From Peter Kropotkin's "Anarchist Communism":

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by "[email protected] 'Anarchist Communism'"
To the state socialist we say also: "You cannot modify the existing conditions of property without deeply modifying at the same time the political organisation. You must limit the powers of government and renounce parliamentary rule. To each new economic phase of life corresponds a new political phase. Absolute monarchy corresponded to the system of serfdom. Representative government corresponds to capital-rule. Both, however, are class-rule. But in a society where the distinction between capitalist and labourer has disappeared, there is no need of such a government; it would be an anachronism, a nuisance. Free workers would require a free organisation, and this cannot have any other basis than free agreement and free cooperation, without sacrificing the autonomy of the individual to the all-pervading interference of the State. The no-capitalist system implies the no-government system."... By bringing to light the plasticity of organisation, the philosophy of evolution has shown the admirable adaptability of organisms to their conditions of life, and the ensuing development of such faculties as render more complete both the adaptations of the aggregates to their surroundings and those of each of the constituent parts of the aggregate to the needs of free cooperation.

How does the idea of the free worker correspond with governmentalism? If humans are the species-being, and realize themselves in accordance to their material environment, how can the subordination of every man to a centralized state have man redefine himself as free from coercion and domination? Marx defined the DofP as being the stage where, by proletarian control, capitalism is advanced to the stage where it can produce for everyone. This is obviously a result of his optimism about when the revolution has come; we have seen capitalism develop itself and its own means of production quite further than Marx expected. Does this mean that the material advances in the mode of production have equated Marxism and anarchism -- afterall, if the masses are so radically changed as to revolt against capitalism, and there already is the means to provide for everyone, then the DofP no longer necessitates state-control. Could a new conceptualization of the DofP be necessary?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 05:53 AM
How does the idea of the free worker correspond with governmentalism?
Kropotkin was a zoologist and studied many different kinds of animals in their natural environment. His book 'Mutual Aid' aimed to refute Darwin's notion of "survival of the fittest". Kropotkin argued that the species of animal or living organism that survived were those that worked in co-operation: For example, bee' and ants.

In that quote, you can see that Kropotkin clearly uses his zoologist language and what he observes is that the structure of governance is directly linked to the structure of class/economics.

He argues that the system of bourgeois government is used specifically within the system of capitalism to maintain class control. He goes on to say that in a society where workers are economically free and in which class no longer exists the system of society must reflect that freedom: I.e Mutual aid and co-operation.

It's quite simple really.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by TAT+--> (TAT)the system of society must reflect that freedom: I.e Mutual aid and co-operation.[/b]
I've been wondering recently, does this imply democracy (direct) or does it imply no such thing whatsoever?

I've always thought that direct democracy would probably be used, but any decisions made would be of far less impact than those of today's government.


barista.marxista
Does this mean that the material advances in the mode of production have equated Marxism and anarchism
I've written previously that anarchism and libertarian Marxism (otherwise known as left communism, ultra-leftism) are essentially the same thing already. The only difference is the preference of semantics. Contrary to these two, the vanguardist Marxists (otherwise known as Leninists) are more authoritarian and state-oriented in their outlook.

So, to answer your question, yes and no. :P

[emokid08]

I believe they have, but it is also important to note that there are individualist anarchists out there still and they're a still a big part of the anti authoritarian left movement. (especially in the USA)

I am myself an Anarcho-Communist, and I think that Non Authoritarian Marxism and Anarchism play an equal role in my ideology. I believe in Communes and collectives over unions and syndicates. I believe in Collectivization and the Gift economy over anarcho capitalism or anarcho primitivism.

I think that since Non Leninist Marxism and Anarchism want to achieve the same goal in the end, I do think that they are now equated, and possibly more than that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by anomaly+Apr 20 2006, 09:38 PM--> (anomaly @ Apr 20 2006, 09:38 PM)
TAT
the system of society must reflect that freedom: I.e Mutual aid and co-operation.
I've been wondering recently, does this imply democracy (direct) or does it imply no such thing whatsoever? [/b]
As far as I understand it, direct democracy is simply a concept that advocates full participation in organisational activities by people in communities, cities, organisations etc.

It doesn't imply it directly, but it would be a necessary part of organising an anarchist society.