A Question About Anarchism

[TheSpoon]

If anarchists are for the complete backoff of government but still believe in retaining some sort of economy, does that not mean they are ultra capitalists and ultra leftists at the same time?

I'm not implying anything I'm just confused about theory here, I'm kinda new to theoretical politics as a whole. :huh:

[barista.marxista]

All economy is not capitalism. Capitalism is a hierarchy, thus real anarchists oppose it.

These dipshits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism), however... well, no one really takes them seriously.

[anomaly]

Anarchists want to maintain an economy, yes. Don't we all?

First, probably something based off TLVS, then, of course, communism, and then...well, who knows.

[Cloud]

I wouldnt say anarchists are super capitalists or super leftists. I see anarchists as the middle, a veiw of both sides. Anarchy's idealology though is without government, so economics dont nessecarily have to be "money". They can be anything. The idea is peace though, so in my mind, economics wouldnt really be nessecary in a anarchist society if it was a utopia.

[Brekisonphilous]

what is TLVS and where can I read about it?

I am an anarchist, and I am as sure as ever I am not an ultra-capitalist. Why would I have reigstered with this board if I were?

[anomaly]

Shiiiiiit

TLVs like a mo'fucka (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45039)

There you go. It's a good thread. Plus, several helpful links along the way. But if you just read through the thread, you should get it.

[LoneRed]

hey anomoly what happened to your pic. anyways

Anyways, i recomend reading Capital, as well as other economic works to find out how not all economy means capitalism. the capitalists would like to tell people that it is TINA, There is No alternative as they would like to say... well they are wrong

[anomaly]

My pic is on my myspace.

RS2K deleted the one from the thread awhile back cuz I asked him to.

[Armed_Philosopher]

There are diferent kinds of Anarchists.

Some of the Anarcho-Individualists call themselves "Free Market Socialists". This isnt realy the background that I come from, but I thought I would post this from BlackCrayon.com

http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/diction...term=freeMarket (http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/?term=freeMarket)


http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/diction...?term=mutualism (http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/?term=mutualism)

[Brownfist]

Well there is definately some overlap between libertarian anarchism and right-wing politics. However, I think that the larger anarchist claim is that society can regulate itself without the need for government. Furthermore, they argue that a communist economy is possible without the stage of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and that through a revolutionary movement they cannot only end capitalist relations but also the state. I mean this is the final goal of communists as well, however, they believe in a stage in between i.e. socialism. Thus, in the same way that communes would help regulate social relations in-between members of the commune or whatever social formation is produced out of the revolution, there would also be an economic regulation by the workers that are part of the communes. Thus, political and economic life is collapsed.

[Czar]

the way i look at it, anarchism is just a way for angry people to be violent and have it justified by how much they hate our government.

so its kinda like killing 2 birds with one stone.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 12:12 PM
the way i look at it, anarchism is just a way for angry people to be violent and have it justified by how much they hate our government.

so its kinda like killing 2 birds with one stone.
You're a wee bit off point there. Check out Alexander Berkman's What Is Anarchism? (http://libcom.org/library/what-is-anarchism-alexander-berkman) Very easy to read.

[rebelworker]

Historically anarchism has been mostly alighned with communism.

Anarchists just had more of a critique of the corrupting influence of power on individuals, so we reject the idea that a party or central council can be responsible for the transition from capitalism to communism.

Some anarchists, are in my opinion, extreemly confused. They just advocate, "fucking shit up" and "fuck the govt".

Though I have no love for the govt, I do think that we should focus more on what we want to build, mass movements of opressed people working towards economic and political equality based on solidarity, than on what we are against.

anarchist FAQ is a good website that moght answer some questions.

For more indepth questions on anarchist tendancies or positions on different issues feel free to send me a personal message or post again on this thread.

[Floyce White]

TheSpoon: "If anarchists are for the complete backoff of government but still believe in retaining some sort of economy, does that not mean they are ultra capitalists and ultra leftists at the same time?"

Yep. Economics is the social science that describes property trade. Communism means sharing not trade. Communists do not promote economy, but natural human ecology. Communists struggle to completely bankrupt all business.

Anarchism is just another leftist form of capitalism. I discussed this in my last two Antiproperty articles:

Against Anarchism--For Communism (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A20)

Whose Class Struggle? (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A21)

[rebelworker]

As I mentioned in my post above, The largest branch of anarchism is infact anarchist communism, which supports federated communism.

Some strains of anarchism, liberal, primitivist(I dont consider this anarchism) and some individualists are defenetly not serriously going to change the way the economy works.

Thr question is what is the best(or only) way to acheive communism.

Some people argue for the dictatorship of the party, others the emediate power of workers councils.

There are alot more who arnt clear on it atall.

For me its a tough balance between complete autonomy for the woking clas to manage its own affairs and the need to supress enemies of the revolution. History hasnt shown us the "certain" answer, we just specualte based on what has happened in the past.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 16 2006, 11:10 PM
Anarchism is just another leftist form of capitalism.
Says the Leninist! :lol: :lol:

[KC]

Says the Leninist!

Yes, Floyce is most definitely a Leninist. He isn't an anarchist; what else could he be? :rolleyes:


This line of reasoning (if you're not an anarchist, you're a Leninist) is getting very old.

[anomaly]

Well, let's put it to the test, KC.

Do you feel that anarchism is "just another form of leftist capitalism?"

Because that is just plain stupid.

And are you 'offended' when anarchists call Leninism the 'left wing of capital'?

[KC]

Do you feel that anarchism is "just another form of leftist capitalism?"

Anarchism is a political theory that people adhere to when they aren't able to comprehend Marxist theory, specifically the meaning of the words state and class, and the materialist conception of history. It is largely idealist in nature and, while not a serious threat to the capitalist system, damages the proletarian movement by spreading idealist beliefs.

Although anarchists and communists can ally on such issues as anti-capitalism and antifa, and while the two have the same "end result", the communists and anarchists are inherently opposed to one another for the very reason that anarchist theory is idealist and communist theory is materialist.


And are you 'offended' when anarchists call Leninism the 'left wing of capital'?

I think both this and what Floyce said are completely inaccurate.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 17 2006, 08:48 PM
Anarchism is a political theory that people adhere to when they aren't able to comprehend Marxist theory, specifically the meaning of the words state and class, and the materialist conception of history. It is largely idealist in nature and, while not a serious threat to the capitalist system, damages the proletarian movement by spreading idealist beliefs.

Although anarchists and communists can ally on such issues as anti-capitalism and antifa, and while the two have the same "end result", the communists and anarchists are inherently opposed to one another for the very reason that anarchist theory is idealist and communist theory is materialist.
"Anarchism is a political theory that people adhere to when they aren't able to comprehend Marxist theory"? That is most definitely not the case in all instances. I'm positive there are many members of this board with as strong an understanding of Marxism as the people who have the hammer and sickle as their avatar, and yet identify with anarchism. Nor is anarchism completely idealist in nature, most anarchist theory is immediately applicable and rewarding to modern life, far from being half-baked utopianism that people want to paint anarchism as (people tried the same with socialism...).

It seems to me that people consider anarchism an immature philosophy at best, and as they grow older they "mature" by accepting social hierarchy as implied by most politics.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
Yes, Floyce is most definitely a Leninist. He isn't an anarchist; what else could he be? rolleyes.gif This line of reasoning (if you're not an anarchist, you're a Leninist) is getting very old.
What the fuck? You have got to be kidding me. Remember your post in this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49080&st=275), where you deduced that because I do not support totalitarian state dictatorships, I must be an anarchist? Do you not see the fallacy in your logic here? So you're either a hypocrite, or you're a fucking bullshitter. Which one is it?

Actually, it was upon my brief overview of Floyce's website of profound intellectual essays (specifically where he says that Leninism is the overwhelming current of socialist thought, so we must use Leninist terms when discussing socialist thought), I deduced that Floyce is a Leninist. I wouldn't put myself in the same league of reductionism as you CLers.

Should Floyce like to come out and prove himself not to be a Lennie, that's fine by me. His virulent anti-anarchism is well within the tradition of Leninism, as his insistence that Nachie and I refer to Miles as "Comrade Miles," which is really quite laughable. And putting anarchism as the "left-wing of capitalism" while Leninism has proven itself historically to be the left-wing of capital is just laughable.

Or you could whine more about how anarchists "just don't get real Marxist thought, GOSH!"

[KC]

That is most definitely not the case in all instances.

Of course it is! The difference between an anarchist and a left-communist is the fact that they don't understand what the word "state" means and therefore advocate "smashing the state" without realizing that their idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a form of a state.


I'm positive there are many members of this board with as strong an understanding of Marxism as the people who have the hammer and sickle as their avatar, and yet identify with anarchism. Nor is anarchism completely idealist in nature

Left-communists, yes. I find left communist's views on the dictatorship of the proletariat idealist, and the only difference between left communists and anarchists is that left communists actually understand Marx's theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat.



It seems to me that people consider anarchism an immature philosophy at best, and as they grow older they "mature" by accepting social hierarchy as implied by most politics.

I disagree.


you CLers.

Oh stop being so sectarian. This isn't an "us vs. them" situation. League members have a variety of differing opinions.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by KC
Anarchism is a political theory that people adhere to when they aren't able to comprehend Marxist theory
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Suuuure they are.

I was a Marxist before I was an anarchist.

Rather than your biased viewpoint, one becomes an anarchist when they see things with which they strongly disagree in Marxist theory. Statist Marxists want to build a new state, and anarchists want to smash the state. That's the difference.

The state has always existed in a similar form: rigid hierarchy, rulers and those who are ruled, and some sort of army and/or police force. So don't just go off on your normal argument that we 'don't understand what the state is'. We certainly understand. And history hitherto is evidence enough of why we oppose the state. If you truly think your so-called 'proletarian state' will be effectively different in any significant way, then good luck to you on creating that.

However, until, and if, that happens, there is absolutely no reason for anarchists to agree with your goal of constructing a new state.

[KC]

Statist Marxists want to build a new state, and anarchists want to smash the state. That's the difference.

I know ;)



The state has always existed in a similar form: rigid hierarchy, rulers and those who are ruled, and some sort of army and/or police force. So don't just go off on your normal argument that we 'don't understand what the state is'. We certainly understand. And history hitherto is evidence enough of why we oppose the state. If you truly think your so-called 'proletarian state' will be effectively different in any significant way, then good luck to you on creating that.

However, until, and if, that happens, there is absolutely no reason for anarchists to agree with your goal of constructing a new state.

Thank you for proving my point. :)

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 17 2006, 05:13 PM
Oh stop being so sectarian. This isn't an "us vs. them" situation. League members have a variety of differing opinions.
And based on these threads (only selected from the last three days):

Anarchism and Leninism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49080&st=275)
Which is the greater enemy? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49787&st=50&hl=)
Anarcho-Communist here. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49988&hl=)

and, of course, this very thread, we all see, despite your claims, a deeply intrenched Leninist tendency amongst all of the people claiming to be Communist League members (despite that several have no idea what it is the Communist League actually does). This manifests itself as an outright and violent rejection of anarchism, plus the blanket branding of left-communists/anti-statists as being entirely anarchists. I'm basing this on a material analysis of what you guys actually say and do on these boards. There is absolutely no evidence, besides your front page saying you really really really really promise the CL is not a Lennie organization, that the CL isn't dominated by Leninist tendencies and descrimination against non-Leninists.

YOU have all proven yourselves be virulently sectarian. RAAN makes it blatant that we reject Leninism as we reject Social-Democracy, Liberalism, etc. And when we attempt to have discussions on non-Leninist issues, you come in and break them up. We've finished attacking you on these boards; we simply retaliate.

So calling us sectarian just brings up the question again: are you a hypocrite, or are you just full of shit? Maybe you could try answering this, this time around?

[KC]

I'm basing this on a material analysis of what you guys actually say and do on these boards.

That's a pretty shitty analysis.


There is absolutely no evidence, besides your front page saying you really really really really promise the CL is not a Lennie organization, that the CL isn't dominated by Leninist tendencies and descrimination against non-Leninists.

Well, considering the fact that I only know of one or two members actually being Leninist, and the fact that our basic principles are based on basic Marxist principles should tell you a little something. Or how about the fact that we aren't a "disciplined" organization? For example, I know Janus is closer to a left communist than I, and I know LoneRed is closer to Marxism-Leninism than I. However, there is a great deal of evidence showing that we aren't a Marxist-Leninist organization.


YOU have all proven yourselves be virulently sectarian.

I haven't been "sectarian" at all.


And when we attempt to have discussions on non-Leninist issues, you come in and break them up.

This is a public message board. You should expect people with opinions different than your own to be involved.



So calling us sectarian just brings up the question again: are you a hypocrite, or are you just full of shit? Maybe you could try answering this, this time around?

Please, show me where I've been sectarian. Link me to posts.

[barista.marxista]

there is a great deal of evidence showing that we aren't a Marxist-Leninist organization.

Except for those topics I referenced up there, plus the dozens of others you'd find by going through topics which have fallen below the first page.


This is a public message board. You should expect people with opinions different than your own to be involved.

Actually, I expected people to respect the topic of discourse on the top of the page. I thought that was, y'know, the kind of future we're trying to build? And just because outside my house is a public area, does that give me the right to go interrupt two people in conversation and prevent them from continuing it, because I don't like one of them? Logical fallacies, yo.


Please, show me where I've been sectarian. Link me to posts.

This is about the tenth time you've blatantly shown you do not read my posts. I just linked you to several topics showing the sectarianism of the CL, including the same fucking thread I reference every single time where you call me an anarchist for not supporting totalitarianism? Are you a hypocrite, or just full of shit? But that you apparently can't read leads me to believe you're simply a daft idiot, and possibly slightly mentally incompetent. That's a good reason for me to stop wasting my time arguing with you.

I'm out, yo. PHILLY!

[Nachie]

http://kickass-media.com/blogpics/April/damn.gif

[KC]

Except for those topics I referenced up there, plus the dozens of others you'd find by going through topics which have fallen below the first page.

I don't think I've ever seen any League member advocate Leninism.


just linked you to several topics showing the sectarianism of the CL

Show me where I have been sectarian. You won't be able to because I haven't been.


including the same fucking thread I reference every single time where you call me an anarchist for not supporting totalitarianism? Are you a hypocrite, or just full of shit?

Actually, I was calling you an anarchist for rejecting the idea of a state. I was mistaken, as I have said in the past.

You have still failed to show me where I have been sectarian. I would love to see where I have been, because as far as I know, I haven't! :lol:

As for this statement:


YOU have all proven yourselves be virulently sectarian.

It is obviously untrue and was fabricated by you. So who's really sectarian here?


That's a good reason for me to stop wasting my time arguing with you.

Woohoo, no more whining!

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 17 2006, 10:14 PM
I don't think I've ever seen any League member advocate Leninism.
Hey, Pinocchio! I think you're gonna poke someone's eye out with that thing!

[KC]

Hey, Pinocchio! I think you're gonna poke someone's eye out with that thing!


Evidence?

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 17 2006, 09:38 PM
and I know LoneRed is closer to Marxism-Leninism than I.
That comment was made by an unidentified CL member earlier this thread.

[barista.marxista]

http://phillyraan.net/pics/khayembii.jpg

[KC]

That comment was made by an unidentified CL member earlier this thread.


Oh, so being "closer to Marxism-Leninism" makes one a Leninist? I don't think so.


Originally posted by barista.marxista
I'm going to waste my time making an image because I have nothing better to do with my time and I want to try to get the upper hand after I lost the debate. I will continue to accuse KC of being a "closet-Lennie" even though my claim is completely unsubstantiated.

Don't worry, I won't make fun of you.

EDIT: Why have we had to close so many threads lately due to flame wars breaking out? Anyone wanna take a guess?

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 17 2006, 10:23 PM
Oh, so being "closer to Marxism-Leninism" makes one a Leninist? I don't think so.
Well where there's smoke, there's fire.

Besides, you're already so close yourself that anyone "closer" must be, well... I don't want to say it because I only have one warning point left.


EDIT: Why have we had to close so many threads lately due to flame wars breaking out? Anyone wanna take a guess?
I believe it was due to the extreme asshattery perpetrated by several anonymous members of this forum.

[barista.marxista]

How many times must you prove yourself completely incapable of reading and responding to others' posts?

Actually, the five minutes I spent on the image was infinitely more productive that if I directly responded to you word-by-word. Want to know why? Well, I'll give you a clue: guess which one I enjoyed more?

[KC]

Well where there's smoke, there's fire.

Not in this case, sorry. Are you going to back up your claim, or do you realize that you're wrong?


Besides, you're already so close yourself

I'm not "close" at all.



I believe it was due to the extreme asshattery perpetrated by several anonymous members of this forum.


Exactly.


How many times must you prove yourself completely incapable of reading and responding to others' posts?

I'm sorry, was there something I missed?

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 17 2006, 10:33 PM
Not in this case, sorry.
Oh.

Well, *whew* that sure is a relief. Man you really had me worried there for a second, I mean I just coulda sworn the CL was infected.

But hey, if you say so!

[KC]

I'm glad we got that cleared up. :)

So where are we at? Let's see:

The League is Leninist - Unsubstantiated
I am Leninist (or a "closet-Lennie") - Unsubstantiated
I am sectarian - Unsubstantiated
LoneRed is a Leninist - Unsubstantiated

Care to stop whining about these issues or are you actually going to provide some evidence?

[LoneRed]

Hilarious are your accusations, in fact One of the members that has been in the CL for a long ass time, Is very against Leninism, and Ive only met one CL who said hes a Leninist, and that wasnt very assuring, your points that the CL is dominated by Leninist is just another futile attempt at discrediting the organization. Sorry that just isnt going to happen.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 17 2006, 06:33 PM
I'm sorry, was there something I missed?
Yeah: my posts. But that's okay -- I think we need to make special compensations for the disadvantaged, so I'll leave this one alone.

[KC]

I'm glad you've finally come to your senses and have stopped making unsubstantiated claims.

[Nachie]

OK everybody things are a little tense in here so let's just kinda relax a bit with a

*group high five*

[barista.marxista]

How about a

*group hug*

I find those to be a bit...sexier.

Though, Nach, I must admit: you have pretty sexy palms. :wub:

*high five*

[LoneRed]

I suggest you RAAners GIve UP!

This closet leninist bullshit is tiring, as time and time again you fail to prove that any of us are leninists


ALSO, I am NOT a leninist

thats the argument the anarchists always fall back on.. oh we cant think of anything worthwhile to say, so lets just call them leninists. hahaha.. ya guys

[_omen]

Now...I'm kinda new to this whole thing (communist theory and what not)


But isn't the idea of anarchism totaly impossible? What I mean to ask is, anarchy is basicly "every man for himself" correct? Well, if that is the case, then the only way that anachy would be able to be compltely sucessful is if the every person were to act independently, almost as a total anomolie (sp) against the controling governement. Humans (as a whole) are completley useless when it comes to taking action. One must not only destroy the basic human group (the family unit) but it must also take into account that the very ideology of anarcy is compltely contridictory. Any leadership taken up by one individual could possibly be seen as a governement, even on a small scale, and therefor must be eliminated as soon as it is in power.

As for the economy, the barter system works pretty well.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 17 2006, 09:13 PM

That is most definitely not the case in all instances.

Of course it is! The difference between an anarchist and a left-communist is the fact that they don't understand what the word "state" means and therefore advocate "smashing the state" without realizing that their idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a form of a state.


I'm positive there are many members of this board with as strong an understanding of Marxism as the people who have the hammer and sickle as their avatar, and yet identify with anarchism. Nor is anarchism completely idealist in nature

Left-communists, yes. I find left communist's views on the dictatorship of the proletariat idealist, and the only difference between left communists and anarchists is that left communists actually understand Marx's theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat.



It seems to me that people consider anarchism an immature philosophy at best, and as they grow older they "mature" by accepting social hierarchy as implied by most politics.

I disagree.
Well let's look up "state" shall we?

state Audio pronunciation of "state" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stt)
n.

1. A condition or mode of being, as with regard to circumstances: a state of confusion.
2. A condition of being in a stage or form, as of structure, growth, or development: the fetal state.
3. A mental or emotional condition: in a manic state.
4. Informal. A condition of excitement or distress.
5. Physics. The condition of a physical system with regard to phase, form, composition, or structure: Ice is the solid state of water.
6. Social position or rank.
7. Ceremony; pomp: foreign leaders dining in state at the White House.
8.
1. The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity.
2. The sphere of supreme civil power within a given polity: matters of state.
9. A specific mode of government: the socialist state.
10. A body politic, especially one constituting a nation: the states of Eastern Europe.
11. One of the more or less internally autonomous territorial and political units composing a federation under a sovereign government: the 48 contiguous states of the Union.

I can see clear reasons for rejecting these. 6 amounts to hierarchy, which is the exact opposite of anarchy (unsurprisingly) and the supposed enemy to the end-goal of communism. 7 is just useless posturing. 10 is a nation state, a sovereign entity organized around nationalism. 11 is much the same. Those are clear enough to be rejected and are considered definitions of state.

And my understanding of the DotP is that the transition from capitalism to communism happens by the revolutionary working class controlling things as opposed to the bourgeoise.

Disagreements mean nothing without any reason why.

[KC]

I suggest looking for the Marxist definition as we are talking about Marxist theory

[chimx]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 17 2006, 10:23 PM
EDIT: Why have we had to close so many threads lately due to flame wars breaking out? Anyone wanna take a guess?
oh oh oh! i know i know! because nobody has a sense of humor?

or.... it could be that pesky CL conspiracy against RAAN. those buggers will stoop to anything.

--

as far as everything else goes, anarchism doesn't have much to do with economics. it is about attacking power structures. you can be a wacky mutualist, a crazy whack-ass anarcho-capitalist, or you can advocate the free exchange of goods like most commies. and whatever you do, don't listen to floyce white, he is a reactionary nutball who just ignores the fact that the vast majority of anarchists adhere to communist "economics".

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 17 2006, 11:27 PM
I suggest looking for the Marxist definition as we are talking about Marxist theory
Perhaps anarchists aren't rejecting the Marxist definition of state when they say they want to smash the state but the forms of state I've already listed.

[KC]

Perhaps anarchists aren't rejecting the Marxist definition of state when they say they want to smash the state but the forms of state I've already listed.

That very well could be true, with a portion of anarchists. However, I have had numerous debates on this site and in person with others that still feel the need to "smash the state" despite knowing the marxist definition of the word.

[LoneRed]

anarchism doesn't have much to do with economics


Chimx you finally admit it :o

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 17 2006, 11:44 PM
That very well could be true, with a portion of anarchists. However, I have had numerous debates on this site and in person with others that still feel the need to "smash the state" despite knowing the marxist definition of the word.
What about "The difference between an anarchist and a left-communist is the fact that they don't understand what the word "state" means and therefore advocate "smashing the state""?

[Janus]

This thread seemed to get quick off topic. How about we try to keep the sectarian debates elsewhere on the forum, as it's not helping our image at all.

First of all, Nachie. I think I said that there were probably some Leninists in CL though I do not know any. However, for them to be in the CL would require them to agree with the principles of the League which would pose a problem for true Leninists. So your belief that the CL is a Leninist organization is simply not true. Also, I'va heard that there are Marxists in RAAN, that may also seem to be a contradiction to some as well.

Anyways, back to the topic. An economic system is defined as a mechanism which deals with production, distribution, or consumption. Therefore, some type of economic system would exist and I don't think that anarchists have disregarded it. The fact is that in a new communist society, the mechanism behind the economic system would be driven by the people themselves and would be more much egalitarian than what we see now.

[KC]

What about "The difference between an anarchist and a left-communist is the fact that they don't understand what the word "state" means and therefore advocate "smashing the state""?


If you understand what the marxist definition of state means, then you're a left communist because if you understand what it means then you will realize that the post-revolutionary institutions constructed by the proletariat will inevitably be a state.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:18 PM
thats the argument the anarchists always fall back on.. oh we cant think of anything worthwhile to say, so lets just call them leninists. hahaha.. ya guys
Sorry but I've never called the CL a Leninist organization. My critique of groups like the CL has always been that without a firm committment to supressing Leninism, internal contradictions will inevitably lead to either a split, or the group actually becoming Leninist. The idea of "Lenin-friendly" Leninism Lite is an easy way for Leninists to reinvent themselves into psuedo-anarchist, militant-sounding organizations and recruit idealistic youth. "Leninists" are only too happy to abandon that label because it then gives them free reign to totally coopt the term "Marxism" itself.

Meanwhile the majority of RAANistas on this forum are Marxists but you continually refer to us as anarchists both as an attempted insult and because we don't fit into your nice "inclusive" package.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by KC
the post-revolutionary institutions constructed by the proletariat will inevitably be a state
I'm pretty much sick of you just saying "oh yes, there will be a state"

That label is meaningless without a description. So what does your 'state' look like?

[barista.marxista]

(First of all, Khayembii is reductionist in his definition of the state. Marx defines the state in three different ways throughout his writings. Khayembii has chosen the first and most simplistic definition, based on underdeveloped Marx. As Khayembii does not read any posts but his own, I won't detail the other Marxist definitions of the state unless people are interested in the topic. But now for the actual topic:)

Anarchism literally means "without rulers." You notice it is not "without state." Anarchists do not oppose a state from the moral position of being against states. They oppose it because it is a hierachal, authoritarian institution that limits people's freedoms in the interest of the ruling class. From the definition of a state as the repression of one class by another, all class-war anarchists (and most anarchists who are not poseur, posturing teenages) support the formation of a horizontalist, non-hierarchal state of the types as outlined in An Autonomist Conception of the DofP (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49167&hl="Autonomist+conception+of+the+dofp") and Defining a Dialogue of Revolution: the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/dofp.html). Co-operation and participation are key tenets of anarchist thought, which is why the famous anarchist saying is that anarchism is "Without rulers, not without order."

In the context of Khayembii's choice of the Marxist definition of a state, reducing anarchism as being simply "STATES R TEH 3VIL" is the exact same thing as the bourgeois reduction of communism to being the idea that "EVERYBODY, IN EVERY SINGLE WAY, IS MADE EQUAL, AND FORCIBLY KEPT THAT WAY." And remember, kids: reductionism is bad!

[KC]

I'm pretty much sick of you just saying "oh yes, there will be a state"

Well, I don't really think we need to go here again anomaly. You know the definition of state that I use. Both I and Miles have explained that there will still be classes during the dictatorship of the proletariat (which I believe you stopped responding after Miles explained it). So there will be a state.


So what does your 'state' look like?

Direct democracy, while applicable in a communist society, is not applicable in a period of revolutionary transition. While it is the most preferred method, it is also the slowest and most inefficient. The more people you have involved in the decision making process, the longer it will take to reach a consensus. You might not like that, but it's true.

While direct democracy won't work, we have to design a system that is efficient and decisive yet keeps the power in the hands of the proletariat. On the local level soviets will have power. On the national level there must be some representative system. This is a congress consisting of members elected by the proletariat and recallable at any time. Also, elections will be held rather often (perhaps once or twice a year) in order to maintain proletarian rule. This way decisions can be made quickly and efficiently and power remains in the hands of the proletariat as a whole. Oh, and before anyone gets all stuffy about them not being proletarian, a requirement will be doing work other than political work.

And since we are talking about a state, we might as well talk about how the state will maintain its control. This will be done in the form of volunteer militias. Policing will be in the hands of citizens, all of whom will be armed, as well as a local detective/forensics unit.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by b.m+--> (b.m) Defining a Dialogue of Revolution: the Dictatorship of the Proletariat[/b]
Yes, I have previously said I agree with the content of this dialogue.

That's why I have no problem being tight with autonomist Marxist comrades.


KC
On the national level there must be some representative system.
This is centralization of power. I have always been a strong advocate of decentralized power structures, so as to ease the tranformation into communes. Indeed, I think we should begin building communes as soon as possible. (perhaps it would be more technical to call them 'collectives' at such a stage, but you get the point).

I see no reason why direct democracy is not applicable in a collective.

[KC]

I see no reason why direct democracy is not applicable in a collective.

Oh, in a collective it is. Sorry if I didn't clarify that.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 18 2006, 02:55 AM
Direct democracy, while applicable in a communist society, is not applicable in a period of revolutionary transition.
And this is precisely where we disagree. It's not that we don't understand you or your definition of a state, it's that we don't agree with you. Anarchists think your representatives will become a new ruling class. All your talk about 'definitions' of the state obscures this fundamental disagreement.

[anomaly]

KC, why do you have an anarchist avatar all of a sudden?

More hilarious antics, like your Lenin avatar was, so you said?

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:18 PM
Anarchists think your representatives will become a new ruling class.
Left-communists think this too. And you know why? Because while your idea of the "state withering away" is real cool and stuff, after eighty years and two dozen attempts, it has never happened. In fact, quite the contrary, the Leninist states became more in more authoritarian and capitalist, as verticalist hierarchies have always done.

To keep insisting it's the only way neglects historical materialism, which makes it unabashedly idealism.

[Floyce White]

rebelworker: "...anarchist communism.."

I already pointed out in my last Antiproperty article (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=42555&hl=&view=findpost&p=1291968629) that this phrase is pure rhetoric without any theoretical validity. The phrase is a mere billboard. It is empty propaganda to sell the nihilist lie that anarchism is supposedly the same as communism, and vice versa.

barista.marxista: "Says the Leninist!"

Khayembii Communique: "This line of reasoning (if you're not an anarchist, you're a Leninist) is getting very old."

My views on Lenin and "Lenin-ism" were mass distributed in essays I signed in my own name. They are available for anyone to read at my Antiproperty Web site (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty).

barista.marxista: "Because while your idea of the 'state withering away' is real cool and stuff, after eighty years and two dozen attempts, it has never happened."

Do you really believe this? From my January 1, 2002 article Alphabet Soup Spells Capitalism (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A14):

Is the purpose of working-class organization to get state power? No. The reverse is true. Governments are the armed thugs who defend the right of the propertied to exploit the dispossessed. The working class has every reason to smash all governments and to prevent their return. Socialists claim that a “dictatorship of the proletariat” is a necessary transition from capitalism to communism. They assert that a “workers’ state” is an essential part of a “lower stage” when ever-smaller businesses gradually get nationalized. Eventually the state should “wither away” when “everybody owns everything.” Hah! Why not “nobody owns anything,” which is already a fact of life for the vast working-class majority? All that is needed is to immediately dispossess the rich through a revolution that abolishes all forms of property, public and private. Yet socialists insist on a slow process of repossession. Petty-capitalist “leaders” lust to seize the property of the big capitalists and make it “ours,” as the Russian October Revolution accomplished for them. Frustrated in their desire to get control of the immense Russian Empire, factions of that small and weak capitalist class created one after another populist movement of multi-class alliances. Immediately after a workers’ uprising won power for it, the Bolshevik government used capitalist commissioners as “leaders” to disrupt, co-opt, and pacify the soviets before the growing working-class movement could use the councils as organs of communist revolution. Pre-existing capitalists created the Bolshevik regime. Propertied classes create states–not the other way around.

Communists must abandon and criticize the “Marxist-Leninist” concept that the dispossessed laboring class could, should, or did create a state to defend its property interests. In doing so, we must also abandon and criticize its evil twin brother: the idea that a class of “state capitalists” was created by the government in the USSR. Socialism is a desperate attempt to save capitalism by maximizing state ownership and calling it “workers’ rule.” “State capitalism” is a sales pitch for those who didn’t buy it the first time around.

* * *

anomaly: "Do you feel that anarchism is "'just another form of leftist capitalism?'"

Anyone who reads my eleven essays knows that I say exactly the same thing of radical liberalism and socialism too. All are forms of radical leftism, and leftism is one of the two main branches of pro-capitalist political ideology.

By the way, guys, it is ordinary for communists to call each other "Comrade" and then the last name. If you do not consider yourselves to be communists, you may call me "Mister White." That is, unless you think you're my boss who can feel free to call me by my first name, while I must address you by your chosen title? Disrespect is not "revolutionary." It is a sign that you do not respect yourself and expect to be treated disrespectfully in turn.

Khayembii Communique: "Why have we had to close so many threads lately due to flame wars breaking out? Anyone wanna take a guess?"

It's called an "intervention." They disrupt what they disagree with, and likely PM and kiss sweetly to anyone who seems friendly.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 18 2006, 12:23 AM
barista.marxista: "Because while your idea of the 'state withering away' is real cool and stuff, after eighty years and two dozen attempts, it has never happened."

Do you really believe this?
What the fuck? Your response had absolutely nothing at all to do with my assertion that you quoted. Try again, buddy.

[Nachie]

Well "Comrade" Floyce randomly manages to suck again. He's like redstar2k but without actual knowledge to supplement the erroneous links to his own writings that nobody reads.

Morpheus is completely 100% right.

And Khayembii is not just fucked in the head for insisting on centralized and vertical power structures, he also INSISTS that they will be this way as if he was totin' a crystal ball.


Originally posted by Khayembii
we have to design a system ... will have power ... there must be some representative system ... This is a congress ... elections will be held rather often (perhaps once or twice a year) [OH FUCKING HOORAY MORE FREQUENT ELECTIONS!] ... This will be done in the form of ... Policing ... the ... citizens ... of whom will be armed ... a local detective/forensics unit.
No thanks, BOSS! :angry:

[KC]

It's not that we don't understand you or your definition of a state, it's that we don't agree with you.

No, it's that you don't understand my definition of a state. If you understand that, then you would be a left communist.


KC, why do you have an anarchist avatar all of a sudden?

More hilarious antics, like your Lenin avatar was, so you said?

Word.


Anarchists and Left commies whining about "centralized" and "vertical power structures"...open to Nachie completely misquoting me.

I'm so hurt. :(

Also, a congress isn't "verticalist" at all (nor Leninist). If you think you can run a nation in transition in a completely decentralized form then you're a fucking nutball. There needs to be some form of centralization, and it obviously can't be directly democratic.

[midnight marauder]

Why not instead utilize councils of delegates: people elected similarly to representatives, yet retain no power of their own, who respond only to the goals set foreward by the people, and who can be revoked by the people if the need arises?

Or perhaps we could structure a society around a demarchic model of organisation?

Or simply localize our communities enough to where direct democracy is actually possible?

I'm just trying to throw some ideas out there. My main problem with a representative democracy is that it removes the power from the actual constituants of a community, and places them in the hands of a new group of people (gee, sounds familiar, huh :lol:).

[KC]

Why not instead utilize councils of delegates: people elected similarly to representatives, yet retain no power of their own, who respond only to the goals set foreward by the people, and who can be revoked by the people if the need arises?

The problem with that is that there are times when it isn't always possible to consult with everyone in the country about an issue. So yes, in my model that I outlined above I chose representatives because of this. Representatives that are recallable at any time if the people so choose. This is the most efficient form of government that we can make while still having the power in the hands of the proletariat as a whole.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Nachie "quoting" Khayembii
we have to design a system ... will have power ... there must be some representative system ... This is a congress ... elections will be held rather often (perhaps once or twice a year) [OH FUCKING HOORAY MORE FREQUENT ELECTIONS!] ... This will be done in the form of ... Policing ... the ... citizens ... of whom will be armed ... a local detective/forensics unit.

You get a Stalin Prize for that level of falsification!

http://www.collectrussia.com/images/o/356.jpg

Miles

[The Feral Underclass]

Once again this thread has descended into complete bullshit with RAAN and Communist Leage members going at each other in these pathetic displays of idiocy.

If you people cannot abide by the guidelines and respect the fact that some people want to genuinely learn and debate then you should all stop posting.

this macho display from you four men has simply got to stop. It's boring. No one is interested in your chest beating.