anarchism vs communism

[outsydrka]

Hey there,

i consider myself as a beginner in all this, but really enthusiastic, to learn more about esp. anarchism , communism and similar...but there is one thing i really do not understand. what is the difference between anarchism and communism? i already heard something little about it, but still don't understand really...

[TC]

Its hard because many Anarchists insist on trying to appropriate the term 'communist' and even 'Marxist' recently. Some anarchists make much out of supposed 'left communist' or 'libertarian marxist' traditions, but these were only marginal tendencies at best, whereas mainstream Marxist-Leninist Communism has at one point or another been a dominant force in most of the world and remains a dominant force in much of it, and that is the politically meaningful Communist tradition. If you doubt that Marxists and Communists are by definition, for a workers state all you need to do is read the Communist Manifesto. Historically dating back to the Marx-Bakunin split decades before Lenin, Anarchism and Communism have basically differed as ideologies in these ways:

Anarchists oppose any state regardless of the ruling class, they think that states are inherently oppressive. As a result they only support revolutions which lead to a stateless society (sometimes termed 'communism' with a small 'c' by both marxists and anarchists). They may or may not accept marxian historical analysis of class struggle as the basis of social change through history, those that do are called Anarcho-communists or sometimes syndicalists. They may or may not view industrialization as inherently oppressive, those that do are called Anarcho-primitivists. They object to any type of formal hierarchical organizational structure even if their organizations are in practice hierarchical. Anarchists have never had any lasting success.

Communists, unlike anarchists, view the state as merely a tool of the ruling class, which is oppressive to the majority when the capitalists are that ruling class but empowering to the majority when the workers are the ruling class. Therefore they oppose capitalist state power rather than state power in general. They believe that its utopian and unrealstic to think that society would survive outside pressure by capitalism after a revolution without a workers state. They always use marxian historical analysis and they never view industrialization as inherently oppressive. They will useually accept that some hierarchical structures are acceptable and nessessary for large scale organization so long as they're democratic and accountable to the whole.

[anomaly]

Most communists support transitional socialism.

So the only difference is means. However, be sure to take TragicClown's 'denunciation' of anarchism with many grains of salt. She is, after all, a Leninist.

[outsydrka]

Thanx to both of you...but just one last thing...i thought that communism 'supports' no hierarchy whatsoever...?

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:04 AM
Thanx to both of you...but just one last thing...i thought that communism 'supports' no hierarchy whatsoever...?
Communists and anarchists are working for the same eventual goal of a society without hierarchy. In one way communism and anarchy are pretty much the same concept: a stateless, classless society in which no one rules over others. Communists just believe that hierarchical means (the state, perhaps ruled by a Communist vanguard) can be used in the transition to this end, while anarchists believe in using only non-hierarchical, decentralized means.

As an anarchist my personal opinion is that the ends don't justify the means, and that only non-hierarchical organization can bring about a successful revolution to a non-hierarchical society. I just don't think it's very realistic that any government, Communist or not, would voluntarily step down from power. Communists, on the other hand, don't think it's very realistic to manage a revolution in a completely decentralized, non-authoritarian manner.

[STI]

Communists just believe that hierarchical means (the state, perhaps ruled by a Communist vanguard) can be used in the transition to this end, while anarchists believe in using only non-hierarchical, decentralized means.

This is not true of all communists - some want to overthrow capitalism and move directly toward a classless, stateless society without setting up any large-scale state apparatus.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 09:00 AM

Communists just believe that hierarchical means (the state, perhaps ruled by a Communist vanguard) can be used in the transition to this end, while anarchists believe in using only non-hierarchical, decentralized means.

This is not true of all communists - some want to overthrow capitalism and move directly toward a classless, stateless society without setting up any large-scale state apparatus.
Yeah, I should have specified. I meant Marxists and other non-anarchist communists.

[STI]

Yeah, I should have specified. I meant Marxists and other non-anarchist communists.

Not all Marxists either :P

You'll actually find a good number of Marxists right here on Revleft who don't want a large (if any) state after the working class seizes power.

Marxist-Leninists, on the other hand...

[TC]

A 'marxist' who doesn't support a workers state is about as sensible as an Anarchist who does support a workers state...you can call yourself whatever you f'ing want, you can be an Anarchist-for-Stalin and go around saying 'uh, excuse me, but some anarchists support a centralized workers state' but you would just be useing the word 'anarchist' incorrectly. Likewise anyone who claims to be a Marxist against workers states is using the term Marxist incorrectly...the fact that some people on Revleft use the word incorrectly doesn't change the basic meaning of the word.

Read the Communist Manifesto...if you disagree with what Marx says Communists ought to be doing (i.e. organizing a party to establish a worker's state) you're not a Marxist Communist.

[anomaly]

centralized workers state'


worker's state
I know of few Marxists who favor a centralized worker's state (most prefer decentralized, as I understand it).

Also, I think you can still 'be a Marxist' and still not agree with every pen stroke the man made.

[STI]

A 'marxist' who doesn't support a workers state is about as sensible as an Anarchist who does support a workers state...you can call yourself whatever you f'ing want, you can be an Anarchist-for-Stalin and go around saying 'uh, excuse me, but some anarchists support a centralized workers state' but you would just be useing the word 'anarchist' incorrectly. Likewise anyone who claims to be a Marxist against workers states is using the term Marxist incorrectly...the fact that some people on Revleft use the word incorrectly doesn't change the basic meaning of the word.

I can't find anything in the Manifesto about a "workers' state". There's definately talk of a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", but nuttin' about no "workers' state".

So you'll have to try again.

[KC]

I can't find anything in the Manifesto about a "workers' state". There's definately talk of a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", but nuttin' about no "workers' state".


"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."
-Manifesto of the Communist Party, Ch. 2 Proletarians and Communists

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by STI+Mar 24 2006, 12:17 AM--> (STI @ Mar 24 2006, 12:17 AM) I can't find anything in the Manifesto about a "workers' state". There's definately talk of a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", but nuttin' about no "workers' state".

So you'll have to try again. [/b]
And what's the definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat?


Marx/Engels - Critique of the Gotha Programme - Part IV
Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

[STI]

Originally posted by Xanthus+ quoting Marx and Engles--> (Xanthus @ quoting Marx and Engles) Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.[/b]

This is saying that "the state" must be the DoP, not that the DoP must be a state.

If one is to define a "state" as "the body by which one class oppresses another", then ya, even anarchist support a "state" - though it would be organized in a way which is radically different than the "state", a body which rules over the proletariat with a formal army, police, jails, wage-slavery, etc., which Leninists would set up. The anarchist DoP would be wholly participatory, non-hierarchal, federated workplace and community councils. Nothing like any of the "workers' states" set up by Leninists throughout history.


Lazar
to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class;

If "the state" is simply "the proletariat organized as the ruling class", then there is no need for "the state" to be more than those federated councils I mentioned above - nothing like the states that Leninists want to establish.

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by STI+Mar 24 2006, 11:42 AM--> (STI @ Mar 24 2006, 11:42 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] quoting Marx and Engles
Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

This is saying that "the state" must be the DoP, not that the DoP must be a state.

If one is to define a "state" as "the body by which one class oppresses another", then ya, even anarchist support a "state" - though it would be organized in a way which is radically different than the "state", a body which rules over the proletariat with a formal army, police, jails, wage-slavery, etc., which Leninists would set up. The anarchist DoP would be wholly participatory, non-hierarchal, federated workplace and community councils. Nothing like any of the "workers' states" set up by Leninists throughout history.


Lazar
to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class;

If "the state" is simply "the proletariat organized as the ruling class", then there is no need for "the state" to be more than those federated councils I mentioned above - nothing like the states that Leninists want to establish. [/b]
You are correct, a proletarian state is simply "the proletariat organized as the ruling class".

However, you're very much mistaken as to the position of "Leninists". The People's Commisars were only intended to be in control to long enough to allow for the structures of proletarian democracy to take over. Unfortunitely, thanks to the small size of the proletariat in Russia, the Soviets were corrupted before this could happen. After Stalin took power on the back of these corrupted Soviets, he rewrote the book of "Leninism" to reflect the idea that Lenin actually prefered a small group being in control. This authoritarianism is the antithisis of Lenin's postion, but unfortunitely, it was spread widely enough by Stalin that many people today (even many that consider themselves "Leninists") continue to believe it.

[STI]

So then describe to me what you think should happen.

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 12:12 PM
So then describe to me what you think should happen.
In what circumstance? The answer to that question completely depends on the material realities of the situation at hand.

[STI]

Fair enough. In the case of an armed spontaneous insurrection by the working class in the major urban centres of an advanced capitalist society, what would you be trying to establish?

[Xanthus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 08:37 PM
Fair enough. In the case of an armed spontaneous insurrection by the working class in the major urban centres of an advanced capitalist society, what would you be trying to establish?
Ok.... for one thing, a spontaneous insurrection wouldn't couldn't happen. Everything has a reason, a spark, a cause worth fighting for.

For another thing, that still isn't nearly enough info. How are these people organised? What are the opposing forces? How is the balence of forces? What of outside elements (other citys, countries, and such)? What are the traditional forms of struggle in that society (major unions, labour parties, their tendancies)? How strong numerically and in quality are each of the different revolutionary tendancies? All these and more are questions that must be answered before I could give a decent idea.

Of course, the basic premise is to setup a transitional system, attempt to redistribute wealth and means of production, and above all, to defend the revolution. But as to how any of these requirements would be met depends entirely on material circumstances.

Unlike what many anarchists and many so-called Marxists like to suggest, there is no blueprint to a revolution.

[Dean]

for me, the division seems at once both clear and at the same time non-existant.

This is because communism has two meanings, the ideology of class struggle towards its end, which is liberation - and communism.

Ironically, this communism is in reality anarchy. It is not anarchy in the capitalist sense; rather, it is anarchy as the term means in its roots: an(lack of) archy(authority).

The right - wing example of anarchy is not true to this anarchy, because it ememplifies a state of centralized economic authority.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 12:37 AM
Most communists support transitional socialism.

So the only difference is means. However, be sure to take TragicClown's 'denunciation' of anarchism with many grains of salt. She is, after all, a Leninist.
I agree, and I find her comments odd, even as she is a Leninist. Lenin himself proclaimed that "people will only be free when there is no state."

[Leo]

Some anarchists make much out of supposed 'left communist' or 'libertarian marxist' traditions, but these were only marginal tendencies at best, whereas mainstream Marxist-Leninist Communism has at one point or another been a dominant force in most of the world and remains a dominant force in much of it, and that is the politically meaningful Communist tradition.

Actually those 'marginal' tendencies are growing rapidly nowdays where the ridiculous (so called)Marxist-Leninist 'communism' had dropped it's mask. People look at Russia and China, and those countries don't look inspiring anymore. Now, I wonder why :rolleyes:


If you doubt that Marxists and Communists are by definition, for a workers state all you need to do is read the Communist Manifesto.

That's deceptive ;) , Marx changed his opinion on the state after the Paris Commune. Read 'Civil War in France' if you are interested, here's the link: http://marx.org/archive/marx/works/1871/ci...rance/index.htm (http://marx.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm)


Historically dating back to the Marx-Bakunin split decades before Lenin

Considering that Bakunin was supporting the idea of the dictatorship of a 'secret organization' (or we can also call it a secret vanguard :rolleyes: ) that would ensure that no one else establishes another dictatorship and actually Lenin really got inspired from a document Bakunin wrote with Nechayev on how to organize in Russia, and finally by looking to Lenin's practice we can really say that Lenin ended up closer to Bakunin. Isn't that ironic?

Now, the confusing aspect of looking into anarchism is that there are lots of fake anarchists, and unfortunately those fake anarchists are the most famous ones (Notable examples are Proudhon, Bakunin and Chomsky) and the problem is that (most if not all) anarchists never found any chance to criticize itself because the limited practical Anarchist experiments did not had those fake anarchists around at that time.

However Marxism did had its experiments with 'fake' marxists who had power and it did manage to criticize itself. That's how those 'marginal' tendencies were born and did manage to find the real roots of marxism.

To sum up, there is conflict between 'real' marxists and 'real' anarchists, let alone any conflict between true communism and anarchism. Anarchism is the emotional face of communism, Marxism is the scientific face of communism.

[Forward Union]

moved

[John Dory]

you can find a lot of articles about this at rwor.org (http://www.rwor.org), just look for ''marxism vs. anarchism'' and if you do so just google the title of the article and you'll find the responses to the article from anarchists and others opposed to that viewpoint.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:48 PM

centralized workers state'


worker's state
I know of few Marxists who favor a centralized worker's state (most prefer decentralized, as I understand it).

Also, I think you can still 'be a Marxist' and still not agree with every pen stroke the man made.
The central point of Marxism's political philosophy is the worker's state...not agreeing with that is making a LOT of the man's works null.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by STI+Mar 24 2006, 05:34 PM--> (STI @ Mar 24 2006, 05:34 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] quoting Marx and Engles
Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

This is saying that "the state" must be the DoP, not that the DoP must be a state.

If one is to define a "state" as "the body by which one class oppresses another", then ya, even anarchist support a "state" - though it would be organized in a way which is radically different than the "state", a body which rules over the proletariat with a formal army, police, jails, wage-slavery, etc., which Leninists would set up. The anarchist DoP would be wholly participatory, non-hierarchal, federated workplace and community councils. Nothing like any of the "workers' states" set up by Leninists throughout history.


Lazar
to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class;

If "the state" is simply "the proletariat organized as the ruling class", then there is no need for "the state" to be more than those federated councils I mentioned above - nothing like the states that Leninists want to establish. [/b]
This "dictatorship" of the proletariat is actually what we council Communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism) propose. So would I, as a marxist-luxembourgist, fit your definition of an anarchist?

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:58 PM


However, you're very much mistaken as to the position of "Leninists". The People's Commisars were only intended to be in control to long enough to allow for the structures of proletarian democracy to take over. Unfortunitely, thanks to the small size of the proletariat in Russia, the Soviets were corrupted before this could happen. After Stalin took power on the back of these corrupted Soviets, he rewrote the book of "Leninism" to reflect the idea that Lenin actually prefered a small group being in control. This authoritarianism is the antithisis of Lenin's postion, but unfortunitely, it was spread widely enough by Stalin that many people today (even many that consider themselves "Leninists") continue to believe it.
This analysis just dosnt hold up to the facts.

There were numerous examples, most clearly the factory committes mocvement, that showed that the advanced elements of the working class were atampting to set up a communist system.

Lenijn and the leadership of the Bolshevik Party (Trotsky was the worst at the time) consistently took positions that removed power from the hands of the workers and put it into the hands of the Party burocrats.

Even the rank and file of the Bolshevik party learen this lesseon, although far too late. The Steelweorkers unionin particular, many of whom were party members, where very active in the factory comitteis. Once these organs of workers power were disolved they latter fought a losing battle against the burocracy to save the unions. All workers power was destroyed years before Stalin took power.

Both Lenin and Trotsky were in favor of "one man management" by "specialists" (Though Lenin was more politically astute than Trotsky and was much less viocal about it in public), the oposite of the goals of communism.

What Leninists dont understand is the learning process nvolved in revolution. The working class must learn to rule, something we can only acheive through trial and error. We must be alowed the freedom to build our own organs and create the future sociaty organically.

What many Marxist bring in theory they lack in practice.

Communism can only be acheived by the working classes themselves. Party substitution put forward by Leninist, Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists and the like will only result in burocratic state capitalism, sometimes more progressive than not, but never communism.

I identify as both a communist and an anarchist. I lean heavily on anarchism as a way to distance myself from the horrors of the Bolshevik model that has disilussioned so many from communism.
But in practice I am closer to "anti-authoritarian" Marxists than most North American Anrchists (although worldwide anarchsit comunism is by far the largest current of asnarchism).

Bolshevism was an accident of history, it set the conciousness of the workers movemnent back by generations. I think we are finally starting to seriously recover, but it is still to early t tell. Rember Aanrchism communism and syndicalism was far more predominant in the workers movemnt internationally than big "C" communists before the russian revolution.

In desperation for "victory" millions of workers were mislead or ignored the realities of Party dictatroships in the name of workers goverments.
Communism will never be acheived by these means.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by rebelworker+Aug 8 2006, 02:50 AM--> (rebelworker @ Aug 8 2006, 02:50 AM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 05:58 PM


However, you're very much mistaken as to the position of "Leninists". The People's Commisars were only intended to be in control to long enough to allow for the structures of proletarian democracy to take over. Unfortunitely, thanks to the small size of the proletariat in Russia, the Soviets were corrupted before this could happen. After Stalin took power on the back of these corrupted Soviets, he rewrote the book of "Leninism" to reflect the idea that Lenin actually prefered a small group being in control. This authoritarianism is the antithisis of Lenin's postion, but unfortunitely, it was spread widely enough by Stalin that many people today (even many that consider themselves "Leninists") continue to believe it.
This analysis just dosnt hold up to the facts.

There were numerous examples, most clearly the factory committes mocvement, that showed that the advanced elements of the working class were atampting to set up a communist system.

Lenijn and the leadership of the Bolshevik Party (Trotsky was the worst at the time) consistently took positions that removed power from the hands of the workers and put it into the hands of the Party burocrats.

Even the rank and file of the Bolshevik party learen this lesseon, although far too late. The Steelweorkers unionin particular, many of whom were party members, where very active in the factory comitteis. Once these organs of workers power were disolved they latter fought a losing battle against the burocracy to save the unions. All workers power was destroyed years before Stalin took power.

Both Lenin and Trotsky were in favor of "one man management" by "specialists" (Though Lenin was more politically astute than Trotsky and was much less viocal about it in public), the oposite of the goals of communism.

What Leninists dont understand is the learning process nvolved in revolution. The working class must learn to rule, something we can only acheive through trial and error. We must be alowed the freedom to build our own organs and create the future sociaty organically.

What many Marxist bring in theory they lack in practice.

Communism can only be acheived by the working classes themselves. Party substitution put forward by Leninist, Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists and the like will only result in burocratic state capitalism, sometimes more progressive than not, but never communism.

I identify as both a communist and an anarchist. I lean heavily on anarchism as a way to distance myself from the horrors of the Bolshevik model that has disilussioned so many from communism.
But in practice I am closer to "anti-authoritarian" Marxists than most North American Anrchists (although worldwide anarchsit comunism is by far the largest current of asnarchism).

Bolshevism was an accident of history, it set the conciousness of the workers movemnent back by generations. I think we are finally starting to seriously recover, but it is still to early t tell. Rember Aanrchism communism and syndicalism was far more predominant in the workers movemnt internationally than big "C" communists before the russian revolution.

In desperation for "victory" millions of workers were mislead or ignored the realities of Party dictatroships in the name of workers goverments.
Communism will never be acheived by these means. [/b]
I concur. I also feel that Communism must be libertarian in nature.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

When the revolution actually triggers it wont matter who sets it off - it takes only one man to spread the plague to a town (even though in my view it won't be as such)

The working classes after their revolt, simply won't accept a new oppressor or ruler - the Bolsheviks not only mantained their control through what rebelworker described, but also with military terror, or "War Communism".


What many Marxist bring in theory they lack in practice.


Marxists are the thinkers, Anarchists can be the do-ers

because blindly running into a room full of CEO's and mowing them all down with a machine gun ain't going to destroy capitalism or cause a revolution.

[rouchambeau]

Marxists are the thinkers, Anarchists can be the do-ers


With out actually "getting out there" and physically working with the problems that people live with one cannot fully understand the problems themselves. Praxis make perfect.

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:32 AM



What many Marxist bring in theory they lack in practice.


Marxists are the thinkers, Anarchists can be the do-ers

because blindly running into a room full of CEO's and mowing them all down with a machine gun ain't going to destroy capitalism or cause a revolution.
Marxists arent just thinkers and anarchists arent just do-ers. If marxist just sat down and made up theories al day, then those theories are just empty words with no meaning. If they where just thinkers, marxism wouldnt have left such an impact on the world and humanity, it was the practical implacation of marxism that had " a world to win". Here is where the pre-marxist socialistst and utopians failed .

Nor are anarchists just do-ers, they have (in there immense diversity) enough of theory and take the initiative to to better the world on short term through radical and humanitairian action. The problem is the gap between anarchists and between their theory and practical implication remains large..

As Lenin said :D ;

"a revolutionairy movement without theory is doomed, a theory without a revolutionairy movement is dead"

History decides which revolutionairy theory in practice works the best way, and the way to decide that is through discussion, critizism and self-critizism ;)

[closetcommie]

I'm kinda new, but I thought i'd throw a few questions/concerns in.

I've always found it interesting how the descendents of Marx have all sub-divided themselves into a thousand different branches -- I've wondered if there ever was a revolution, could they ever get anything done together, or would they get bogged down on the battlefield -- arguing over direction (or the absense thereof). I used to be Christian, and believe me -- I can spot denominationalism a mile away.

Dunno. Anyway, one problem I've always had with modern Marxism (the latent form that exists in capitalist societies) is that it seems to be heavily idealistic, and rarely practical.

It's always seemed to me that communism itself is only a transition to a classless utopia, but you have those who say any struggle can't be organized, and there can never, ever be a state. It's as if some people expect that when that great and final day arises that people will suddenly "click" and know what role to fall into, as if by magic -- people born and raised and brainwashed by heirarchial capitalists. Yeah, I can see that happening. Big leap of faith.

Using practical examples, I think the best political model today is China. Obviously, we can't include it as an economic model -- they'd actually have to be socialist. But, I don't think there would be any problem with a state -- at least in the transition -- as long as the state was beholden to the party which was beholden to the subdivisions, unions, and committees that would make it up. If the power was always derived from below (instead of above), I don't think there would be a problem with a temporary state - given that such a state would have checks and balances to prevent dictatorships and such.

[nickdlc]

I've always found it interesting how the descendents of Marx have all sub-divided themselves into a thousand different branches -- I've wondered if there ever was a revolution, could they ever get anything done together, or would they get bogged down on the battlefield -- arguing over direction (or the absense thereof). I used to be Christian, and believe me -- I can spot denominationalism a mile away. there's "denominationalism" within every group, with capitalists, anarchists, communists, and within religions. People think differently so you will have different groups.


Using practical examples, I think the best political model today is China. Obviously, we can't include it as an economic model -- they'd actually have to be socialist. But, I don't think there would be any problem with a state -- at least in the transition -- as long as the state was beholden to the party which was beholden to the subdivisions, unions, and committees that would make it up. If the power was always derived from below (instead of above), I don't think there would be a problem with a temporary state - given that such a state would have checks and balances to prevent dictatorships and such. If power came from below what would be the need of the party? Those who try to reconcile the party with the masses really just want the party to be in charge, its as simple as that. When leninists talk about the need for the state they really mean the need for the party to be in control. As marxists we should know those who control the economy control the state, a party making economic descisons on behlaf of the workers is not workers making descisions.

Read Rebel workers last post goes into why actual socialism was not utopian dream at all during the russian revolution.

[closetcommie]

If power came from below what would be the need of the party? Those who try to reconcile the party with the masses really just want the party to be in charge, its as simple as that.

Again, when we're talking about the working class going from point A to point B (point A being wage slaves for an imperialist fascist corporate plutocracy to B, a classless utopian society) without some sort of transition -- to me, that seems a bit of a fantasy. It presumes that the base nature of humanity is one of selfess cooperation, a natural state that we will instantly revert to by default when the corporate shackles are removed from us.

Socialism itself suggests that there would be some sort of means to prevent hoarding or theft on any level -- how would that be expected if a completely volunteeristic (is that a word) and leaderless society must exist from Day One? I don't go for stalinistic extremes either (and don't need to read a report to know that the soviet union wasn't Utopia), but I don't believe for one instant that man will share and cooperate as if guided by a magical unseen hand "just because."

To me, this "supergood" idea of man is residual Christian religiosity that makes the fatal error of presuming we aren't part of the animal kingdom. We are, the sole difference being our superiority in intelligence, memory, and adaptability. Our natural, primitive state is stealing, raping, pillaging -- doing whatever we have to do to survive. Revolution, really, is the easy part. Not devolving into Somalia 2.0 -- that's where the work lies.

Civilization has been our conscious effort to control our own evolution, and it would be my hope that Marxism could continue that effort in elevating humanity, reducing misery, and equalizing opportunity for all. For me, the only path that can succeed "after" is one that is logical, methodical, scientific, and practical -- without the magical thinking.

I don't know enough about the various Marxist factions (except the basics) to take sides. My loyalities will never be to any conference, party, faction, convention, committee, or the "most-correct" leader -- but to the betterment of humanity. Unfortunately, the only unity I see among the left is opposition to the war in iraq. Yawn.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:20 PM
Unfortunately, the only unity I see among the left is opposition to the war in iraq. Yawn.


What? Whose here could possibly be against Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL)? :lol:


closetcommie, I agree with you that people will not be instantly and magically transformed. There will be a transition period, but why can't it be the revolution itself? The revolution will require workers' class conciousness and will force them to work together. It will likely last a long enough time so that they begin to get used to cooperation.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:14 AM
I've always found it interesting how the descendents of Marx have all sub-divided themselves into a thousand different branches -- I've wondered if there ever was a revolution, could they ever get anything done together, or would they get bogged down on the battlefield -- arguing over direction (or the absense thereof). I used to be Christian, and believe me -- I can spot denominationalism a mile away.


There are branches of thought with in the revolutionary movement, yes, I however don't see this as a problem, except when some people become over zealous, and thus become sectarian, then it becomes a problem.

When the Revolution happens we will of course work together, we all have the same basic goals, the parties are merely how we view the means to get there, and how we interpret Leftist politics and theory, and are a reflection of our own personal opinions and beliefs.

[The Grinch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 10:18 AM

Read the Communist Manifesto...if you disagree with what Marx says Communists ought to be doing (i.e. organizing a party to establish a worker's state) you're not a Marxist Communist.
Would you also agree that if you don't follow the Marxist conception of what form the dictatorship of the Proletariat takes:

If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat,

(Engels, A Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Program of 1891)

like the Bolsheviks didn't, than you are also no Marxist?

I'd certainly agree that the idea that the state will be instantly abolished is not a Marxist one. But neither is democratic centralism nor substituting the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of a vanguard party. Neither can be found in Marx at all.

Back to the original question, there's two essential differences.

1. Marxist communists believe that the state will take time to wither away. Anarchists believe it will happen instantly after a revolution.

2. Anarchists don't believe in taking political power as a class, and won't use the current institutions (elections etc.) as a form of struggle.

[-=Viva La Revolution!=-]

:mellow: okay is support both communism and anarchy, neither one mor ethan the other. but when you think about it communism's origins come from anarchy. thousands of years ago, when there was no government, there were two farmers/workers who worked off somone else's land or each other's freely, and split the rewards equally. This is a commune, a pretty important part of communism, but its communism in the face of anarchy, a wonderful balance. :D

[Janus]

An anarchist society would be a communist society.

[bombeverything]

Just to try and clarify.


Its hard because many Anarchists insist on trying to appropriate the term 'communist' and even 'Marxist' recently. Some anarchists make much out of supposed 'left communist' or 'libertarian marxist' traditions, but these were only marginal tendencies at best, whereas mainstream Marxist-Leninist Communism has at one point or another been a dominant force in most of the world and remains a dominant force in much of it, and that is the politically meaningful Communist tradition.

We are not tying to do anything. I would like you to point out precisely what it is in anarchism or left communism that does not fit into your view of what constitutes a communist.


Anarchists oppose any state regardless of the ruling class, they think that states are inherently oppressive. As a result they only support revolutions which lead to a stateless society (sometimes termed 'communism' with a small 'c' by both marxists and anarchists). They may or may not accept marxian historical analysis of class struggle as the basis of social change through history, those that do are called Anarcho-communists or sometimes syndicalists. They may or may not view industrialization as inherently oppressive, those that do are called Anarcho-primitivists. They object to any type of formal hierarchical organizational structure even if their organizations are in practice hierarchical. Anarchists have never had any lasting success.

What do you mean by ‘regardless’ of the ruling class. This is an incorrect definition of anarchism. Those in control of the state are the ruling class. I am also unsure what you are comparing the success of the anarchists to.


They will useually accept that some hierarchical structures are acceptable and nessessary for large scale organization so long as they're democratic and accountable to the whole.

Then they wouldn’t actually be democratic structures.


Both Lenin and Trotsky were in favor of "one man management" by "specialists" (Though Lenin was more politically astute than Trotsky and was much less viocal about it in public), the oposite of the goals of communism.

Precisely. How is this economic democracy? Anarchists are communists.


1. Marxist communists believe that the state will take time to wither away. Anarchists believe it will happen instantly after a revolution.

No, we believe that the state must be destroyed because it could never simply ‘wither away’.

[blazeofglory]

ISN'T ANARCHISM THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF COMMUNISM?

Well, a Utopia is the aim isn't it?

[Aurora]

Originally posted by Tragic Clown
Communists, unlike anarchists, view the state as merely a tool of the ruling class, which is oppressive to the majority when the capitalists are that ruling class but empowering to the majority when the workers are the ruling class. Therefore they oppose capitalist state power rather than state power in general. They believe that its utopian and unrealstic to think that society would survive outside pressure by capitalism after a revolution without a workers state. They always use marxian historical analysis and they never view industrialization as inherently oppressive. They will useually accept that some hierarchical structures are acceptable and nessessary for large scale organization so long as they're democratic and accountable to the whole.

Anarchists want the outright abolition of the state

[Rawthentic]

Communism can only be acheived by the working classes themselves. Party substitution put forward by Leninist, Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists and the like will only result in burocratic state capitalism, sometimes more progressive than not, but never communism.

No it won't; thats a plain lie. You not once mentioned the material conditions facing Russia at the time, making your post ridiculous and worthless.

Tell me, do you think that if the Black Panther Party had led a revolution in the U.S., that it would result in a bureaucratic dictatorship? I suppose you would, since you ignore material conditions.

[Rawthentic]

That's deceptive wink.gif , Marx changed his opinion on the state after the Paris Commune.
The only thing he changed was the the working class cannot lay hold of the ready made state-machinery, but that it must smash it and create its own state to repress the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie.

Marxists are for a worker' state, there is no deviating from that in any way.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:29 pm
ISN'T ANARCHISM THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF COMMUNISM?

Well, a Utopia is the aim isn't it?
Yes. Communism is a stateless, classless and marketless society. Marxists believe that a Socialist State is necessary in the transition from Capitalism to Communism. As we have seen absolute power corrupts absolutely and the leaders of socialists states never let their power wither away. In my opinion the only way to achieve communism is through the destruction of the state not in making a different kind of state. Not in having a new dictator. A left leaning dictator is still that, a dictator. The solution can not come from a party but from the masses only.

[Rawthentic]

For one, communism is not utopia.

You blindly say that under the proletarian dictatorship, or socialism, that there is one dictator who commands all. Well thats a lie as well. The dictatorship is not of one man, but of a class over another class, just like under capitalism it is the bourgeois over the proletarians. Under socialism it will be the first time in human history that a majority (proletariat) exercises power over a minority (capitalists).


In my opinion the only way to achieve communism is through the destruction of the state not in making a different kind of state
Then the revolution will be destroyed and you will all probably be massacred because you were too stupid to not arm yourselves to defend what you have gained.

And please read Marx before you make such statements.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:54 am

In my opinion the only way to achieve communism is through the destruction of the state not in making a different kind of state
Then the revolution will be destroyed and you will all probably be massacred because you were too stupid to not arm yourselves to defend what you have gained.

And please read Marx before you make such statements.
How did you make the leap from destroying the state to not being armed and defending what has been gained? I don't understand what you are talking about. A state is not needed to protect the workers. The proletariat as the majority can protect themselves. A dictator's army isn't needed to keep a revolution going. In fact I think a dictators army would end the revolution.

[Rawthentic]

"The proletariat as the majority" is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is NOT OF ONE DICTATOR! It is of the working class organized democratically to repress the counterrevolutionaries.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

hastalavictoria wrote: "The proletariat as the majority" is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is NOT OF ONE DICTATOR! It is of the working class organized democratically to repress the counterrevolutionaries.

Your one heck of a paranoid young lady. The capitalist class as a whole are few in number and the non capitalist class are a majority. If we ever get to the point of transformation then the majority of people have decided that this is what they want. The idea that there has to be a political state to repress are those who feel they need to repress anyone who does not hold to their particular ideology. The DoP is an archaic idea which no longer is viewed as desirable with most people who understand what it is. Marx did write important idea and theories. He did not write scripture nor did Lenin. If there is a political movement it should call for the ajounment of the political state in favor of the industrial form of government. If there are those who decide to vandalize and do other things that harm people. We still got jails. There is no need to shoot up the whole country side looking for boogymen.

At present, workers will have to organize and overcome their negative views they have of each other and begin to work in solidarity to build this new form of government before it comes into existence. Workers still hold to dog-eat-dog mentality, think of the capitalist as people who earned their wealth, power and fame, and have a downright hate of workers who are slow or different. There is a lot that has to be done at the grass roots level.

IMHO, I don't know if society as a whole would reach a level that would constitute communism. We really don't know what type of society would develope when the old one is replaced or how much of the old will still exist in the new. Sure, it would be more cooperative but we don't know what levels of cooperation would exist. Those who feel they need to force their ideas of what they believe would constitute communism are just totally wrong on all counts. No one in a new society can dictate to another on what they say or how they believe. If there is a civil authority it is to protect the strong from the weak from rape and assault or anything that would cause physical harm. Don't know about verbal abuse since a lot of it goes on here :lol:

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:31 am
"The proletariat as the majority" is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is NOT OF ONE DICTATOR! It is of the working class organized democratically to repress the counterrevolutionaries.
If the proletariat are the majority what is the need of the DoP? Supposedly the DoP is supposed to be the workers controlling everything with the party leading the way. What has been the result of this? When has communism come out of this? When has the party of the state allowed the workers to be in control?

The DoP is supposed to be the workers controlling the state but the leaders of the party won't let it happen.

[Rawthentic]

Shamrock, you need to do a bit more studying as to why that happened.

You seem to fall into all of that romantic anarchist rhetoric about "fucking" all authority.

The Party as I see it is not in the "Leninist" sense, but it is logical that the class conscious workers will organize themselves to agitate and push their class comrades towards the final goal.

One of the main problems that you speak of is with past socialist experiences, where the Party blurred the line between itself and the state, thus destroying proletarian power.

The DoP is and must be the workers armed and democratically organized, based on their very own worker's councils.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 06:56 pm
The DoP is and must be the workers armed and democratically organized, based on their very own worker's councils.
Now look at that sentence and tell me what is the reason for a party or a state in that situation? I agree that the workers must be armed and organized through communes or councils. What is the need for a hierarchical state in this situation? Either the workers organize democratically or the party organizes them authoritatively. The workers can not organize democratically and at the same time be forced to organize. It isn't physically possible.

[Guifes]

Isn't the real diffrence between anarchism and communism the fact that anarchists find political power to be the biggest threat to a classless society while communists find economical power to be the biggest threat?

[Janus]

Isn't the real diffrence between anarchism and communism the fact that anarchists find political power to be the biggest threat to a classless society while communists find economical power to be the biggest threat?
Marxists and socialists usually focus more on the economical issue and less on the issue of political/state power if that's what you're asking.

[Rawthentic]

I agree that the workers must be armed and organized through communes or councils.
That is the dictatorship of the proletariat, what you just said here. The Party is the "guiding force" of the advanced class conscious proletarians who agitate and push their class brothers and sisters to the final goal.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:07 pm

I agree that the workers must be armed and organized through communes or councils.
That is the dictatorship of the proletariat, what you just said here. The Party is the "guiding force" of the advanced class conscious proletarians who agitate and push their class brothers and sisters to the final goal.
Like I said either they organize democratically or they are lead authoritatively by a party. It is illogical that both can be present at the same time.

[Rawthentic]

Ayayay.

The Party does not lead authoritatively, it is an organic organization of the class conscious workers who agitate amongst their class comrades.

The Party is not the state, even though previous socialist attempts have committed this error, but it means nothing to you if you can't examine why.

The post-revolutionary state is not the same as before, it is merely a necessary transitional stage to eliminate class antagonisms and protect the working class.

And it is democratic, basing itself on worker's councils.

[blackisenough]

"Proletarian dictatorship" has never existed in history, because everywhere (Russia, China, Cuba, North Corea, Angola) it was a bureaucrats' dictatorship, bureaucracy was the "new" buorgeoise with all its authoritarism and all its privilege.
And it's a wrong concept per sé, because dictatorship is always lack of freedom.
Finally, who the hell told Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot and so on that they could speak for the proletarians? They were not proletarians, but intellettuali borghesi.