Anarchism [Archive]

STI

24th June 2006, 07:56

From what I understand, anarchist revolutions would be spontaneous and by billions worldwide

No.

Most anarchists think that proletarian revolution will happen in individual advanced capitalist societies.

An Anarchist revolution is supposed to be ultra short as the Army will put down their weapons and join the revolution.

Again, no.

It may take quite a long time... we really don't know. And no anarchists reasonably expect the military to be too "buddy buddy". Sure, there'll be defectors, but we're expecting one hell of a fight.

Also, there is no designated transitional period from capitalism to anarchy.

If by "transitional period", you mean "decades upon decades of wage slavery to the state" and "police, military, and law enforcement agencies", and the other goodies associated with "socialism", then no, there isn't one.

We don't expect things to change fundamentally overnight, if that's what you mean.

That's my biased interpertation of where anarchism and leninism part.

No, that's your little slice of error.

FinnMacCool

24th June 2006, 08:07

Anarchism is basically communism without a government. Its actually what communism was intended to be minus the transistional state crap that comes along with communism.

Worker's have direct control of their businesses and it works on the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" theory. The idea behind it is that we will satisfy peoples need and therefore we will eliminate many problems inherent in our society. So there will be no more crime because there will be no more reason to steal etc. etc.

And also, because nobody has more money then anyone else, noone has more power then anyone else. Since power=money in capitalism, by getting rid of capitalism we basically ensure that nobody has anymore overwhelming power over another person.

OneBrickOneVoice

24th June 2006, 08:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:57 AM

No.

Most anarchists think that proletarian revolution will happen in individual advanced capitalist societies.

Well then a portion of the population would die because take the US, most of it's food is produced abroad.

Again, no.

It may take quite a long time... we really don't know. And no anarchists reasonably expect the military to be too "buddy buddy". Sure, there'll be defectors, but we're expecting one hell of a fight.

That's false. Whenever I've brought up charges that an anarchist revolution would fail because its little cute affinity groups would be crushed by tanks since they won't organize in large groups, anarchists all say they think that the army will put down their weapons because they couldn't kill everyone.

If by "transitional period", you mean "decades upon decades of wage slavery to the state" and "police, military, and law enforcement agencies", and the other goodies associated with "socialism", then no, there isn't one.

Wow. Where'd you find that one>? Did I say that? Could you provide a link? Thanks.

We don't expect things to change fundamentally overnight, if that's what you mean.

Well then you need a transitional period. Most anarchists that I've talked to seem to think that everyone will just be used to communism and work everything out immediatly.

apathy maybe

24th June 2006, 08:11

I would recommend you scroll through http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6421 and have a good read of http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=28053
And when you have finished with those two have a browse through An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.anarchyfaq.org), which is rather long but worth it.

Basically anarchism is a group of ideologies that oppose hierarchy and the use of force in relationships.

You get some anarchists who thus believe that all violence is bad (pacifists), and some who think that it is necessary to bring about an end to the violence of the state.

Anarchism is not one ideology. It is a set of ideas upon which other ideologies are built. The most common variant of anarchism that you will find on this site is anarcho-communism.

OneBrickOneVoice

24th June 2006, 08:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:08 AM
Anarchism is basically communism without a government. Its actually what communism was intended to be minus the transistional state crap that comes along with communism.

Worker's have direct control of their businesses and it works on the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" theory. The idea behind it is that we will satisfy peoples need and therefore we will eliminate many problems inherent in our society. So there will be no more crime because there will be no more reason to steal etc. etc.
No Communism is communism without a government. Communism with the government is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Anarchism is communism without a plan.

FinnMacCool

24th June 2006, 08:18

No Communism is communism without a government.
Semantics. Irrelevant point

Communism with the government is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Anarchism is communism without a plan.
You need 60 years to develop a plan? There are already models for creating an anarchist society, why not use them? Are they not plans?

CCCPneubauten

24th June 2006, 08:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:19 AM

No Communism is communism without a government.
Semantics. Irrelevant point

Communism with the government is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Anarchism is communism without a plan.
You need 60 years to develop a plan? There are already models for creating an anarchist society, why not use them? Are they not plans?
What are your 'models' the onlys ones I know of were crushed within a few months....

FinnMacCool

24th June 2006, 08:34

What are your 'models' the onlys ones I know of were crushed within a few months....

I was actually reffering to theoretical models.

But the Spanish Revolution is hardly something to pass off. It certainly lasted a lot longer then a "fwe months" and its destruction was not due to any fault in the anarchist theory but because of the leninsts incessant counter revolution and finally Francos crushing victory.

apathy maybe

24th June 2006, 08:53

Please not let this thread deteriorate into more Leninism vs Anarchism. We all know that Leninism doesn't lead to communism. And that anarchism has had successes.

FinnMacCool

24th June 2006, 09:00

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 24 2006, 12:54 AM
Please not let this thread deteriorate into more Leninism vs Anarchism. We all know that Leninism doesn't lead to communism. And that anarchism has had successes.
Whenever a leninst decides to comment about anarchism on behalf of anarchists, a confrontation is inevitable.

24th June 2006, 09:47

Whenever a leninst decides to comment about anarchism on behalf of anarchists, a confrontation is inevitable.

You mean a marxist, not a "leninist".

bcbm

24th June 2006, 15:06

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 24 2006, 12:48 AM

Whenever a leninst decides to comment about anarchism on behalf of anarchists, a confrontation is inevitable.

You mean a marxist, not a "leninist".
Only if you accept leninists' claims to just be following legitimate expansions on marxism.

Forward Union

24th June 2006, 16:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:47 AM
It's not that anarchism as an end product pisses me off as that is good and has a good meaning, it's anarchism as a means of revolution that pisses me off.

From what I understand, anarchist revolutions would be spontaneous and by billions worldwide. An Anarchist revolution is supposed to be ultra short as the Army will put down their weapons and join the revolution. Also, there is no designated transitional period from capitalism to anarchy. That's my biased interpertation of where anarchism and leninism part.
You are wrong. Oh so very wrong. It's clear you have never actually read about anarchism of your own accord and picked up these oppinions from snippits posted by memebrs here.

TAT was actually kind enough to create a RevolutionaryLeft dictionary, with links to further reading...

Anarcho-Communism/Libertarian Communism

A form of anarchism advocating the abolition of money and markets and the organizing of the economy along the lines of “from each according to ability, to each according to need”

Further Reading

Conquest of Bread - Peter Kropotikin (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html)
Anarcho-Communism - Punkerslut (http://www.punkerslut.com/articles/principles.html)
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/8970/
http://www.zabalaza.net/texts/txt_manifest..._of_lib_com.htm
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/mlc/

More Fire for the People

24th June 2006, 17:47

EDIT: I said that because I am very pissed off with one of our anarchist members, and I retract the statement.

Anarchist-Communism is ‘orthodox Marxism’ with an emphasis on ‘action’ and anti-statism. A lot of a-c's believe in ‘moral’ standards such as forcing non-whites to conform to white standards or denying their struggles. In addition, a lot of a-c's are 'moral vegetarians'.

Forward Union

24th June 2006, 18:11

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 24 2006, 02:48 PM
Anarchist-Communism is ‘orthodox Marxism’

Orthadox Marxism (http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/soc/courses/soc4s3/theory/orthmarx.htm) Anarchist Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism)

see the differance?

A lot of a-c's believe in ‘moral’ standards such as forcing non-whites to conform to white standards or denying their struggles.

What exactly are 'white standards'??? And how does one force non-whites to conform to them?

In addition, a lot of a-c's are 'moral vegetarians'.

Hardly any anarchist communists I know are vegetarians, and the movement, from my personal experiance is largely hostile to vegetarianism.

We do eat babies though.

More Fire for the People

24th June 2006, 18:12

What exactly are 'white standards'??? And how does one force non-whites to conform to them?
Since white nationalism is bad all non-white nationalisms must be 'bad'.

Forward Union

24th June 2006, 18:17

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 24 2006, 03:13 PM
Since white nationalism is bad all non-white nationalisms must be 'bad'.
The conclusion is correct but the reasons for reaching that end are not. Anarchist Communism opposes nationalism. White nationalism, Black Nationalism, Asian Nationalism. Any kind of nationalism you can think of.

Does this deny oppressed minorities struggles? no

OneBrickOneVoice

24th June 2006, 18:21

Originally posted by Additives Free+Jun 24 2006, 01:35 PM--> (Additives Free @ Jun 24 2006, 01:35 PM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 04:47 AM
It's not that anarchism as an end product pisses me off as that is good and has a good meaning, it's anarchism as a means of revolution that pisses me off.

From what I understand, anarchist revolutions would be spontaneous and by billions worldwide. An Anarchist revolution is supposed to be ultra short as the Army will put down their weapons and join the revolution. Also, there is no designated transitional period from capitalism to anarchy. That's my biased interpertation of where anarchism and leninism part.
You are wrong. Oh so very wrong. It's clear you have never actually read about anarchism of your own accord and picked up these oppinions from snippits posted by memebrs here.

TAT was actually kind enough to create a RevolutionaryLeft dictionary, with links to further reading...

Anarcho-Communism/Libertarian Communism

A form of anarchism advocating the abolition of money and markets and the organizing of the economy along the lines of “from each according to ability, to each according to need”

Further Reading

Conquest of Bread - Peter Kropotikin (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html)
Anarcho-Communism - Punkerslut (http://www.punkerslut.com/articles/principles.html)
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/8970/
http://www.zabalaza.net/texts/txt_manifest..._of_lib_com.htm
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/mlc/ [/b]
I actually admitted that my knowledge of anarchism has come from anarchists on this forum which have given me definitions of it in their own words.

OneBrickOneVoice

24th June 2006, 18:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:19 AM
You need 60 years to develop a plan? There are already models for creating an anarchist society, why not use them? Are they not plans?
In the USSR yes it took 60 years but the problem wasn't organization and planning and the revolution. It was getting out of the DOP. Mao tried getting out however he tried to go to full fledged communism too early. Thus there would need to be some sort of timeline to avoid a stalinist nightmare.

In anycase, these models are fantasies and hold no weight in the modern world where most of the population lives in large cities. We can't just create a commune and farm the land here in NYC. Look at the type of equipment armies have today; F-16s, M-60s, night vision, they have more advanced equipment than we could ever hope for.

Forward Union

24th June 2006, 18:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:38 PM
In anycase, these models are fantasies and hold no weight in the modern world where most of the population lives in large cities. We can't just create a commune and farm the land here in NYC. Look at the type of equipment armies have today; F-16s, M-60s, night vision, they have more advanced equipment than we could ever hope for.
But the millitary would loose to the working class. That is of course, if they decided to fight on behalf of their opressors.

CCCPneubauten

24th June 2006, 20:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:35 AM

What are your 'models' the onlys ones I know of were crushed within a few months....

I was actually reffering to theoretical models.

But the Spanish Revolution is hardly something to pass off. It certainly lasted a lot longer then a "fwe months" and its destruction was not due to any fault in the anarchist theory but because of the leninsts incessant counter revolution and finally Francos crushing victory.
I love how anarchists decide to try some failure right in the middle of fighting fascism. What a joke. :lol: Even then, if you've read Orwell it was hardly a heaven on earth. IF you blame the Lenininists for blown that then wow, we should have even came in with ANY support, nor Mexico.

Anarchism never works....

Forward Union

24th June 2006, 20:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:10 PM
Anarchism never works....
"So, when these gentlemen say, "You are utopians, you anarchists are dreamers, your utopia would never work", we must reply, "Yes, it's true, anarchism is a tension, not a realisation, not a concrete attempt to bring about anarchy tomorrow morning". But we must also be able to say; but you, distinguished democratic gentlemen in government who regulate our lives, who think you can get into our heads, our brains, who govern us through the opinions that you form daily in your newspapers, in the universities, schools, etc., what have you gentlemen accomplished? A world worth living in? Or a world of death, a world in which life is a flat affair, devoid of any quality, without any meaning to it? A world in which one reaches a certain age, Is about to get one's pension, and asks oneself, "But what have I done with my life? What has been the sense of living all these years?"

-Alfredo m bonanno's 'The Anarchist Tension'

CCCPneubauten

24th June 2006, 20:13

Originally posted by Additives Free+Jun 24 2006, 03:43 PM--> (Additives Free @ Jun 24 2006, 03:43 PM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 03:38 PM
In anycase, these models are fantasies and hold no weight in the modern world where most of the population lives in large cities. We can't just create a commune and farm the land here in NYC. Look at the type of equipment armies have today; F-16s, M-60s, night vision, they have more advanced equipment than we could ever hope for.
But the millitary would loose to the working class. That is of course, if they decided to fight on behalf of their opressors. [/b]
Man, when do you expect THAT to happen....1,000,000 years? ;)

SO many people are and will always be hostile to our ideals, thus it will require organization to combat them.

Forward Union

24th June 2006, 20:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:14 PM
SO many people are and will always be hostile to our ideals, thus it will require organization to combat them.
You have my total agreement.

FinnMacCool

24th June 2006, 21:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 12:10 PM

I love how anarchists decide to try some failure right in the middle of fighting fascism. What a joke. :lol:
Only a leninst could call it a failure

Even then, if you've read Orwell it was hardly a heaven on earth.
Noone said it was but it was a lot better then state capitalis.

IF you blame the Lenininists for blown that then wow, we should have even came in with ANY support, nor Mexico.
I think that might have been best.

Anarchism never works....
Yeah and leninsm is such a great success machine!

CCCPneubauten

24th June 2006, 22:46

Only a leninst could call it a failure

How long did it last again? Once again, read oRwells accounts, people stealing bread, starvation, ect, not exactly a great feat.

Noone said it was but it was a lot better then state capitalis.

Keep throwing around that word :rolleyes:

A Worker's Socialist State may seem capitalist to a bourgeoisie anarchist, but to Marxists and the rest of the worlds revolutionaries, it's not.

I think that might have been best.

Fight with sticks eh? Your little anarchist Yale-try would have been flat on it's face even quicker.

Yeah and leninsm is such a great success machine!

Seems that it inspires more revolutions and more people to the cause (think;Che) than anarchism.

FinnMacCool

24th June 2006, 23:23

How long did it last again? Once again, read oRwells accounts, people stealing bread, starvation, ect, not exactly a great feat.

It lasted three years. And don't tell me to read ORwells account because I have. I've said in other threads that his account was my favorite book and he speaks glowingly of the anarchist revolution and, from what I read, he didn't speak at all about people stealing bread or starving, at least not in relation to the anarchist revolution.

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."
-Orwell

The Anarchist communes produced more efficently and increased more then before the revolution. THe woekrs were able to run libertarian anarchist communes without slaughtering people has the capitalists had predicted. There was a cultural revolution so that people all reffered to each others as equals, women were allowed to have abortions, and free love became a remerging ideal.

ITs fitting that a leninst should call it a failure when the leninists were responsible for its destruction in the frst place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution

Keep throwing around that word

A Worker's Socialist State may seem capitalist to a bourgeoisie anarchist, but to Marxists and the rest of the worlds revolutionaries, it's not.
A workers state? Thats laughable. All it does is concentrate power into the hands of a few corrupt politicans who are supposed to "represent" the working people.

Fight with sticks eh? Your little anarchist Yale-try would have been flat on it's face even quicker.

What difference is it goinna make if your just going to murder us again, lennie?

Seems that it inspires more revolutions and more people to the cause (think;Che) than anarchism.
HAHAHA has it spawned any successes? Thats what I thoguht.

Comrade-Z

25th June 2006, 00:37

Seems that it inspires more revolutions and more people to the cause (think;Che) than anarchism.

Fascism has also had much "suck-cess" with spawning mass movements and extra-legal takeovers of government. Does that mean we should adopt fascism?

What good is "success" when it delivers something you don't want in the first place?

I'd much rather see an anarchist revolution remain genuine and be defeated than see an anarchist revolution be successful but then devolve into sucktitude. The former circumstance suggests that the theory was fine, but that the material conditions just weren't there yet for it to be successful (not enough revolutionaries, popular support, weapons, etc.) The second circumstance suggests that there is something fundamentally wrong with the theory in the first place.

Comrade-Z

25th June 2006, 00:45

How long did it last again? Once again, read oRwells accounts, people stealing bread, starvation, ect, not exactly a great feat.

If I recall correctly, this didn't begin to manifest itself until after the central government and the civil guard started to re-assert itself in Barcelona and started to protect private property and break down the dominance of the anarchist workers' councils and militias.

I also want to note: in my last post, I was not necessarily insinuating that Leninism = Fascism.

I'll take a quick stab at a definition of anarchism:

A theory proposing the abolition of social hierarchy by means of the establishment of stateless communism, which itself shall be accomplished by the self-directed action of a revolutionary proletariat.

Edit: I'd like to clarify that I don't consider myself to be an anarchist, in the strictest sense.

YKTMX

25th June 2006, 01:41

I'd much rather see an anarchist revolution remain genuine and be defeated than see an anarchist revolution be successful but then devolve into sucktitude. The former circumstance suggests that the theory was fine, but that the material conditions just weren't there yet for it to be successful (not enough revolutionaries, popular support, weapons, etc.) The second circumstance suggests that there is something fundamentally wrong with the theory in the first place.

What an odd observation. Had it not come from an anarchist, I might not have believed it.

You'd rather see defeat than "tainted" victory? You'd rather see the working class revolution defeated than your revolutionary rhetoric overwhelmed?

Perhaps you might consider some kind of marginal cost-benefit analysis. Anarchist theory slightly tainted vs. fascist counter revolution, barbarism etc. And you'd choose the former would you?

This is the problem with anarchism - or, to be fairer, with anarchists. The fact that they've fetishized (i.e made intrinsically evil) one form of political organization ("The" state) means they must find political "heaven", where everyone lives happily ever after, and no one has to make any hard decisions ever again. A "tainted" revolution here represents what? Purgatory perhaps? :lol:

There is much to be said for being idealistic. In fact, being idealistic is a very underrated commodity. In our deadened societies, idealism is a rare, this valuable, commodity. But the instance of Spain is a case in point, where idealism can lead if its unpractically practiced. The Spanish anarchists could have formed a nationwide government in the early days of the revolution - no problem, and everyone would have supported them. They could have defended the revolution in an efficient, coherent, organised and decisive fashion.

Instead, they choose to hunker down in their factories and Catalonia, mastorbating over photos of Bakunin.

And then we had fascism in Spain for 4 decades.

Ho hum.

bcbm

25th June 2006, 01:57

Perhaps we can look at Italy and Germany, where it was largely the anarchists organizing popular resistance to fascism while the communist parties (with some exceptions) sat around with their thumbs up their asses? Let's face it, neither of our ideologies has a gleaming track record of success, so all of the bullshit hyperbole isn't getting anybody anywhere.

Comrade-Z

25th June 2006, 02:01

There is much to be said for being idealistic.

I won't argue with you that much of anarchist theory and appeal is idealistic and moralistic. That's a definite problem with anarchism as it stands right now.

Edit:

I'd like to add, I think you are making out the USSR, Cuba, and Leninism in general to be much greater "victories" than is the case. I don't see what's there to get all excited about, as far as it regards communist revolution. They used lots of workerist rhetoric. Well, so did FDR and, to a lesser extent, Hitler. So? In fact, the rhetoric they used was rather counter-productive as far as advancing communist revolution goes.

I wouldn't have any problem with the USSR or Cuba if they had been honest about what they were. If they had said, "Our countries are a great achievement. We have successfully beaten back imperialist domination and pulled our countries up from the muck of feudalism into the modern capitalist era! We have established the world's best social-democratic reforms and improved the standards of living of our respective countries more than anyone could have imagined!" I would have ardently supported these countries against hypocritical criticism from the other imperialist powers and imperialist aggression, just as I do with Venezuela or Cuba now. Yes, there is some legitimate criticism to be made concerning these societies, but 70% of the stuff that the bourgeois presses of the imperialist powers dishes out is pure self-aggrandizing bullshit.

But the USSR and Cuba were claiming to be something that they weren't, and it has needlessly turned a lot of people away from the idea of communism in general and given the bourgeois press a crapload of ideological ammo.

OneBrickOneVoice

25th June 2006, 02:24

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 24 2006, 10:58 PM
Perhaps we can look at Italy and Germany, where it was largely the anarchists organizing popular resistance to fascism while the communist parties (with some exceptions) sat around with their thumbs up their asses? Let's face it, neither of our ideologies has a gleaming track record of success, so all of the bullshit hyperbole isn't getting anybody anywhere.
That's because the 'communists' were busy fighting in places like Stalingrad and leningrad.

ahab

25th June 2006, 02:41

I wonder, if there si ever a "revolution" and capitolism and fascism is defeated and its up to the communists and anarchists to decide the future, will there be another war between them? will we ever have peace and agreement?

YKTMX

25th June 2006, 02:53

Perhaps we can look at Italy and Germany, where it was largely the anarchists organizing popular resistance to fascism while the communist parties (with some exceptions) sat around with their thumbs up their asses?

Not at all - certainly the French and Italian resistance movements were "communist" led, as were most of the Eastern European ones.

I'd like to add, I think you are making out the USSR, Cuba, and Leninism in general to be much greater "victories" than is the case.

I didn't make any claims about "Leninism", successful or otherwise.

The USSR was not socialist, and the Cuban revolution was a middle class putsch, not a Leninist revolution. There has been ONE "Leninist" revolution - the one led by Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

But the USSR and Cuba were claiming to be something that they weren't, and it has needlessly turned a lot of people away from the idea of communism in general and given the bourgeois press a crapload of ideological ammo.

So the ruling class never slandered socialism before the "Soviet experience"? Get real. The ruling class doesn't need a "reason" to attack our movements.

Janus

25th June 2006, 03:54

Man, when do you expect THAT to happen....1,000,000 years?
So, you think that's the timetable for a communist revolution?

will there be another war between them?
Well, anarchism is fundamentally opposed to authoritarian Communism like Stalinism, etc.

stateless communism
As opposed to what? State communism?

CCCPneubauten

25th June 2006, 04:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 12:55 AM

Man, when do you expect THAT to happen....1,000,000 years?
So, you think that's the timetable for a communist revolution?

Such shorter for a Worker's State (socialism)

Jesus Christ!

25th June 2006, 07:40

Originally posted by CCCPneubauten+Jun 25 2006, 01:56 AM--> (CCCPneubauten @ Jun 25 2006, 01:56 AM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 12:55 AM

Man, when do you expect THAT to happen....1,000,000 years?
So, you think that's the timetable for a communist revolution?

Such shorter for State Capitalism(socialism) [/b]
fixed it up.

STI

25th June 2006, 08:07

Originally posted by LeftHanky or whatever your name is
That's false. Whenever I've brought up charges that an anarchist revolution would fail because its little cute affinity groups would be crushed by tanks since they won't organize in large groups, anarchists all say they think that the army will put down their weapons because they couldn't kill everyone.

Then you've been talking to the anarchist equivalent of Whinnie the Pooh.

"Cute little affinity groups" will and have organized into larger bodies.

You're funny.

Well then a portion of the population would die because take the US, most of it's food is produced abroad.

:lol: :lol:

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any actual evidence of that. Aside from a few tropical luxury fruits, the "triangle" is the most productive agricultural land mass in the world.

Wow. Where'd you find that one>? Did I say that? Could you provide a link? Thanks.

You'll note the "if".

Basic language skills, now.

Well then you need a transitional period. Most anarchists that I've talked to seem to think that everyone will just be used to communism and work everything out immediatly.

That's because the words "transitional period" are usually associated with a hyper-state, wage-slavery, etc.

bcbm

25th June 2006, 12:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:25 PM
That's because the 'communists' were busy fighting in places like Stalingrad and leningrad.
I'm talking before the war, which I think was pretty clear from the context of the argument. In Leningrad and Stalingrad, they were busy being happy over the Non-Aggression Pact. :rolleyes:

Not at all - certainly the French and Italian resistance movements were "communist" led, as were most of the Eastern European ones.

Again, I'm talking before the war. While Mussolini was busy getting fascists organized, it was largely the anarchist attempting to organize a united front to oppose them at street level. The Communist parties found it more important to fight each other than unite against fascism at the time.

And of course, your attempts to jump on this ignores the rest of my statement, which was the important part. To repeat:

Let's face it, neither of our ideologies has a gleaming track record of success, so all of the bullshit hyperbole isn't getting anybody anywhere.

OneBrickOneVoice

25th June 2006, 17:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 05:08 AM

"Cute little affinity groups" will and have organized into larger bodies.

You're funny.

Nope. Impossible. There is no leadership or hiarchy allowed. Thus affinity groups can do whatever they feel like and if they disagree with a plan they can just run for the hills. If you look at just about every battle in the history of the world, especially the ones where the side which wins was poorly equipped or undermanned, you'll see that the battle turn out the way it did because troops were organized by leaders. You cannot organize democracticly during battle with shots being fired at your.

That's because the words "transitional period" are usually associated with a hyper-state, wage-slavery, etc.

And the word "Anarchy" is associated with rioting, burning, looting, and fires.

Comrade-Z

25th June 2006, 18:51

So the ruling class never slandered socialism before the "Soviet experience"? Get real. The ruling class doesn't need a "reason" to attack our movements.

Yeah, good point. And I want to clarify that I don't think this means we should "play nice" in order to keep from giving the ruling class to slander us. They will slander us anyways. What I object to is needless mistakes that play right into their hands.

For instance, with the recent anti-CPE demonstrations, there really weren't any legitimate grounds on which to criticize the demonstrations. But that didn't stop the ruling class from trying. Still, because the demonstrations remained popular, the French demonstrators forced the ruling class to go to the most ridiculous lengths to obscure the true nature of the issue. The articles in the bourgeois press became almost pathetically inaccurate, and anyone with half a brain who knew anything about the situation could realize that.

Another example: Greek anarchists firebombing police stations. Now, some people might say, "This is meaningless activity that needlessly plays right into their hands and reinforces their stereotypes about anarchists." The difference is that, in my opinion, such actions are not needless at all, but actually do accomplish something with regards to advancing communist revolution.

The October revolution? It apparently served to throw out the disgusting Provisional Government and their opportunistic Menshevik allies from power, free Russia from foreign capital domination, end that barbaric world war, and bring in a regime that would mercilessly smash feudalism, its former regime elements, and its ideological foundation (religion). In short, they did Russia a lot of good, and if the Bolsheviks had been realistic about what they were going to accomplish with their determined minority, then we wouldn't be having this dispute.

25th June 2006, 18:55

Only a leninst could call it a failure

You mean "Only a marxist would call it a failure."

bcbm

25th June 2006, 20:32

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 25 2006, 09:56 AM

Only a leninst could call it a failure

You mean "Only a marxist would call it a failure."

Only if you accept leninists' claims to just be following legitimate expansions on marxism.

Nope. Impossible. There is no leadership or hiarchy allowed.

Hierarchy, no. Leadership, yes. And presumably some sort of "temporary hierarchy" could be entrusted in an individual everyone trusted, though they would be subject to immediate recall if necessary.

25th June 2006, 20:41

Only if you accept leninists' claims to just be following legitimate expansions on marxism.

Not at all. You see, Marxists actually understand what the word state means and that is why marxists realize the idiocy of anarchism and "smashing the state". Leninists aren't the only ones that believe this; all Marxists do!

FinnMacCool

25th June 2006, 21:59

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 25 2006, 12:42 PM

Not at all. You see, Marxists actually understand what the word state means and that is why marxists realize the idiocy of anarchism and "smashing the state". Leninists aren't the only ones that believe this; all Marxists do!
Smashing the State is just a slogan. You make an irrelevant point with that.

And why do you wear that stupid anarchy symbol if you think its so idiotic?

bcbm

25th June 2006, 22:20

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 25 2006, 11:42 AM

Only if you accept leninists' claims to just be following legitimate expansions on marxism.

Not at all. You see, Marxists actually understand what the word state means and that is why marxists realize the idiocy of anarchism and "smashing the state". Leninists aren't the only ones that believe this; all Marxists do!
Do all words only have one definition? :rolleyes: A state is an instrument through which one class oppresses another, anarchists want to end all class oppression and thus, smash the state.

Donnie

25th June 2006, 23:14

Not at all. You see, Marxists actually understand what the word state means and that is why marxists realize the idiocy of anarchism and "smashing the state". Leninists aren't the only ones that believe this; all Marxists do!
Unfortunately it's anarchism that truly understands workers control. Leninism takes the power out of the workers and concentrates it in the hands of a ruling party elite. Also if your thinking there is going to be another Leninist revolution you must be kidding your selves for once nearly all of the Communist Party's in the modern day are corrupt or reformist. You only need to look at CPGB and the British Communist Party's to see.

Also the party has no affair within the revolution. When it comes to it these middle class intellectuals of Marxist theory have no clue how to organise a workforce only the workforce knows how to organise itself because the workforce knows the industry and it's own factory. Even in general day to day work in capitalist society workers know that if they need to get something done whether in the factory or on the shop floor they need to work as a team.
You see the Leninist party knows basically fuck all when it comes to factories or industries. The Leninist party may know about the social relations in the factory but it doesn't take a bright spark to figure that out, I mean, I'm a worker in a capitalist society and I know about the social relations in the workplace, therefore why do I need a party for this? Surely it would be much better and easier for me to organise with the other workers in a federalist organisation in which we can forward the revolution and protect it by making the decisions for ourselves.
A Leninist high up in the party ranks does not know how one factory may work in a town and so it would be better for them workers to organise in that factory and organise with say another factory and another and another etc and make decisions between themselves when the revolution comes.
You see as industry becomes more complicated (as it is today) decentralisation is needed and so direct workers control on a federalist basis is necessary for revolution. One party cannot oversee thousands upon thousands of factories because it will just fuck up as we have seen.

the idiocy of anarchism and "smashing the state".
This is the naive view of all Marxists, they believe that the anarchist’s will just smash the state and have been done with it. It’s not that easy there needs to be collectivisation first on a decentralised scale. The reason why there needs to be collectivisation first before communism is because the revolution will be a time of great joy but also of great struggle therefore the resources in the final struggle against our masters needs to be rationed. Decentralisation is needed because of such diverse and complicated industry that we live in. In order for industry’s to be controlled so that we can get from it what we need (“each according to his ability is each according to his need”) it needs to be done by the workers in the factories and the communities surrounding that factory or factory’s.

Forcing power out of the workers will only create more reactionaries and will force some workers to side with the capitalists rather than surrenduring there liberty to an authoritarian party.
Political & economic freedom go hand in hand, you can't have one withought the other.

STI

26th June 2006, 06:32

Nope. Impossible. There is no leadership or hiarchy allowed.

Since when is hierarchy the same as organization?

Thus affinity groups can do whatever they feel like and if they disagree with a plan they can just run for the hills.

Sure, they "can", but for "some reason", they don't.

See, in an anarchist army, every "soldier" is fighting tooth-and-nail because they want to be... and that makes them very, very dangerous.

If you look at just about every battle in the history of the world, especially the ones where the side which wins was poorly equipped or undermanned, you'll see that the battle turn out the way it did because troops were organized by leaders. You cannot organize democracticly during battle with shots being fired at your.

If you look at absolutely every battle in which an anarchist army was involved, they won.

Why? Well, like I said before, every anarchist in a war wants to be there fighting, so they'll fight to the last man! In a normal military unit, when enough soldiers (and especially officers) die, they'll just retreat or surrender. They're there under orders and don't wanna die for some fuck's demands, so they won't.

So stuff your feigned knowledge somewhere else.

And the word "Anarchy" is associated with rioting, burning, looting, and fires.

That's why we say "Anarchism".

26th June 2006, 16:11

Unfortunately it's anarchism that truly understands workers control. Leninism blah blah blah

Well, you see, we're talking about marxism and not anarchism vs. leninism. Someone said that basically "only Leninists are anti-anarchist"; my post corrected them on this matter.

Also the party has no affair within the revolution.

Yes, because organization is such a bad thing! :rolleyes:

When it comes to it these middle class intellectuals of Marxist theory have no clue how to organise a workforce only the workforce knows how to organise itself because the workforce knows the industry and it's own factory.

That is why the party must be composed of only proletarians (Like the Communist League ;) ).

Surely it would be much better and easier for me to organise with the other workers in a federalist organisation in which we can forward the revolution and protect it by making the decisions for ourselves.

Organize into a political organization? You mean a party?

Also, Donnie, why the hell did you even bring up Leninism like I was defending it? Someone said something incorrect about Leninism and I corrected them. You don't have to rant about how "Len1n1sm 1s teh ev1l!!!!" Nobody cares.

final struggle against our masters

You mean maintaining proletarian rule until class antagonisms disappear? You mean organizing a system whereby the ruling class - the proletariat - suppresses the bourgeoisie until the time that class antagonisms disappear over time with the disappearance over time of the bourgeoisie? You mean a state that is withering? Sounds like you're a marxist and you either don't know that, or refuse to accept it.

That's why we say "Anarchism".

That's why we say "Crap".

The Feral Underclass

26th June 2006, 18:38

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 25 2006, 06:42 PM
You see, Marxists actually understand what the word state means
Actually that's been contested by several theoreticians, including Marxists, over the last 100 years and there has been little refutation made. For instance, Nicos Poulantzes.

that is why marxists realize the idiocy of anarchism and "smashing the state".

But by Marx's own defintion this is what you are doing in name only?

The Feral Underclass

26th June 2006, 18:52

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 26 2006, 02:12 PM

Also the party has no affair within the revolution.

Yes, because organization is such a bad thing! :rolleyes:
That particular form of organisation is, yes.

Surely it would be much better and easier for me to organise with the other workers in a federalist organisation in which we can forward the revolution and protect it by making the decisions for ourselves.

Organize into a political organization? You mean a party?

That's clearly not what he means. Political organisation includes a party structure but it is not exclusively one. A political party is a political organisation but a political organisation is not a political party.

final struggle against our masters

You mean maintaining proletarian rule until class antagonisms disappear? You mean organizing a system whereby the ruling class - the proletariat - suppresses the bourgeoisie until the time that class antagonisms disappear over time with the disappearance over time of the bourgeoisie? You mean a state that is withering?

What you have defined is an economic state and no one contests this to be untrue. When Marx vaguely discussed the nature of a state, he did so in purely economic terms. Yes, a state is a class organised as a ruling class to suppress class antagonisms, but that relates specifically to the economic nature of a state and a soceity in general.

A state is also, specifically, a centralised structure with definitive characteristics. Including centralisation and hierarchy, this inherently requires minority governance and unfetted control; even more so in this alleged "transitional stage."

Although anarchists don't necessarily oppose the definition of the State which Marx made, it is the structural characteristics of the state which Marxists ignore, that anarchists oppose. When you hear the term "Smash the state", it is the definitive structural nature of a state that this refers to.

I hope, finally, you can understand that.

Sounds like you're a marxist and you either don't know that, or refuse to accept it.

The classical Marxist definition of the state is simplistic at best, and at worse naive. I would suggest reading 'State, Power, Socialism' by Nicos Poulantzas.

That's why we say "Anarchism".

That's why we say "Crap".

Mature...