
We feel that any attempt to build a state run by "experts" will take the power out of the hands of ordinary poeple and rob us of the experience of self rule we will need to build communism. Also and this is the major differnece between anarchists and most marxists, the new state willlead to a new class of politicians beurocrats and managers that will lead to the formation of a new ruling class.
New boss same as the old boss, this has always become reality.

There are many differences of organisationalist style both among anarchists and marxists.

The Vanguardist model of Marxism is critiqued by all working class camps as an eleitist model. In practice the Party is run by petty burgeoise intelectuals and the like.
These are the people with the time, money and resources to dedicate themselves to such an org in pre evolutionary times.
Many people, myself included, argue that these people have the mindset of managers and are drawn to this ideology. They come from educated families with political and social influence far beyond the average working class person. The class privaledges and prejudices of working class people as stupid and unable to make important descisions taints the vanguardist vision.
Lenin, Trotsky, mao and Castro all came from this priveleged background and it greatly influenced their thinking.

Platformist anarchist communists(im one) beleive that we do need to build a revolutionary organisation, were a minority of active revolutionaries can get togeather develope theory and introduce our ideas to larger social struggles we are appart of. We do not beleive that our organisation should try and seize state power, we hope to work alongside all other people during revolutionary periods to poularise our ideas, and work to combat authoritarian groups on the right and the left that seek to inforce their rule and derail the revolutionary process.

We also support revolutionary or anarcho syndiacalist unions as places where the majority of workers can come togeather and struggle for their class and in the process learn and become revolutionaries. No group of self defined experts can substitute for the mass action of our class.

As for the third world.

Another disagreement of Anarchism is the concept of a socialist revolution in the third world. Marxists(primarily Leninists) support third world revolutions and the emergence of socialist societies in the third world, whereas anarchists reject third world revolutions and concentrate their 'methods' upon exclusively the first world.

I find this quote increadibly funny comming from a leninist, As Lenin was one of the strongest proponents of the idea that the peasantry(most of the third world workforce) were incapable of revolutionary change. This was infact one of the main reasons he advocated an authoritarian state, to cruch the counter revolutionary peasants. Anarchsits have aways advocated the self activity of any opressed group, this includes third world peasants.

Leninists are extreemly dishonest in this aspect, they claim to support third world revoltuions but their theory clearly states that they do not feel these people are capable of radically transforming society towards communism. Some of the most active Platformist Anarchist org right now are found in the global south:

Federação Anarquista Gaúcha (Brazil)
http://www.fag.rg3.net/

Consejo Indígena Popular de Oaxaca "Ricardo Flores Magón" (Mexico)
http://www.laneta.apc.org/rio/cipo/

Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation (South Africa)
http://www.zabalaza.net/

Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (Uruguay)
http://www.nodo50.org/fau/

Untill about 80 years ago anarchism was much bigger in the global south than marxism, only after the deception of the so called "success" of the russian revolution and the huge influence that the Stalinst state had financially in the third world, including the severe repression that stalinist states and orgs dished out on the revolutionary left, did Marxism surpass anarchsim.

I willinclude some links to non wester anarchsit history to back this up a bit.

Global Anarchsim (http://www.illegalvoices.org/knowledge/writings_on_anarchism/non-western_anarchisms_rethinking_the_global_context.h tml)

Cuban Anarchsim (http://www.illegalvoices.org/bookshelf/cuban_anarchism/)

To viva la revolution, Im not sure where you are getting your information but i would be vary weary of them. Most of what you said in your article was very inaccurate, try reading from many other sources, not just the party you happen to belong to.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 04:09 PM


As for the third world.

Another disagreement of Anarchism is the concept of a socialist revolution in the third world. Marxists(primarily Leninists) support third world revolutions and the emergence of socialist societies in the third world, whereas anarchists reject third world revolutions and concentrate their 'methods' upon exclusively the first world.

I find this quote increadibly funny comming from a leninist, As Lenin was one of the strongest proponents of the idea that the peasantry(most of the third world workforce) were incapable of revolutionary change. This was infact one of the main reasons he advocated an authoritarian state, to cruch the counter revolutionary peasants. Anarchsits have aways advocated the self activity of any opressed group, this includes third world peasants.

Leninists are extreemly dishonest in this aspect, they claim to support third world revoltuions but their theory clearly states that they do not feel these people are capable of radically transforming society towards communism. Some of the most active Platformist Anarchist org right now are found in the global south:


Apart from your intellectually bankrupt bastardization of 'vanguardism' and Leninism you overlook one teensy weensy detail. Sweetheart, it was Lenin who was the first Marxist who ascribed a revolutionary role to the peasantry and recognized that proletarian class interests are interconnected with peasant class interests. This of course was criticized by Plekhanov and Trotsky and opposed tooth and nail by the second international by Kautsky.
So apart from the fact that the big bad 'vanguardists' recognized a revolutionary role for the peasantry, when anarchist yuppies were not even approaching this question, you then have the intellectual dishonesty to bring forth this poorly conceived accusation!
Of course regarding your other absurd notion of leninism disregarding revolutionary chenge in the third world, yes that would explain why all the revolutions in the third world were carried out by MARXIST-LENINISTS! go read some history my uninformed hippie friend. Of course this is nothing compared to the grnad revolutionary sweep of 'platformist' anarchists which form a spectre haunting the third world. Sweetheart read some Bakunin at least before attempting to 'rip apart' leninism which you have just proven you do not know jackshit about

[rebelworker]

ohh, im sweet on you... :wub:

Calling me hippie sweathart :lol:

You big softy.


Sweetheart, it was Lenin who was the first Marxist who ascribed a revolutionary role to the peasantry and recognized that proletarian class interests are interconnected with peasant class interests. This of course was criticized by Plekhanov and Trotsky and opposed tooth and nail by the second international by Kautsky.

So what about the left SR's and the Makhnovist Movment during the Russian revolution.
Peasant revolutionaries, but the bolsheviks decided otherwise and had them wiped out.


Of course regarding your other absurd notion of leninism disregarding revolutionary chenge in the third world, yes that would explain why all the revolutions in the third world were carried out by MARXIST-LENINISTS! go read some history my uninformed hippie friend. Of course this is nothing compared to the grnad revolutionary sweep of 'platformist' anarchists which form a spectre haunting the third world. Sweetheart read some Bakunin at least before attempting to 'rip apart' leninism which you have just proven you do not know jackshit about

So how did those revolutions go for the majority of people in those countires. And why were they lead by Marxist lenninist groups. Mao, not Lenin was the first marxist to serriously give the peasants cred. The Bolsheviks totally oposed the peasant revolutionaries.

As i explained in my post, Im not sure if you read it properly, the reason anarchism lost influence in the third world was because of the treachery and finacial manipulation of the stalinist State. Like everywere in the World(first and third) this serrioulsy hampered revolutionary potential to this day.

Just because there were some"successful" revolutions dose not mean they were at all helpfull for building communism, the topic at hand.

Many of the third world countries may have gotten free from colonialsm, no small task, but by in large the working class and peasants of these countries were then stabbed in the back by the new ruling class.

I never claimed that Platformist anarchism has been more influencial in the third world, but i do think people would have been better off if it had been.

Slowly revolutionaries are starting to rebuild after the total failures of totalitarianism in the guise of comunism, and anarchismis again growing all over the world. It will take decades for the revolutionary left to recover but I hope that when it dose it will have learned from the failures of the past.

As to my portrayal of Vanguardism,i hit it to the tee, i know because before becoming an anarchist I was a memeber of a leninist party. I used to have a very limited knowledge of history, and my party was happy to keep me ignorant, like the church tried before that. Then I started to read and discuss with other parties and tendancies. After a fee years I learned that it was a game for the eliet and I returned to working for my class.

Again try reading something written by other tendancies, you might be suprised.

I hope you dont take anything i say personally, i am just speaking from my heart as a dedicated revolutionary. I hope one day we can both see eye to eye and work togeather for communism, but for now i have to be honest and say that Lenenism will never get us there.

In Solidarity,
Rebelworker.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 09:43 PM



So what about the left SR's and the Makhnovist Movment during the Russian revolution.
Peasant revolutionaries, but the bolsheviks decided otherwise and had them wiped out.

So how did those revolutions go for the majority of people in those countires. And why were they lead by Marxist lenninist groups. Mao, not Lenin was the first marxist to serriously give the peasants cred. The Bolsheviks totally oposed the peasant revolutionaries.

As i explained in my post, Im not sure if you read it properly, the reason anarchism lost influence in the third world was because of the treachery and finacial manipulation of the stalinist State. Like everywere in the World(first and third) this serrioulsy hampered revolutionary potential to this day.

Just because there were some"successful" revolutions dose not mean they were at all helpfull for building communism, the topic at hand.

Many of the third world countries may have gotten free from colonialsm, no small task, but by in large the working class and peasants of these countries were then stabbed in the back by the new ruling class.

I never claimed that Platformist anarchism has been more influencial in the third world, but i do think people would have been better off if it had been.

Slowly revolutionaries are starting to rebuild after the total failures of totalitarianism in the guise of comunism, and anarchismis again growing all over the world. It will take decades for the revolutionary left to recover but I hope that when it dose it will have learned from the failures of the past.

As to my portrayal of Vanguardism,i hit it to the tee, i know because before becoming an anarchist I was a memeber of a leninist party. I used to have a very limited knowledge of history, and my party was happy to keep me ignorant, like the church tried before that. Then I started to read and discuss with other parties and tendancies. After a fee years I learned that it was a game for the eliet and I returned to working for my class.

Again try reading something written by other tendancies, you might be suprised.

I hope you dont take anything i say personally, i am just speaking from my heart as a dedicated revolutionary. I hope one day we can both see eye to eye and work togeather for communism, but for now i have to be honest and say that Lenenism will never get us there.

In Solidarity,
Rebelworker.
The socialist-revolutionaries started out as purely a peasant movement, however soon betrayed the peasantry by supporting the first world war despite being elected through an anti-war mandate by the state duma. The program of the socialist revolutionaries was never the full implementation of socialism, but merely land re-distribution and land reform. contrast this with the Bolsheviks who actively pursued the cause of full socialism, note with the peasantry as a revolutionary ally of the proletariat. The socialist-revolunaries were not a revolutionary party, they were much like the liberals of today. Whereas the Bolsheviks, as the only party with a program of altering the state structure and having a radical program were the first MARXIST party to equate the peasantry with the proletariat as class allies.
The majority of these countries benefitted from socialism in terms of the standards of living and social services and facilities. One only needs to look at the statistics of the soviet union, china, cuba etc. to realize this point. You brought up Mao, but you seem to forget that the Chinese Communist Party began in the urban areas and then spread to the rural areas. Primarily as a result of the war of national liberation against the Japanese. Again your logic rests on an extremely simplistic view of history. Again Mao adhered to the ideology of Marxism-leninism, and actively advocated it. If indeed your assertion of hostility towards the peasants were to be taken at face value, ow is it possible that a Marxist-leninist movement would undergo protracted people's war in the first place??!! Again the flaws in your reasoning are abundantly clear.
Anarchism never had influence in the third world in any significance, perhaps a few splinter groups in latin america at the most but never in asia, africa nor the pacific. The reason for it's lack of popularity wasn't 'stalinist manipulation'( a simplistic accusation to begin with) but because of it's political bankruptcy and inherent contradictions as regards positions on organization etc. It's lack of specific programs and lines of action. Whereever you got the impression that the third world had any significant anarchist tendencies is a mystery.
As regards your assertion on 'successful' revolutions, the very fact that through the superior organizational capacities of Marxism-leninism and communism in general the proletariat was able to overthrow the bourgeosie is evidence enough. However your whole crux of your arguement lies in the fact that these revolutions failed. This again does not take into account the roles of Gorbachev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping etc,. etc. again an assertion based on an over-simplification of history.
As for your assertion of 'vanguardism' if what you say is true, the party you joined is either not Marxist-leninist, or simply is a fabrication.
I would reccomend reading a little more Lenin and a little less 'time'.
I have arrived at the conclusion that Leninism(not Trotskyism) is the most appropriate AFTER reading into other tendencies. Read a little more Lenin.
In solidarity,

[rebelworker]

Anarchism never had influence in the third world in any significance, perhaps a few splinter groups in latin america at the most but never in asia, africa nor the pacific. The reason for it's lack of popularity wasn't 'stalinist manipulation'( a simplistic accusation to begin with) but because of it's political bankruptcy and inherent contradictions as regards positions on organization etc. It's lack of specific programs and lines of action. Whereever you got the impression that the third world had any significant anarchist tendencies is a mystery.

The korean anarchist moevemnt at the turn of the century was quite large. and africa has always had Anarchist orgs, most recently the warness league in Nigeria with thousands of members.

I agree much of anarchist influence in the world has been limited due to organisational problems, Platformism since the 1920's worked to solve this, unfortunatly abotu 20 yars too late to spread adequetly to be proven during the revolutionary upheavals in Europe that gave birth to vanguardism as a relevant political ideology.

Marxism was not infuencial in the third world untill after the russian revolution, People thought it was a sucess so early on much growth came from mislead inthusiasm, after that the sheer power of the Soviet Union as a financial backer and Propaghanda model was central to the growth of Marxism.
Once people realsied that stalinism was a fraud, lenenism and trotskyism became popular. Unfortunately the peramiters of debate in the left had shifted so far, and anti Authoritarian movements were so marginalsied that people didnt reallt know they had any other options.

I can give the example from were i live. In Montreal It was almost impossible for anarchists to march in public right up into the 1970's because they would be physically beaten down by thugs of the large and well funded Communist Party of Canada.

The Radical "One Big Union", the Canadian equivilant to the IWW, a revolutionary Union, which in the 1920's represented the largest part of the revolutionary left, was also targeted by Bolsheviks after the defeat of the working class in russia. Communist Party thugs would barge into meetings armed with wodden clubs and beat down speakers who were not towning their line. After a few years the union dissolved under the weight of attacks from both the right and the "left", leaving only the communist party as a visible "revolutionary" org.

Again its true that anarchist and other left revoltuionaries were not well enough organised to stop this, something that us platformists are woring hard not to allow to happen again.


The socialist-revolutionaries started out as purely a peasant movement, however soon betrayed the peasantry by supporting the first world war despite being elected through an anti-war mandate by the state duma. The program of the socialist revolutionaries was never the full implementation of socialism, but merely land re-distribution and land reform

The Left wing of the SR's were who i spoke off, not the SR as a whole, they were equaliy persecuted and represented the revolutionary movment of the peasants in Russia,as the Makhnovchina represented the revolutionary peasants of the Ukraine.

I will continue to read more Lenin, but that is besides the point of weather or not Vanguardism can reach communism, again I say that it cant for the very simple reasons I have stated.

Stalin did not fall from the moon, as my south african comrades say. Lenin helped to make him possible.

I cant get over how much reading theory i will have to do to ignore reality.
I have seen from personal experience the negative effects of centralisation of power.
I think history has also given enough exaples of the failures of stateists in acheiving communism.

I Hope that the workers again will be ready to make it a reality, and mabey then My beleifs in staeless revolution will prove right. Unfortunatly authoritarians have been a hinderace not a hekp in this extreemly dificult task in the past.

Read any accounts of workers councils in russia to see that the Bolsheviks were an obstical to workers controll.

Or look at the negative influence the Communist party had in France during the 68 rebellion or again the Militant party in Britan during the Poll tax rebellion of 1991.

I now only work from the bottom up, not the other way around, Only one way will acheive communism


The majority of these countries benefitted from socialism in terms of the standards of living and social services and facilities. One only needs to look at the statistics of the soviet union, china, cuba etc. to realize this point.

Capitalism and imperialist expansion have greatly improved standard of living in North America, this dosnt mean that its something we want to work towards.

Kwame Nkrumah was killed by the very state he helped to build. States are repressive institutions that are in the hands of a minority, something we must fight to avoid.

Socialism builds another kind of class system, one that will not build towards communism. Right now in Venesuala, the social movments that existed in great numbers before chavez have all disapeared into the beurocracy. The Working class has no more organisations of struggle. The Army even ran the world social forum.
Hardly an organisation of class struggle.

People become just as alienated under socialism and it draws great numbers of people into the state, which is not a revolutionary instrement. When no real political power is acheived for the working class people become dissalusioned and turn back to the old ways, like the religon, drugs and organised crime.

Again with all the countries you just mentioned, what might have been possible if instead of an authoritarian state revolutionary movmnts had been taken all the way.

I gave a link to a text on cuba that gives a good third world example of a large libertarian labour movement that existed before the vanguardists seized state power.

A feat che tried to repeat in Bolivia and failed miserably because he was so out of touch with the working masses.

In solidarity,
Rebelworker

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Communists want to echieve equality by using the state and power against the bourgeois. In short, most believe they can overcome capitalist indoctrination and resist power to create a communist society.

Anarchists are not so idealistic and realize that the bourgeois must be destroyed from the core. Communists are just reformist revolutionaries. After a revolution, they want to reform the country until a state is no longer needed. Communism without anarchism involves embracing capitalist doctrines which naturally oppose communist philosophy.

Many anarchists would fit the definition of being communist in most ways, but they have a different approaching to achieving communism.

[Morpheus]

Anarchism never had influence in the third world in any significance, perhaps a few splinter groups in latin america at the most but never in asia, africa nor the pacific.

You should take your own advice and do a little more reading, because this claim is utterly false. Before the Russian Revolution anarchism was the main revolutionary ideology in the "third world", Marxism was minor. Look up the first labor unions or anti-capitalist organizations in "third world" world countries, and they're invariably influenced by anarchism. Look up the first Marxist organizations and they're almost always founded after 1917, and if not they're usually very small until 1917. In China anarchism was the dominant form of radicalism until the late '20s. Mao himself was influenced by anarchism in his youth. See Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution by A. Dirlik. The Korean Anarchist Communist Federation was at one point quite big, and participated in guerilla warfare against Japanese imperialism. Anarchists dominated the labor movement in Latin America for decades, and were often influencial in peasant movements as well. See the article at http://www.geocities.com/ringfingers/nonwesternweb.html and the sources it cites at the bottom.

The peasant issue was part of the reason for the lack of early Marxist influence in the "third world" - before Lenin the immense majority of Marxists were hostile towards the peasantry, which meant their ideas had little appeal in peasant societies. Anarchists have always viewed workers & peasants as partners in the struggle, unlike Marxists and this gave us an edge in the "third world." If you read the arguements between Marx & Bakunin, this was one of the issues they clashed on - Bakunin saw revolution being waged by proletarians, peasants & artisans while for Marx it was just proletarians. It wasn't until Marxists changed their views on the peasants that they made inroads into the "third world." Lenin & his followers were the beginning of this change, although Lenin still had a (much lower) degree of hostility towards the peasants. I'd say the transition wasn't really complete until Mao & the Chinese Communists were forced to flee to the countryside, where they had to change their ideology if they wanted any hope of sucess.

[CCCPneubauten]

Quick question...

What is the diffrence between Libertarian Socialism and Libertarian Communism?

[Morpheus]

Libertarian communism is a subset of libertarian socialism. It's one version of libertarian socialism, there are other versions too.

Libertarian socialism = anarchism
libertarian communism = anarcho-communism