What Is Anarchy?

[Ferg]

So what is it? I always thought, it was a society where there was no police, government, and everyone did as they please. I can see a few flaws in that idea but perhaps I am wrong. So what is it?

[YSR]

Look in this thread for some references:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=5983

[Lord Testicles]

Anarchist FAQ (http://www.libcom.org/thought/faq/)

[EusebioScrib]

Anarchy=classless and stateless society.

Anarchy == Communism

There is no difference...

[Cult of Reason]

I would say that Communism, a classless stateless moneyless society, is a type of Anarchy.

[Raj Radical]

http://www.infoshop.com


Best Anarchy website on the internet.

The shortest simplest explination is: without rulers. Essentially communism in its final stage, so all true communists who believe in the state slowly withering away after the dicatatorship of the proletariat are anarchists and vice versa.

Some anarchists are not anti-state, but anti-ruler. I and many others are realists who believe that law enforcement will still be nessecary even years after the revolution.

Anarchist law enforcement could be considered a part of the state, but it would be worked similar to the black panther community patrols in the 1960s and be democratically elected by their area of juristiction.

[EusebioScrib]

I would say that Communism, a classless stateless moneyless society, is a type of Anarchy.

Type of anarchy? Could you elaborate on this point?


so all true communists who believe in the state slowly withering away after the dicatatorship of the proletariat are anarchists and vice versa.

Don't go judging all of us based on the ideas of a few. We all don't think the state will slowly wither away. We want to smash it. In todays world there are no real distinctions between Reds and Blacks, we're the same movement. Anyone who isn't anti-state, anti-capitalist and pro-working class is some other movement we want no part of.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 03:23 AM

I would say that Communism, a classless stateless moneyless society, is a type of Anarchy.

Type of anarchy? Could you elaborate on this point?


so all true communists who believe in the state slowly withering away after the dicatatorship of the proletariat are anarchists and vice versa.

Don't go judging all of us based on the ideas of a few. We all don't think the state will slowly wither away. We want to smash it. In todays world there are no real distinctions between Reds and Blacks, we're the same movement. Anyone who isn't anti-state, anti-capitalist and pro-working class is some other movement we want no part of.
Id disagree, lumping all "red & blacks" together is ignoring just how authoritarian many , sadly, are.

Leninism or any other form of vanguard movements arent my area of expertise, but traditionally Marxism and Leninism both advocate the slow withering of the state far into the revolution, no?

[EusebioScrib]

Id disagree, lumping all "red & blacks" together is ignoring just how authoritarian many , sadly, are.

Well, I only think autonomist Marxists, anarcho-communists, councilists and other similar characters are the only ones deserving the title "red." Leninism and all it's croonies aren't "reds" as far as I see it. They're just the left-wing of capitalism. So I guess blue would be a deserving color? Maybe yellow? Or orange? Ehh too takey...perhaps a nice brown (wait Nazis took that already...well, I guess they could share it...what's the difference :lol: )



but traditionally Marxism and Leninism both advocate the slow withering of the state far into the revolution, no?

Who cares about tradition? Marx believed in such ideas, but he was wrong, we know now. We need to adjust Marxism to today's society, not vic versa.

Anyway, autonomist Marxists like myself believe that the DoP (if we have one...I'm a little iffy with the term personally...) will be stateless. Basically the only difference between us and anarchists is name. We're basically the same, today.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 06:00 AM

Id disagree, lumping all "red & blacks" together is ignoring just how authoritarian many , sadly, are.
They're just the left-wing of capitalism. So I guess blue would be a deserving color? Maybe yellow? Or orange? Ehh too takey...perhaps a nice brown (wait Nazis took that already...well, I guess they could share it...what's the difference :lol: )

How about a nice contemporary shade of baby-shit yellow? :lol:

[Cult of Reason]

Type of anarchy? Could you elaborate on this point?

Damn, called out on what I said! :lol:

When I say a type of Anarchy, well... Anarchy is a society with no rulers. If you take that as the only definition then Communism then is a type of Anarchy, and so is Collectivism, Mutualism etc.. However, I would say that Anarchy was a society with no rulers that emphasised cooperation and which had approximate equality (how approximate depends on the type: Mutualism is probably going to be less equal than Communism, for example), then, again, Communism and Collectivism come in again (not sure about Mutualism: I do not know enough about it, and, frankly, I do not care. If it is possible to have Communsim, why bother worrying about Mutualism?).

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:51 PM
So what is it? I always thought, it was a society where there was no police, government, and everyone did as they please. I can see a few flaws in that idea but perhaps I am wrong. So what is it?

Well people "do as they please" as long as it doesn't affect the freedom of another to do as they please. Anarchism is also a political philosophy. We advocate self-government in all spheres of life.


Some anarchists are not anti-state, but anti-ruler. I and many others are realists who believe that law enforcement will still be nessecary even years after the revolution.

What? All anarchists are anti-state.

[The Feral Underclass]

In future, please use the search option. There have been hundreds of these threads including stickies to help you understand different theories.

[Redmau5]

Well, I only think autonomist Marxists, anarcho-communists, councilists and other similar characters are the only ones deserving the title "red." Leninism and all it's croonies aren't "reds" as far as I see it.

Well they are "reds". It doesn't really matter how you see it.


wait Nazis took that already...well, I guess they could share it...what's the difference

Alot. I'm sure someone of your ignorance would even be able to see that?


Marx believed in such ideas, but he was wrong, we know now

And this comes from some insignificant poster on a message board. Tell me, how exactly was Marx wrong?

[EusebioScrib]

Well they are "reds". It doesn't really matter how you see it.

No, reds want an stateless and classless society. Leninism has always produced a state class society.


Alot. I'm sure someone of your ignorance would even be able to see that?

Surely, you have no sense of humor. Check out this thread, maybe it'll cheer you up:
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51966



And this comes from some insignificant poster on a message board. Tell me, how exactly was Marx wrong?

Ah, I forgot, we mere humans can never even think to look at the world the way (divine) Marx did nor can we ever dare to say he was wrong because he wrote a lot of stuff and had a beard!

I'm far more than a "poster." My life doesn't revolve around this forum it revolves around my local group which I'm working with most of the week.

Marx was wrong in a few things: Firstly with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, this is probably his grand mistake. Second he believed revolution was around the corner from him. Although we can't blame him, everyone was really optimistic in his time. Of course other little tid bits here and there like you mentioned him claiming we could bypass Capitalism (I've never read the works that claim to say this, so I'm very skeptical as to what they really say).

We cannot take everything Marx said as dogma, as you seem to do. He is human and surely he messed some things up. So our job is to fix his mistakes and reorganize his theories to fit today. Capitalism has changed a lot, and it's our job to continue the analysis and praxis.

[Redmau5]

No, reds want an stateless and classless society. Leninism has always produced a state class society.

Leninism is alot more than Leninist revolutions. There is the small matter of what Lenin wrote as well.


Marx was wrong in a few things: Firstly with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, this is probably his grand mistake.

You still haven't told me why he was wrong. I don't see what's wrong with a democratic workers' state which is used to eradicate capitalist remnants and make the transition to communism.


Of course other little tid bits here and there like you mentioned him claiming we could bypass Capitalism

Where did I mention that? I don't believe we can bypass capitalism, and Marx didn't either.


reorganize his theories to fit today

His theories do fit today. Obviously Marx had no crystal ball and could not apply his theory to specific circumstances of today's world, but Marxism is a science which is used to study history in terms of class struggle. Class struggle is still as relevant today as it was in Marx's time.

[KC]

vanguard movements

All movements have a vanguard.


but traditionally Marxism and Leninism both advocate the slow withering of the state far into the revolution, no?

We don't "advocate" anything regarding the withering away of the state. We merely recognize that it will naturally wither away along with the class antagonisms that necessitate its existence.



Well, I only think autonomist Marxists, anarcho-communists, councilists and other similar characters are the only ones deserving the title "red." Leninism and all it's croonies aren't "reds" as far as I see it.

I'm sorry, there's more types of communists than what you've listed. Not every non-left-communist is a "Leninist".


Marx believed in such ideas, but he was wrong, we know now.

You don't understand Marx.



Anyway, autonomist Marxists like myself believe that the DoP (if we have one...I'm a little iffy with the term personally...) will be stateless.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is by its very definition a state, if you use the marxist definition of the state (which, of course, you have to use if you are going to analyze marxism).



No, reds want an stateless and classless society. Leninism has always produced a state class society.


You haven't met many Marxist-Leninists, have you?



Ah, I forgot, we mere humans can never even think to look at the world the way (divine) Marx did nor can we ever dare to say he was wrong because he wrote a lot of stuff and had a beard!


Yes, when someone criticizes your baseless claim, call him an idol-worshipper and mock him for his "belief in the divinity of Marx"! Very nice ad hominem.


Firstly with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, this is probably his grand mistake.

And where are you going to legitimize this claim?


Of course other little tid bits here and there like you mentioned him claiming we could bypass Capitalism

Saying a country can't bypass capitalism is itself idealist, as you are restricting yourself to a specific model of historical materialism, and a false model at that. Are you saying that you think every country will have to go through capitalism before it reaches communism? What if there's a communist revolution while there remain pre-capitalist nations? You think they'll have to go through capitalism? Rubbish.



We cannot take everything Marx said as dogma

I'm sorry, but you have failed to provide any substantiation for your claims. You yourself are being dogmatic regarding your theory of historical materialism.


He is human and surely he messed some things up.

So prove it. If he's wrong then you could prove that he is wrong. So why don't you?


Capitalism has changed a lot

Capitalism is still capitalism.



Where did I mention that? I don't believe we can bypass capitalism, and Marx didn't either.


If you don't entertain the possibility then you are subjecting yourself to the same bastardized model of historical materialism that Eusebio is devoted to.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by EusebioScrib+Jun 29 2006, 07:24 PM--> (EusebioScrib @ Jun 29 2006, 07:24 PM)Second he believed revolution was around the corner from him. Although we can't blame him, everyone was really optimistic in his time.

[/b]

source?

Marx knew the society had to be advanced far enough along the capitalist road before it would destroy itself. In Marx's time, capitalism was still only starting up and I think it was clear to him that it wouldn't be going anywhere fast,


[email protected] 29 2006, 07:00 AM

Id disagree, lumping all "red & blacks" together is ignoring just how authoritarian many , sadly, are.

Well, I only think autonomist Marxists, anarcho-communists, councilists and other similar characters are the only ones deserving the title "red." Leninism and all it's croonies aren't "reds" as far as I see it. They're just the left-wing of capitalism. So I guess blue would be a deserving color? Maybe yellow? Or orange? Ehh too takey...perhaps a nice brown (wait Nazis took that already...well, I guess they could share it...what's the difference :lol: )


We're as red as anyone else here; just perhaps a little more REALISTIC.

------------


ok, I'll admit I'm not great on anarchy, but I thought basically the main difference is the way in which a stateless society is achieved. Anarchists seem to have the somewhat unrealistic idea of dong away with the state pretty much overnight (resulting, imo, in chaos), whilst communists are more realistic and realise that, as Engels said, the state should wither away (perhaps with a little help....)?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by White Polak
anarchists seem to have the somewhat unrealistic idea of dong away with the state pretty much overnight (resulting, imo, in chaos),

You're completely wrong, i suggest you anarchist texts/listen to anarchists on this board instead of listening to anti-anarchist propaganda - might help you gather a more accurate understanding of what anarchists actually advocate.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Jul 1 2006, 05:30 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Jul 1 2006, 05:30 PM)
White Polak
anarchists seem to have the somewhat unrealistic idea of dong away with the state pretty much overnight (resulting, imo, in chaos),

You're completely wrong, i suggest you anarchist texts/listen to anarchists on this board instead of listening to anti-anarchist propaganda - might help you gather a more accurate understanding of what anarchists actually advocate.[/b]
you appear to have got my moniker wrong there. :rolleyes:

Try to spell it right next time - tis not hard:
Red Polak

[Red Polak]

also - it was actually Engels who said that anarchists want to abolish the state overnight, not "anti-anarchist propaganda".

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Red Polak
also - it was actually Engels who said that anarchists want to abolish the state overnight, not "anti-anarchist propaganda".


What's your point? Engels was not an anarchist, nor clearly, does he understand anarchist ideas if he indeed made that statement.

I don't think you understand, when i said that the idea that anarchists want to abolish the state overnight was 'anti-anarchist propaganda' - that means that that is bullshit, i.e. that anarchists understand that revolution is a process not something that happens 'overnight'. This is a common 'straw man' argument used against anarchists, as 'proof' that they are 'silly idealists' or 'utopian', but as i said, it's bullshit.

[EusebioScrib]

Ah, I forgot about this thread...


Leninism is alot more than Leninist revolutions. There is the small matter of what Lenin wrote as well.

I don't really give a shit what someone says or writes, it's what they do that is my concern. Action, action, action!

"Once ounce of action is worth a ton of theory" - Engels


You still haven't told me why he was wrong. I don't see what's wrong with a democratic workers' state which is used to eradicate capitalist remnants and make the transition to communism.

There have been hundreds of debates about this elsewhere on the board, I'm not gona start it here again...


Where did I mention that? I don't believe we can bypass capitalism, and Marx didn't either.

You said something along the lines of "Marx even believed we could bypass a capitalist class and have worker's democracy do capitalism" or something similar...or maybe it was someone else. One of you said it...


His theories do fit today. Obviously Marx had no crystal ball and could not apply his theory to specific circumstances of today's world, but Marxism is a science which is used to study history in terms of class struggle. Class struggle is still as relevant today as it was in Marx's time.

Everything needs to be updated. Being that it is a science, it changes constantly. It's our job as Marxists to point out the problems and change them so that they are correct, not "defend the theory." You sound like a damn Christian crusader.

KC:....



I'm sorry, there's more types of communists than what you've listed. Not every non-left-communist is a "Leninist".

Like? There are Leninists and then non-Leninists. What else is there?


You don't understand Marx.

Ah, and you do with your infinite knowledge? How don't I understand Marx? If anyone misunderstands him it's Lennies, but they don't count. Could you contribute to the debate instead of your foolish oneliners where you pretend to sound smart.


The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is by its very definition a state, if you use the marxist definition of the state (which, of course, you have to use if you are going to analyze marxism).

Yup, cause if Marx said a means b then we can never say otherwise. Marx forbid if we ever change definitions because times have changed! We can never oppose his dogma.



You haven't met many Marxist-Leninists, have you?

Do you and Makaveli count? :lol:


Yes, when someone criticizes your baseless claim, call him an idol-worshipper and mock him for his "belief in the divinity of Marx"! Very nice ad hominem.


Oh yes, what he said was very analytical and sure as hell proved me wrong.



And where are you going to legitimize this claim?


As I told your buddy, there is no need to here. We've done it 100's of times all over this board.


Saying a country can't bypass capitalism is itself idealist, as you are restricting yourself to a specific model of historical materialism, and a false model at that.

And you base this on...



What if there's a communist revolution while there remain pre-capitalist nations?


Impossible. It never has and never will happen. Too late now, capital basically dominates the world. Except for portions of Africa and Asia.


Anyway we're off topic. I'm done with this thread. Peace.

[KC]

Like? There are Leninists and then non-Leninists. What else is there?

Of course this statement is true; however, the group "non-Leninists" isn't just left-communists/anarcho-communists. I, for example, am not a "Leninist", nor am I an anarcho-communist.


Yup, cause if Marx said a means b then we can never say otherwise. Marx forbid if we ever change definitions because times have changed! We can never oppose his dogma.

Are you really this fucking stupid? If Marx develops a theory using certain definitions of words, then to analyze that theory you have to use the same definitions that he did. I can't believe I'm even having to say this; it's pretty common sense.




Do you and Makaveli count?

Well, considering the fact that I'm not a "Leninist", and the fact that you've probably never actually met Makaveli (I don't even know who that is, or if they're a "Leninist"), no.



As I told your buddy, there is no need to here. We've done it 100's of times all over this board.


Then link to posts.


Impossible. It never has and never will happen. Too late now, capital basically dominates the world. Except for portions of Africa and Asia.

Emphasis mine.



Anyway we're off topic. I'm done with this thread. Peace.


You just love running away from debates. Perhaps it's to cover up the fact that your assertions are baseless? I guess we'll never know because you're "done with this thread". Peace! :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Ferg+--> (Ferg)So what is it? I always thought, it was a society where there was no police, government, and everyone did as they please.[/b]

This is a rather vague question because, as others have pointed out, the term anarchism covers a wide variety of different political and theoretical outlooks. So, therefore, the social organisation in, say, a Syndicalist society would be rather different to the organisation in, say, a Mutualist society. And, before someone buts in and says Syndicalism is just a method of reaching a communist society, I've heard of a few non-communist Syndicalists and, obviously, their goal wasn't a communist society.

Anyway, back on topic, in my opinion the best anarchist paradigm is anarcho-communism. And, like with communism communism ( <_< ), an anarcho-communist society would, essentially, be a classless and stateless society that, as you said, has no Police or any other of the bureaucratic arms of the State. However, it would have governence....however, unlike the class governance we are currently subjected too, this form of governance would be completely participatory and would function in a manner that folks like to term as direct democracy. That is, instead of having "elected" representatives, a communist society would be a society where societal members directly participated in the active governance of society.

As for "everyone doing as they please". Well, using an anarcho-communist society as an example again, people would be able to, as Marx put it, act as individuals and the economic makeup of said society would be one where individual actors were given a great deal of personal autonomy and liberty. However, that&#39;s not to say that they can do "as they please"....there will, of course, be limits on what people can do. Very few limits, granted, but still limits.

And, of course, building on my earlier point, these limits would not be decided by a Parliament or a House of Representatives; but, rather, by society itself. So, for instance, I suspect we&#39;ll find certain areas of a communist society to have slightly different societal limits....and it&#39;s quite possible that we will have "reactionary" cities and "progressive" cities in a communist World. The difference with now being, of course, what is considered "reactionary" and what is considered "progressive".


Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected]
We don&#39;t "advocate" anything regarding the withering away of the state. We merely recognize that it will naturally wither away along with the class antagonisms that necessitate its existence.

You "recognize" a priori? Wow. <_<

Of course, there&#39;s a degree of semantics involved here. After all, some folks like to use the word State in a more broad sense, where as others like to use it in a strict and definitive sense. And, really, what people mean when they use the word "State" is what&#39;s important here. But, needless to say, I think making any positive assertions before we have any solid evidence is somewhat foolish.

Sure, we can make a few hypothesises and speculate a little....and, where possible, we can rely on existing evidence to back this up. That&#39;s why, for instance, we could say a "proletarian" Police Force would be a really fucking dumb move. But, I really don&#39;t see how one could "recognize" that there will be some form of centralised institutional body before the evidence points in that direction. Though, I have a feeling that Khayembii Communique uses a rather vague definition of the State....one which has a degree of flexibility about it which makes it pretty useless as a word which defines something.

After all, whether we use the simplified Marxist version that a state is simply an instrument of class rule of class rule, or even the Weberian definition that a State is something that has a "&#39;monopoly on legitimate violence", then I think we&#39;re likely going to miss a trick or two. Because, essentially, a State represents quite a bit more than that.

And, aside from all that, the participants in a post-revolutionary society will have choices with regards what they "advocate". So, on the one hand, they could "advocate" the creation of a centralised body that will administer production....or they could "advocate" as much "decentralisation" as possible. I know what I&#39;d "advocate". <_<


Khayembii Communique
Saying a country can&#39;t bypass capitalism is itself idealist, as you are restricting yourself to a specific model of historical materialism, and a false model at that. Are you saying that you think every country will have to go through capitalism before it reaches communism? What if there&#39;s a communist revolution while there remain pre-capitalist nations? You think they&#39;ll have to go through capitalism? Rubbish.

How the fuck is it "idealist"? It seems to me that you&#39;re just using that term as a form of abuse.

What it actually is, is a hypothesis. That is, it is a statement that falls completely within the realms of conventional materialism and, therefore, like other hypothesise relating to material things, it can be tested scientifically. So, for instance, an example of a few countries "bypassing" capitalism would prove that hypothesis wrong. But, as far as I know, there are no examples of a pre-capitalist/semi-capitalist area producing a communist society; so, like with God, we work on the assumption that it isn&#39;t possible.

Though, personally, I&#39;d rather not go for absolutes. Instead, I&#39;d rather the description of that particular scenario happening be framed in terms of probability....and in the case of the hypothesis at hand, I&#39;d say it&#39;s highly unlikely that a pre-capitalist/semi-capitalist nation will "bypass" capitalism.

Of course, the amount of evidence needed to settle such a question, is likely centuries away. But, at the moment, the fragments of evidence we have, pretty strongly supports EusebioScrib&#39;s hypothesis. Which really makes your labelling of his hypothesis as "rubbish" rather bizarre....because, as far as I&#39;m aware, there are no specific examples which disprove it.

[Marion]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 3 2006, 06:09 AM
But, as far as I know, there are no examples of a pre-capitalist/semi-capitalist area producing a communist society; so, like with God, we work on the assumption that it isn&#39;t possible.

There are no examples of a capitalist area producing a communist society either. Should I work on the presumption that isn&#39;t possible either?


I&#39;d say it&#39;s highly unlikely that a pre-capitalist/semi-capitalist nation will "bypass" capitalism.

Why not? You can argue quite easily that many pre-capitalist societies have been/are considerably closer to communism in terms of many aspects of their society than capitalist societies.

[FinnMacCool]

http://www.infoshop.com


Best Anarchy website on the internet.
Unless, of course, you disagree with Chuck0. In that case, expect your post to be deleted.

[Resist]

read my signature

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Marion+--> (Marion)There are no examples of a capitalist area producing a communist society either. Should I work on the presumption that isn&#39;t possible either?[/b]

Maybe.

But, if you did, you&#39;d be overlooking quite a few things. To start with, during the 20th century we have numerous examples of the working class, in various places, taking power for a short time....and the societies set up, pretty closely resemble the type of societies we&#39;d expect in the early stages after a revolution. That is, they were highly democratic, socially progressive and so on. So, in this case, the preliminary evidence suggests that proletarian revolution and communist society is possible.

If, over a century after Marx&#39;s hypothesis, there were no such examples, then I don&#39;t think there would be much life in Marx&#39;s hypothesis....from a materialist viewpoint. But, as I said, there are such examples and those examples seem to support Marx&#39;s hypothesis.

You see, Marx&#39;s hypothesis in its most basic form was that capitalism would create a working class and said working class would overthrow capitalism. And, in every example, it has been the working class that has acted. Even in Russia, which was predominantly pre-capitalist, it was the areas that had experienced capitalist growth that we saw the working class takes tentative steps towards taking power. And, the careful reader will note, that I said the working class and not a class of a pre-capitalist nature. Because, essentially, there are no significant examples, that I know of anyway, of workers power being exercised through an alien class.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Why not?

Because we simply lack examples of pre-capitalist social forms creating highly democratic and socially progressive non-capitalist forms of social organisation. They didn&#39;t manage it in Russia, China and so on....they just created a system of wage-labour.


Marion
You can argue quite easily that many pre-capitalist societies have been/are considerably closer to communism in terms of many aspects of their society than capitalist societies.

Fuey.

The societies you&#39;re referencing, were socially reactionary and technologically backward. In other words, a primitivists wet dream. <_<

And, once again, if say, as the Russian loon was saying, the Russian peasantry were "communistic" in nature, then why did they plunge themselves into capitalism? Surely, given their "communist bias", they would have create a communist society?

[Marion]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Jul 4 2006, 08:57 AM--> (Armchair Socialism &#064; Jul 4 2006, 08:57 AM)
Originally posted by Marion+--> (Marion)There are no examples of a capitalist area producing a communist society either. Should I work on the presumption that isn&#39;t possible either?[/b]

Maybe.

But, if you did, you&#39;d be overlooking quite a few things. To start with, during the 20th century we have numerous examples of the working class, in various places, taking power for a short time....and the societies set up, pretty closely resemble the type of societies we&#39;d expect in the early stages after a revolution. That is, they were highly democratic, socially progressive and so on. So, in this case, the preliminary evidence suggests that proletarian revolution and communist society is possible.

If, over a century after Marx&#39;s hypothesis, there were no such examples, then I don&#39;t think there would be much life in Marx&#39;s hypothesis....from a materialist viewpoint. But, as I said, there are such examples and those examples seem to support Marx&#39;s hypothesis.

You see, Marx&#39;s hypothesis in its most basic form was that capitalism would create a working class and said working class would overthrow capitalism. And, in every example, it has been the working class that has acted. Even in Russia, which was predominantly pre-capitalist, it was the areas that had experienced capitalist growth that we saw the working class takes tentative steps towards taking power. And, the careful reader will note, that I said the working class and not a class of a pre-capitalist nature. Because, essentially, there are no significant examples, that I know of anyway, of workers power being exercised through an alien class.


[email protected]
Why not?

Because we simply lack examples of pre-capitalist social forms creating highly democratic and socially progressive non-capitalist forms of social organisation. They didn&#39;t manage it in Russia, China and so on....they just created a system of wage-labour.


Marion
You can argue quite easily that many pre-capitalist societies have been/are considerably closer to communism in terms of many aspects of their society than capitalist societies.

Fuey.

The societies you&#39;re referencing, were socially reactionary and technologically backward. In other words, a primitivists wet dream. <_<

And, once again, if say, as the Russian loon was saying, the Russian peasantry were "communistic" in nature, then why did they plunge themselves into capitalism? Surely, given their "communist bias", they would have create a communist society?[/b]
Definitely accept your views of the creativity and potentiality for the working class in capitalist societies to develop their societies. Wouldn’t argue with you over this at all. However, I also think it is possible to see other non-capitalist societies as having similar values and, in many cases, non-hierarchical ways of existing that are, in many (but not all) ways, close to communist concepts of how things would work. David Graeber’s “Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology” is a good place to start looking at some of these issues.

I’d agree that it is possible for communism to arrive after capitalism, but I don’t think pre-capitalist societies necessarily have to develop through communism. Out of interest, on the basis of a letter extolling the possibilities of the village mir as a starting point for communism its been claimed that the (very) late Marx may well not have felt this either.

“The societies you&#39;re referencing, were socially reactionary and technologically backward. In other words, a primitivists wet dream.”

Just to clarify, I’m not in favour of privitivism at all – given my background, experience and location I’d rather try and push forward through capitalism into communism (which I think is possible) rather than move backwards and I’d reject much of what primitivists say about civilization. I would ask you though, why you think that the societies I referenced (which was “many pre-capitalist societies”) can be categorised as “socially backward”? Some, but by absolutely no means all, are considerably more advanced in terms of some ideals that communists hold than our society.

Ultimately, I don’t think things are so closed that developing capitalism first is the only route for all societies and I don’t see how anyone can take account of all the millions of variables involved in the development of societies and end up saying there is only one route for societies to move down.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Marion+--> (Marion)David Graeber’s “Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology” is a good place to start looking at some of these issues.[/b]

Is it available online? I mean, I probably wouldn&#39;t agree with what he has to say, but I&#39;m willing to at least see what he says.


Originally posted by Marion+--> (Marion)....but I don’t think pre-capitalist societies necessarily have to develop through communism [did you mean capitalism?].[/b]

It&#39;s possible, but quite how possible is what is in dispute. In my opinion, the lack of evidence in favour of this proposition, suggests that the probability is something like 0.01%....and I&#39;m being kind there. <_<

I mean, I think that it is so unlikely, that we could almost term it as a definite. And, looking at todays World, there aren&#39;t too many places that we could call completely pre-capitalist....so the likelihood that it could happen, falls again. That being said, I&#39;d personally be very surprised if a semi-capitalist nation, like say Iraq, which has both elements of capitalist growth and vast areas where pre-capitalist social forms still hold sway, was able to make the transition to a functioning communist society.

Sure, I&#39;d say that in the "big cities" the mere presence of a working class underlines a degree of potential, but I think that&#39;ll likely be wasted potential. But, of course, I may well be wrong....and that&#39;s why, essentially, we need at least two or three centuries more of evidence to come to any definitive conclusions. Unfortunately, we&#39;ll be worm shit by then....so we&#39;ll never really know the answer. :(


Originally posted by Marion
Out of interest, on the basis of a letter extolling the possibilities of the village mir as a starting point for communism its been claimed that the (very) late Marx may well not have felt this either.

Yah, there&#39;s a definite difference between the outlook of the ageing Marx and the younger Marx. Engels, on the other hand, remained less troubled by age and, in my opinion, he started to shine after Charlie&#39;s demise. And it&#39;s after the old mans demise, that you&#39;ll find Engels rebuttal, well sort of anyway, of Marx&#39;s earlier statements. It&#39;s in a piece called On Social Relations in Russia and I think it&#39;s the fifth piece in that series, written in I think 1891 (the others were written in like the 1870&#39;s).

Engels avoids directly attacking Marx&#39;s hypothesis, but he&#39;s not all that favourable about it. From memory, he says something like "for Marx, there was a 10 year window where this was a possibility". But, to me, I think that&#39;s Engels just trying to politely disagree with Marx....because I don&#39;t know whether that was actually Marx&#39;s real position.

If you like, I&#39;ll try and dig out the link for you. :)


[email protected]
Just to clarify, I’m not in favour of privitivism at all....

I didn&#39;t think you were. Rather, I was just issuing a rhetorical flourish. <_<


Marion
I would ask you though, why you think that the societies I referenced (which was “many pre-capitalist societies”) can be categorised as “socially backward”?

I assume you mean like the societies in the America&#39;s before colonialism? Or perhaps in Australia?

Well, from what I know, they weren&#39;t exactly nice places if you were a woman, they were plagued by superstition(s), they had definite hierarchies and so on. The "ideals" you reference, a degree of egalitarianism I assume, were, more or less, due to the scarcity in those societies. They had to share produce fairly equally in order to allow society to function....but the actual social relations present in most of these societies were often awful. Perhaps not as bad as say pre-1789 France, but bad enough.

And, of course, most of these societies are gone now, so they have very little importance from a revolutionary standpoint. And, the ones that are still left, in certain parts of Africa and the Middle East and, possibly, like the Christian Separatist communities in places like America, aren&#39;t places with terribly nice systems of social relations. So, really, I don&#39;t see much potential in said societies.

[Marion]

Cheers for the reply.

Yeah, Graeber’s book is available on-line for free from the publishers (Prickly Paradigm press). It’s pretty short as well and very accessible – he doesn’t deal directly with historical materialism, but some of his insights are quite interesting. If you could find the link for the Engels piece it’d be very much appreciated – cheers for drawing it to my attention.

To be honest, I‘m thinking more in terms of indigenous peoples today. Take the Mayan Indians in Chiapas (a society that has been accused by certain Marxists as being a throwback and anachronistic). Is the correct attitude to be to suggest that they get a move on and fully fulfil their role in capitalist Mexico as soon as possible or is it that should rather try and develop and extend the features of their society that are communist? The same question can be asked about the Atlantic Coast Indians in Nicaragua and the way they were treated by the Sandinistas (not particularly well, as it turns out...).

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Marion+--> (Marion)If you could find the link for the Engels piece it’d be very much appreciated....[/b]

Here it is: Afterword (1894) (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/01/russia.htm). I&#39;m pretty sure that&#39;s the piece where he discusses this, though, to be honest, I couldn&#39;t be bothered to read it again so I just glanced over it. Additionally, as far back as 1874, Engels commented that "The bourgeoisie, therefore, in this respect also is just as necessary a precondition for the socialist revolution as is the proletariat itself. Hence a man who says that this revolution can be more easily carried out in a country where, although there is no proletariat, there is no bourgeoisie either, only proves that he has still to learn the ABC of socialism." [Link. (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/refugee-literature/ch05.htm)]

I mean, these days, I don&#39;t doubt that some "Marxists" would cry "workerist", "Menshevik", "stagist" or whatever if someone outlined the above hypothesis. But, to me, as Engels puts it, that just seems like "the ABC of socialism"....and that doesn&#39;t leave me expecting much from pre-capitalist social forms.


Marion
Is the correct attitude to be to suggest that they get a move on and fully fulfil their role in capitalist Mexico as soon as possible or is it that should rather try and develop and extend the features of their society that are communist?

Beats me. I live in a different continent to those folks, speak a different language and, therefore, my "attitude" is, essentially, meaningless. If I, for instance, happened to be in such a situation and I had the same views I had now, I&#39;d leave and "proletarianise" myself....either going to one of the big cities or abroad.

I mean, from what I know, some indigenous struggles that attack major corporations, tend to do so on the basis that they don&#39;t want this or that going on their land. Well, if communism is going to be a highly technological society, then, sooner or later, this or that is going to have to go on their land.

But, essentially, I don&#39;t think there&#39;s a definitive answer to be had hear. Basically, as this issue is very unlikely to affect me in any substantial way, I&#39;m willing to let it go over my head....but, if you actually wanted to get involved with these societies, then I suppose you&#39;d need to have clear answers on this. But, either way, as I said, this doesn&#39;t really bother me from a practical perspective.

Additionally, of course, I question whether the social forms in these areas could definitively be called pre-capitalist. I don&#39;t know a great deal about these societies, but it seems to me that there is a degree of capital operation there. Which really poses loads of other questions....mainly about the approach of revolutionaries.

[Marion]

Yep, would agree with you about the extent to which those particular societies could strictly be called pre-capitalist – they’re obviously integrated into the capitalist system (probably more for the indigenous in Chiapas than some others), but in many ways the values they have and indigenous traditions make their own system non-capitalist.

“I mean, from what I know, some indigenous struggles that attack major corporations, tend to do so on the basis that they don&#39;t want this or that going on their land.”

Seems fair enough to me.

“Well, if communism is going to be a highly technological society, then, sooner or later, this or that is going to have to go on their land.”

I’d disagree with a lot in that statement (basically the idea that it’s best for indigenous people to give up their own traditions etc and submit to degrading capitalist exploitation at work, the implicit Euro-centrism, the connection to economic determinism etc). However, it’s interesting to briefly sketch some of Marx’s views (I know you’re keener on Engel’s position though). It’s fair to say that he was fairly contradictory about historical materialism. On the one hand he hypothesised about the role of the Russian mir and debated the extent to which historical materialism could be taken as any type of “law”, saying, for example:

“that is not enough for my critic. He feels himself obliged to metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophic theory of the marche generale imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself”.

On the other hand, he clearly brought in examples of non Western European societies as a means of bolstering his argument, e.g. Asiatic modes of production and his historical materialism can be seen to be linked into a certain interpretation of Marx as an economic determinist.

On a practical line, equally interesting is that there is a general acceptance by some on these boards that historical materialism is a correct scientific theory and that high levels of technological advance are necessary everywhere for Communism to exist. Yet, there seems to be a lack of desire to praise the one person who has tried to push these ideas to their logical conclusion. Stalin.

Anyway, will now try and read that Engels piece&#33;&#33;

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Marion+--> (Marion)....but in many ways the values they have and indigenous traditions make their own system non-capitalist.[/b]

Perhaps, though, to tell the truth, I don&#39;t quite know what you mean by "non-capitalist" "values" and "traditions". I mean, for instance, Britain has a few prominent "non-capitalist traditions" like, for instance, Christianity. But, to be honest, I fail to see how that is in any sense a positive....indeed I&#39;d personally say there is more "potential" in your local Pub than your local Church.


Originally posted by Marion+--> (Marion)Seems fair enough to me.[/b]

So private property rights trump societal needs? Granted, in the present epoch, this is, on the surface, a fight between two property owners, but there are plenty of instances when the interests of a major corporation also reflect the interests of society at large. Say, for instance, Fisher, Fisher, Fisher and Jones wished to run a large water pipe through an area of "indigenous land" to a major city and the indigenous community opposed this, you could hardly argue that leaving said major city without a reliable system of running water was "fair".

And, you see, that&#39;s an important point to make. I mean, whilst large corporations often undertake these activities like a pissed man driving, that doesn&#39;t change the fact that, on occasions, these activities are necessary because they benefit society at large. For instance, to use a real world example, the manner in which Chevron extracts Oil in the Niger Delta is awful in terms of human (and environmental) cost....but society still needs said Oil.

And whilst I&#39;m perfectly happy to politically support the residents of said Delta when they attack Chevron and its armed mercenaries, I&#39;d be very hesitant to issue said support if their aim was to completely stop Oil extraction in said Delta. But, as it happens, from what I know, the residents who have been battling Chevron have been doing so because they wish a greater share of the profits of Oil extraction. Though, from what I gather, this is often not the case with certain indigenous struggles. That is, they don&#39;t wish to receive a greater share of the profits, to collectively own the Industry in question or whatever....rather, they want to stop said Industry altogether.

And, whilst, in some cases, they may have a point, I&#39;m not willing to make that into a "universal principle". That is, rather than just saying I support the land rights of this or that indigenous community without question, I&#39;d rather support this or that struggle based on the specific details of the struggle.


Originally posted by Marion
I’d disagree with a lot in that statement....

Whatever floats your boat. If "indigenous peoples" wish to remain living in the manner in which they live, then that&#39;s their choice. Personally, however, I&#39;d imagine that most of them will end up finding the benefits of city life more appealing....and that seems to be backed up by the evidence. That is, more and more people flock to major cities every year....probably because city life is loads better. And, on top of that, a good nightclub and few few beverages is far better than any "tradition" in the World. <_<


Originally posted by Marion
It’s fair to say that he was fairly contradictory about historical materialism.

Perhaps. For instance, Marx made several statements that, essentially, noted the importance of the Steam Engine in the rise of capitalim....then, on the other hand, he considered the possibility that the social relations in countryside Russia could provide a basis for communism. (Though, I think the age at which Marx considered that and the state of his health at that time, suggests that he may not have been as sharp as he once was.) However, I don&#39;t think this necessarily indicates a "contradictory" nature in Marx&#39;s outlook.

I mean, Marx was trying to develop a broad paradigm and, therefore, he was basically not willing to to try and set anything in stone. That&#39;s why, for instance, in my opinion, he never even named his paradigm....historical materialism was an invention of Engels and dialectical materialism was Plekhanov&#39;s handy work. And, this, to me anyway, suggests that rather than trying to create anything exact and definitive, Marx was instead trying to create a framework for further analysis.

So, for instance, he note general "laws" (trends) and their relationship to other factors, he&#39;d note causal relationships and so on....and, then, based on this framework, we&#39;d be able to interpret the evidence. So, for instance, if Marx speculated that "European capitalism" was made possible by the rise of heavy Industry in Europe, we could then look at, say, the rise "Asian capitalism" and see if there was the same kind of link between that rise and the rise of "European capitalism". And then, hopefully, once we had enough evidence we would be able to draw some kind of definitive conclusion....and discover how important each of the component parts in the equation were.

Of course, I&#39;m sure many people will disagree with my plodding and methodological approach to this, but, to me, this is the desired avenue to take if we wish for Marxism to become a legitimate scientific field. That may seem "determinist" to your pretty eyes, but to me it just seems like the perfectly logical quest for clarity. That is, there seems to be a trend amongst some "Marxists" to, if I use an analogy, consider 4 to be "determinist" where as the correct way of putting it would be (Y2 + X3)/(Z/X)*....and to me, that just seems like a whole lot of fuss about nothing important.

*[Y=1, X=2, Z=4]


[email protected]
On a practical line, equally interesting is that there is a general acceptance by some on these boards [....] that high levels of technological advance are necessary everywhere for Communism to exist.

That&#39;s more like an acceptance of basic logic. You know, in order to create a society without work, we&#39;d need to have a scenario where shit-work could either be abolished or made to require far less effort....and then human enjoyment can reign supreme. :D


Marion
Yet, there seems to be a lack of desire to praise the one person who has tried to push these ideas to their logical conclusion. Stalin.

Maybe because your line of argument represents a logical fallacy? Most like this fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html). Or it could well be this fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html).

[Angelo-Von-Drez]

Even if it could happen, Anarchy is a concept that will eventually faulter inevitably. There has to be law for there to be no law.

Communism has got nothing to do with Anarchy.

Anarchy is Stateless and Classless yes, but it is also lawless and deals with Freedom.
Communism doesn&#39;t&#33;
Communism is about egalitarianism and is built on socialism.

Calling Anarchy a law or type of government is like calling Atheism a religeon.

The absence of said concepts can&#39;t have their own integrity.

Communism can exist in society (with restrictions) anarchy can&#39;t. A society based on Anarchy must have some sort of terminal point (unless society is soley and only hermits).

Anarchy is attractive as a concept. But practically, it wouldn&#39;t work. Somewhere along the lines, there would be the old geezer who decides he must run the country.

[An archist]

And how would he do that when there is no army, no police, no way to own the means of production? He would have to convince or force people do work for him one by one.
In communism, it&#39;s easy, just get in the right position and you control army, police, secret police, ... people who are trained to obey, not to think.
In communism, the old geezer would be able to kill thousands, in anarchy, just tens
It may be a bit of a morbid comparison, but it&#39;s just like that.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Angelo&#045;Von&#045;Drez+--> (Angelo&#045;Von&#045;Drez)There has to be law for there to be no law.[/b]

That seems like a fricking useless bit of tautology to me. After all, if there "has" to be law in order for there to be no law, then, technically, an anarchist society couldn&#39;t be called lawless....as you did later in your post. But, aside from that, it really does depend on what you define "law" as.

If your definition of "law" is a large State machinery which has formal positions, like Judges, Legal Codes, and so on, basically what we have now, then, you&#39;re right, an anarchist society wouldn&#39;t have "law"....and neither would a communist society for that matter. Alternatively, if your definition of "law" is just a set of rules and guidelines, essentially a societal contract, then an anarchist society would be far from "lawless".

That is, like in a communist society, in an anarchist society certain actions and practices wouldn&#39;t be permitted by society at large. Granted, many things that are banned now, like for instance drug use, would be allowed....but in no way would an anarchist or communist society tolerate murder, rape, child abuse and so on. Because, simply, any society which didn&#39;t take steps towards protecting itself from these things, would "faulter inevitably".

Your confusion, as far as I can see, comes from you being unable to tell the difference between an anarchist society and a nihilist (?) society. And, believe me, there&#39;s quite a bit of difference between the two.


Originally posted by Angelo&#045;Von&#045;Drez+--> (Angelo&#045;Von&#045;Drez)Anarchy [....] deals with Freedom.[/b]

So does a communist society. Granted, both forms of society will incorporate some kind of societal contract will societal members will adhere to, but, still, that doesn&#39;t mean that the aim of either a communist or anarchist society will be to undercut individual freedom and personal liberty.


Angelo&#045;Von&#045;[email protected]
Calling Anarchy a law or type of government is like calling Atheism a religeon.

Or baldness a hair colour. <_<


Angelo&#045;Von&#045;Drez
A society based on Anarchy must have some sort of terminal point....

Uh, "terminal point"? :blink:

Aside from that, you&#39;re making somewhat of a common mistake here. That is, you&#39;re equating an anarchist society with "Anarchy"....in it&#39;s dictionary sense I presume. But, you see, an anarchist society simply won&#39;t be anarchic....well no more anarchic than a communist society. <_<

[anomaly]

I presume the maker of this thread is referring to the revolutionary theories of &#39;anarchy&#39; or &#39;anarchism&#39;, and not the bourgeois definitions applied by Angelo-Von-Drez.

Quite simply, anarchy is a society with no rulers, no official hierarchy or authority. As most on revleft define it, there is no real difference between communism and anarchism. Now, some get a bit technical and say that &#39;communism&#39; assumes a prerequisite of &#39;socialism&#39;, but many disagree with this.

[KC]

Quite simply, anarchy is a society with no rulers, no official hierarchy or authority. As most on revleft define it, there is no real difference between communism and anarchism.

Well, if you&#39;re referring to communism in the sense of the society we will have after classes wither away, then you&#39;re right.


Now, some get a bit technical and say that &#39;communism&#39; assumes a prerequisite of &#39;socialism&#39;, but many disagree with this.

Those that "assume a prerequisite of &#39;socialism&#39;" are communists. Those that don&#39;t are anarchists.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by KC
Those that "assume a prerequisite of &#39;socialism&#39;" are communists. Those that don&#39;t are anarchists.
Yes, this is the kind of thing that many, especially the left communists, disagree with.

[KC]

Yes, this is the kind of thing that many, especially the left communists, disagree with.


What? The statement I made, or socialism itself?

[Angelo-Von-Drez]

I still stand by what I say by saying that Anarchy can&#39;t exist because eventually somewhere along the way, there would be someone who sticks his hand up holding a very very large gun, and says "Fuck you&#33; I am King&#33;"

It&#39;s an attractive concept but, instead of society being ruled by rightful rulers, it would ruled by power and guns.

Lawless society, even though being such a paradoxical concept is extroadinarily attractiive even to the most sane of men. The problem lies, with how long society can last without rulers. Where there are followers there are rulers and where there are rulers there are followers. Freedom is attractive, but on a mass scale, it is simply unfeasible.

-------------
Although, a way to achieve it would be to destroy the power hungry and have only the communist egalitarianists who think everyone should be equal. That would make anarchy work. But then it wouldn&#39;t be chaotic, it would just be simple freedom without and laws.

Unfortunately people like laws and restrictions. It&#39;s a sense of security. If we could turn away from the attractive capitalist society it could be possible but can we cater for EVERYONE?