Overview

[LittleMao]

I would realy like it if some people could explain each type of communism.
Marxists, Maoists, Stailinists, Anarchests, everyone. A disscusion of socialism would also be aprieciated. I am new in this world and I would like to know where my ideas fall into.
Thankyou.

[More Fire for the People]

Here are some old definitions of mine:
Communism -- a system in which the proletariat (the working class) has been liberated from the ruling class in-which labour can freely associate.

Marxism -- Analysis of political economy, history, philosophy, etc. from the standpoint of dialectical materialism. Concludes that the 'end of class society' is communism.

Leninism -- A development of Marxism exploring imperialist economics and the organizational tasks of Marxism. The center of Leninist organizational theory is building a party of the class consciouss workers. Another key concept to Leninism is “democratic centralism” that was supposed to overcome that anti-organization and the ultra-centralism of the two factions — the Anarchists and the Blanquists — in the Paris Commune.

There are also three branches of Leninism,
Stalin-inspired Leninism -- Essentially Leninism but with an emphasis on building socialism on the national level and authoritarian suppression of ‘reactionaries’. A fault with Stalinism — killing the revisionist didn’t get rid of their ideology.

Trotskyism -- An extension of Leninism based on the premise that the socialist state can only survive through an international proletarian revolution. Trotskyists also work within existing states to further the revolutionary cause. A fault with some Trotskyists groups is that they often wind up becoming social democratic parties.

Maoism -- Relatively based off Stalin-inspired Leninism with an emphasis on national liberation of the Third World and a peasant army lead by the minority working class. Maoists emphasize a Cultural Revolution to purge revisionists and their ideology. Maoists’ faults, they like to use the words “fascism” and “contradictions” a whole lot without having a clue about what they mean.

[LittleMao]

Thankyou, this is very helpful. ^^
Now that I think of it, This might have been better in the learning section.
Now are Anarchists, more focased on the utopian side of Communism?

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Very Good description

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 06:01 PM
Thankyou, this is very helpful. ^^
Now that I think of it, This might have been better in the learning section.
Now are Anarchists, more focased on the utopian side of Communism?
Yes, although they may not like to use the term. "Libertarian socialists", as most left anarchists can also be called, are what Karl Marx refered to as "utopia socialists" as opposed to "scientific socialists" (commonly called Marxists).

Anarchists in general believe in overthrowing capitalism and the state at once, without a transitionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

[ComradeOm]

See this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53621)

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 12:01 PM
Thankyou, this is very helpful. ^^
Now that I think of it, This might have been better in the learning section.
Now are Anarchists, more focased on the utopian side of Communism?
I would say that Marxism / communism is anti-utopian. Anarcho-communists merely reject the state and statist development of socialism on the grounds that the state, no matter who's state, is repressive.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 06:01 PM
Now are Anarchists, more focased on the utopian side of Communism?
To a degree. The original anarchists were of course hopelessly idealistic and utopian but the past century has seen mainstream anarchists adapt Marxist class analysis as the materialist basis for their platform. Hopefully it won't take another century to convince them to extend this to the nature of the state.

[Janus]

Moved to Learning.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 06:01 PM
Thankyou, this is very helpful. ^^
Now that I think of it, This might have been better in the learning section.
Now are Anarchists, more focased on the utopian side of Communism?
No. Anarchist are in no way utopian.

They just deny the need for a worker's state.

The problem is that the libertarian socialist's definition of a state is not the same as a marxist's one. So often the debate comes down to semantics.

Also, libertarian socialists reject democratic centralism and vanguardism

Basicly, libertarian socialism is more anti-authoritarian and anti-beaurocratic. Thats not to say that trots for instance are authoritarian or beaurocratic, but that anything with even a wiff of authoritarianism and beaurocracy is often completely and utterly despised.

I myself lean more towards libertarian socialism since trotskism, leninism, have failed to provide decent results. I believe that it is in the nature of the insitutionalised vanguard to perpetuate itself after the revolution (thus in the end becoming the new bourgeoisie).

[Delta]

The essence of anarchism is that you cannot create a classless society by creating another class, namely the political class. How can one overthrow capitalism without overthrowing its protector the State?

Any state that rules in the name of the proletariat will seek to maintain its own existence and relevance even if it has to act in opposition to the people. If the people are class concious and are active in politics then they could force the government to act in their interests, but in that case what good is the state?

[Janus]

The essence of anarchism is that you cannot create a classless society by creating another class, namely the political class.
There is no other class. The reasoning behind anarchism is that you can't create a stateless society by keeping the state intact.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:47 AM
There is no other class
The political class certainly has differing interests than the worker though. Politicians have an interest in seeing state power expand, not diminish.


The reasoning behind anarchism is that you can't create a stateless society by keeping the state intact

Sure, you could say that as well.

[Janus]

The political class certainly has differing interests than the worker though. Politicians have an interest in seeing state power expand, not diminish.
That is why we need to avoid a bureaucracy especially one that is not subject to grassroots democracy.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 11:03 AM

The political class certainly has differing interests than the worker though. Politicians have an interest in seeing state power expand, not diminish.
That is why we need to avoid a bureaucracy especially one that is not subject to grassroots democracy.
If the government is truly responsive to the people in a grassroots type of way, then what good are they for? Why can't the people simply organize themselves?

[Janus]

If the government is truly responsive to the people in a grassroots type of way, then what good are they for? Why can't the people simply organize themselves?
I was talking more about the historical background behind this. The people can and should organize themselves.

If there is a differing opinion between what the government want and what the people want, then there is a problem right there.

[Global_Justice]

my favorite definition of socialism is "the belief in human solidarity" :)

[LSD]

I would realy like it if some people could explain each type of communism.
Marxists, Maoists, Stailinists, Anarchests, everyone.

The difference between Marxism and anarchism is method, not ideology.

Both developed out of Marx's analysis of the capitalsim and economy and so both aim to create a state-less classless society, the disagreement is in how best to attain it.

Classical communists (Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists) believe that in order to achieve a communist society, a transitional "socialist" state is required first. This state will serve as an intermediate period durring which the society can transition to a more communal way of working, thinking, and operating.

Theoretically, this state is supposed to operate on the principle of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", meaning that, ideally, all workers, and eventually all people will participate in decision making in the transitional state. Unfortunately, every time this has been attempted this transitional state has been run by authoritarian party establishments that largely ignore the wishes of the general population.

Anarchism, by contrast, contends that a classless, stateless society can be created immediately following the revolution without the need for a transitional state. Anarchists do not claim that this change will be instantaneous but that while some adjustment time will no doubt be needed, our intention from the begining must the elimination of all coercive state and class institutions, not, as classical communists would propose, to use them for our purpose.

Anarchists believe that the institution of the state, ultimately, is reactionary in and of itself and cannot be used to further progressive means. It must, rather, be destroyed alltogether at the earliest possible time.

Within Anarchism are subsets such as Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho-Collectivism which generally agree on the final goal but disagree as to the best method of achieving it. Personally, I'm an Anarcho-Syndicalist, but many on this board are Anarcho-Communists.

There are also various non-Marxist and even non-classware strains of Anarchism, but those are aberations and not a significant part of the mainstream Anarchist movement.

Generally Anarchists tend to agree with each other on all but minor issues and almost universally work with one another for common goals.

Marxism, and especialy Leninism, meanwhile has a much greater history of division, fractionalization, and even intersectional violence.

Leninism is nothing more than a political philsophy based on the writings and actions of Lenin and his Bolshevik Party, especially following the Russian Revolution. Although based on Marxism, it introduced some novel concepts into the framework, especially with regards to the role of the party, and was the dominant strain of communism during most of the twentieth century.

Simply put, Leninists advocate a disciplined hiearchical party structure organized along principles of "democratic centralism" (think parliamentary cabinet) that will both "lead" and "organize" the proletariat before and during the revolution.

Ostensibly, the Proletariat itself is "not yet capable" of direct self-rule and so requires that the "most revolutionary" of the class "prepare" them for "eventual" self-government.

Therefore, following a successful proletarian insurrection, Leninists see the party as immediately assuming sole power as the "vanguard" and "representatives" of the entire Proletarian class. As a sort of "general staff" of the revolutionary Proletariat, the party will be trained and prepared to assume absolute command.

This command will be organized based on a statist "socialist" approach which generally tends towards a powerful top-heavy institutionalized centralized government with all the standard accessories such as bureaucrats, police forces, and standing professional armies.

Theoretically, the ruling parties of Leninist states are supposed to be democratic and loosely based on republican princples, but practically, Leninist governments have been universally authoritarian and highly corrupt.

Trotskyism is an expansion of Leninism that, basically, views the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1928 as a functional "Worker's State" that was later made "degenerate" by the Stalinist bureaucratic clique. Trotskyists also generally oppose "socialism in one state" and are ardent internationalists.

Stalinism isn't so much an ideology as it is a minor variant of Leninism. Unlike Trotsky, Stalin added very little to the Leninist paradigm and accordingly most "Stalinists" refer to themselves as "Marxist-Leninists".

Like Trotskyists, however, Stalinists defining feature is their historical analysis of the Soviet Union; namely they consider it to have been a successful "Worker's State" all the way up until 1956.

Maoism is basically Agrarian Socialism painted red. It's, ostensibly, yet another variant of Leninism, but it rejects fundamental Leninist conceptions of class dynamics. Unfortunately, it maintains Leninist "iron discipline" and tends to promote absolute party "leadership" and the elevation of the individual "leader" to near God-like prominance.

In many ways Maoism can be compared to Stalinism in that neither one is a truly coherent ideological paradigm so much as they are historical hero-worship.

For more information see the Revolutionary Left Dictionary (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25786)


Now are Anarchists, more focased on the utopian side of Communism?

No.

Some self-described "anarchists" are just utopian socialists with black flags, but similarly some "Marxist-Leninists" are really no better than fascists.

As a theory though, Anarchism is not more "utopian" than any other branch of communism.

[Global_Justice]

can someone explain the difference between anarcho-syndicalism and anarco-communism/collectivism. or recomend any good reading material on anarchism?

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

I agree with LSD's post.

In my view anarcho-syndicalism (From what I've heard - never looked deeply into it, likely I'm wrong) is nothing more than free-market Capitalism at its best - simply No goverment, and let the corperations stretch their hand as far as they want, no miniumum wage, maximum hours, or anything - disgustingly terrible.

Anarcho-Communism, in my belief (As I am one) is another name for a firm Marxist-leninist - the belief that the last stage of Communism in truth is Anarchy, and such.

For Good Reading on Anarchism:

On the State:
God and the State, Michael Bakunin
The State and Revolution, Vladimir Lenin

Bakunin is a good source for general information - yet I personally believe some of his ideas are ill-conceived and very biased - such as his "Statism and Anarchy" and "Marxism, Freedom, and the State" - but perhaps thats because I'm a Marxist.

I believe there was a link somewhere to a bunch of Anarchist writings on this forum - http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25786

[Janus]

In my view anarcho-syndicalism (From what I've heard - never looked deeply into it, likely I'm wrong) is nothing more than free-market Capitalism at its best - simply No goverment, and let the corperations stretch their hand as far as they want, no miniumum wage, maximum hours, or anything - disgustingly terrible.
:blink: Anarcho-syndicalism is similar to anarcho-communism except for various differences in method particularly concerning trade unions.


Anarcho-Communism, in my belief (As I am one) is another name for a firm Marxist-leninist - the belief that the last stage of Communism in truth is Anarchy, and such.
No, anarcho-communism is radically different from Leninism as it rejects a vanguard as well as a transition stage involving a state.


The State and Revolution, Vladimir Lenin
You're going to refer someone to Lenin for good info on anarchism? :lol:

For anarcho-syndicalism, try the Rocker book. Oh and Morpheus's site Question Everything is a good intro as well.


but perhaps thats because I'm a Marxist.
Wait, I thought you just said you were an anarcho-communist. :blink:

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

I believe Anarcho-Communism is what Lenin and Marx meant :P

and yea I believe I confused Anarcho-Syndicalism with another Anarcho------- I heard.


And Lenin's State and Revolution is quite good - he talks about clearly how the State is the root of all oppression, and that the state by definition is a tool for the oppression of one class by another, 'as long as the state exists there can be no freedom, when there is freedom there can be no state'

[Janus]

and yea I believe I confused Anarcho-Syndicalism with another Anarcho------- I heard.
Probably anarcho-capitalism, which shouldn't even fall under anarchism.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 02:56 PM
And Lenin's State and Revolution is quite good - he talks about clearly how the State is the root of all oppression, and that the state by definition is a tool for the oppression of one class by another, 'as long as the state exists there can be no freedom, when there is freedom there can be no state'
He then goes on to talk of the need to destroy the bourgeois state and replace it with a proletarian state <_<

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

When he says state he means &#39;a system of oppression&#39; - so thus if your using that term, if the Proletariat take action against the Bourgeois and prevent them from taking power again - that in term, is oppression, and thus a "State" by Lenin&#39;s Definition.

There will be no oppression, and thus no &#39;state&#39;, once the ones who would return capitalist and pre-capitalist societies are gone or made meaningless - so thus the proletariat can live freely in anarchy.

[LSD]

can someone explain the difference between anarcho-syndicalism and anarco-communism/collectivism

Anarcho-communism is a wide branch of anarchism which takes its influence from communist rather than classically "anarchist" theoreticians.

Rather than looking to Bakunin or Proudhon, Anarcho-communists take their line primarily from Marx. Where they differ from mainline communist groups, however, is in their rejection of any postrevolutionary state whatsoever.

This is where the "Anarcho" part of "Anarcho-communism" come in. Although they accept Marx&#39;s analysis of capitalism and share his call for a stateless, classless society, Anaarcho-communists reject the notion of a transiiional "proletarian" state to get there.

Anarcho-communists also differ from many Marxists, especially the Leninist varieties, in their rejection of the "special role" of the vanguard party. Many Anarcho-communists do not even acknowledge the existance of a vanguard at all, although this question often comes down to semantics rather than deep theory.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of Anarcho-communism that shares its general goals and mathods, but which takes the rejection of party primacy even further.

Anarcho-syndicalists believe that proletarian revolutionary organization must be formulated around unions and syndicates and not parliamentary parties. Syndicalists believe that all political parties are by their nature conformist and bourgeois and so cannot be trusted to "lead" class struggle.


In my view anarcho-syndicalism (From what I&#39;ve heard - never looked deeply into it, likely I&#39;m wrong) is nothing more than free-market Capitalism at its best - simply No goverment, and let the corperations stretch their hand as far as they want, no miniumum wage, maximum hours, or anything - disgustingly terrible.

I think you&#39;re thinking of "anarcho"-capitalism, a libertarian liberal ideology with no basis in the mainstream Anarchist movement.

Anarchosyndicalists have nothing in common with those free marketers and to equate the two is to give great insult to the millions of anarchosyndicalists who have fought the bourgeoisie with everything they had.

[JC1]

Anarchism is a petit-bourgoise ideaologogy suppourted mainly by spanish and ukrainian peaseants. Those two group&#39;s are the largest counstineuncys anarchism will ever have.

Anarchism is not so much an ideaology as much as at it is a front for left wing middle class types to get there agenda out, albeit with black flags.

All anrchism amounts to is lifestylism and land reformism.

Generaly, if a an ideaology is around for 150 years and does nothing, thats becuase its completly impotent. Anarchism is just somthing that you shouldnt worry about, I mean, if it hasnt amounted to anything in 150 years, why would it do it up all of a sudden ?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by RevolutionaryMarxist+Aug 8 2006, 04:10 PM--> (RevolutionaryMarxist @ Aug 8 2006, 04:10 PM) When he says state he means &#39;a system of oppression&#39; - so thus if your using that term, if the Proletariat take action against the Bourgeois and prevent them from taking power again - that in term, is oppression, and thus a "State" by Lenin&#39;s Definition.

There will be no oppression, and thus no &#39;state&#39;, once the ones who would return capitalist and pre-capitalist societies are gone or made meaningless - so thus the proletariat can live freely in anarchy. [/b]
Hence the formation of the proletarian state (the infamous dictatorship of the proletariat) to straddle the period between capitalism and communism. Lenin could not be described, in any terms, as an anarcho-communist.


LSD

Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of Anarcho-communism that shares its general goals and mathods, but which takes the rejection of party primacy even further.
Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but wasn&#39;t anarcho-syndicalism an outgrowth of traditional anarchism as opposed to having anarcho-communism roots?

[LSD]

Anarchism is a petit-bourgoise ideaologogy

Actually, unlike Leninism, Anarchist organizations have a long history of active proletarian participatory management.

While the Bolsheviks and her successors were all run by petty-bourgeois ideologues (or "declassed intellectuals" as you so euphemistically put it), Anarchocommunist groups and especially Anarchosyndicalist groups stress the role of the worker in organizing revolutionary movements.

If Anarchism is "petit-bourgeois", Leninism is just plain bourgeois as it is fundamentally centered around an ultimately bourgeois insitution, the political party.


Anarchism is not so much an ideaology as much as at it is a front for left wing middle class types to get there agenda out

That&#39;s what an ideology is, JC, a theoretical means to pursue a political agenda.

Unless you&#39;re claiming that Leninists don&#39;t have political aims&#33; :rolleyes:


Generaly, if a an ideaology is around for 150 years and does nothing, thats becuase its completly impotent.

That&#39;s got to be one of the more bizarre theories I&#39;ve ever read on this site.

Exactly how many years must an ideology go unmanifested before "JC1&#39;s rule" declares it "impotent"? Marxism, after all, "didn&#39;t do anything" for well over 70 years. Somehow though your rule doesn&#39;t apply. I guess the cut-off period is a century then?

Well, liberalism "didn&#39;t amount to anything" for well more than a century years and then "all of a sudden" it did.

How does your theory account for this?

How do you account for the fact that, save the half-hearted Greek and Roman experiements, representative democracy went unexecuted for nearly two thousand years before it become the dominant form of government on earth?

Political theories aren&#39;t fucking milk, they don&#39;t come with expiry dates. If an idea is good, it doesn&#39;t matter how long it&#39;s been around for, it&#39;s still good.

And you should know better than anyone that material conditions shape politics more than ideology. 150 years may go by with nothing to show for it and then boom, the time becomes right.

At present, we don&#39;t know enough to understand those social forces or how they operate, but to completely dismiss them would be the hight of foolishness.

Besides, Anarchosyndicalism has seen some practical implementation. The factory siezures and reorganizations of revolutionary Catalonia and Barcelona were probably the greatest working class victories since the initial heady days of the Russian Revolution.

Anarchism may have only been implemented a few times, but when it has it&#39;s proven reasonably successfull. Leninism by contrast has been implemented dozens of times and has failed spectacularly each time.

If anything, Leninism&#39;s historical record is far more damning that Anarchism. "Impotency" is one thing, cataclysmis failure is another.

We may not know for certain whether an Anarchist society would be tenable, we do know however that a Leninist one isn&#39;t&#33;


Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but wasn&#39;t anarcho-syndicalism an outgrowth of traditional anarchism as opposed to having anarcho-communism roots?

Not really.

Social Anarchism as a whole descends more from early communist thinking than from Anarchist. That&#39;s not to say that it doesn&#39;t have a strong tradition in Anarchist thought, but unlike more individualist Anarchist branches, it&#39;s always been firmly rooted in principles of class war and social justice.

And even more than general Anarcho-communism, Syndicalism has an incredibly strong conception of class and class-war. Indeed, I would even contend that in many ways, Anarchosyndicalism is closer to the original 19th century communism than the traditionaly "Marxist" schools like Leninism.

Certainly the Paris commune had a strong syndicalist bent and over the years syndicalism has taken a good deal of its line from that and other practical class conflicts.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

If Anarchism is "petit-bourgeois", Leninism is just plain bourgeois as it is fundamentally centered around an ultimately bourgeois insitution, the political party.


Lenin heavily criticized the Anarchists for not seeing the possibility of using the Bourgeois State against the Bourgeois - why not use the gun thats lying right there?

And in the 1917 Revolution, the movement was grandly supported by the workers of St. Petersburg, even though not really in many other cities, but yet in St. Petersburg it was a synthesized generally workers movement.

Anarchism is focused more on action, and less on a vision or theory after - Bakunin himself said that - &#39;we don&#39;t hold onto one little miniscule fact&#39; and then something about taking retaliation whereever it may come. (From Statism and Anarchy I believe)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by LSD+--> (LSD)
ComradeOm
Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but wasn&#39;t anarcho-syndicalism an outgrowth of traditional anarchism as opposed to having anarcho-communism roots?

Not really.

Social Anarchism as a whole descends more from early communist thinking than from Anarchist. That&#39;s not to say that it doesn&#39;t have a strong tradition in Anarchist thought, but unlike more individualist Anarchist branches, it&#39;s always been firmly rooted in principles of class war and social justice.[/b]

I dunno if you could say that "principles of class war and social justice" are traits of "early communist thinking" in particular....depending, of course, on what you mean by the early. As far as I know, pre-Marx, class war based paradigms were mainly socialist....and not communist. And, because of that, one could probably make the case "principles of class war and social justice" were traits of early anarchism as well.

But, aside from that, and on the question that ComradeOm posed, I&#39;m sure there are quite a few syndicalists who are not communists. I think Rocker may be an example of this....though I don&#39;t think the roots of this tradition lie in "traditional anarchism" either.

[JC1]

Actually, unlike Leninism, Anarchist organizations have a long history of active proletarian participatory management.


Are you on PCP, cuz I think youre dissaccsociated from reality.


Anarchocommunist groups and especially Anarchosyndicalist groups stress the role of the worker in organizing revolutionary movements.

The only "Anarcho-Communist" and "Anarcho-Syndicalist" I know of in the west exist in small group&#39;s of petit-bourgoise types, generaly acadamian&#39;s (e.g. debord&#39;s clique). The only signifigant "Anarcho-Communist" movement&#39;s ever where makhno&#39;s mov&#39;t, and the spanish peaseant mov&#39;t.

The only example of anarchists ever influencing workers on class basis was the CNT. And that was mainly just youre normal union, with a politisizied bureacracy, that used "anarchism" as an ideaological front for making (oppritunist) aggreements with peaseants, petty-bourgoise suppourters of the political wing, and the liberal bourgoise.


If Anarchism is "petit-bourgeois", Leninism is just plain bourgeois as it is fundamentally centered around an ultimately bourgeois insitution, the political party

Then Anarchism is just plain bourgoise aswell, as many Anarchist orginizations are partys in all but name, maybe without anykind of responsibility.


That&#39;s what an ideology is, JC, a theoretical means to pursue a political agenda.


Ideaology&#39;s have principle&#39;s, fundemental&#39;s. Anarchist just say what ever is popular to say at the time.


That&#39;s got to be one of the more bizarre theories I&#39;ve ever read on this site.

Exactly how many years must an ideology go unmanifested before "JC1&#39;s rule" declares it "impotent"? Marxism, after all, "didn&#39;t do anything" for well over 70 years. Somehow though your rule doesn&#39;t apply. I guess the cut-off period is a century then?

Well, liberalism "didn&#39;t amount to anything" for well more than a century years and then "all of a sudden" it did.

How does your theory account for this?

How do you account for the fact that, save the half-hearted Greek and Roman experiements, representative democracy went unexecuted for nearly two thousand years before it become the dominant form of government on earth?

Political theories aren&#39;t fucking milk, they don&#39;t come with expiry dates. If an idea is good, it doesn&#39;t matter how long it&#39;s been around for, it&#39;s still good.


Here is the diffrence between lets say, representive democracy taking 2000 years to take off and anarchism never taking off.

Representive Democracy for one, was an idea generated before the class who&#39;s intrest&#39;s lied in this form of goverment realy existed.

The idea of representive democracy probobly did not even enter the popular counsioncess long before Anarchism. Unlike Anarchism, representive democracy was not born in an age of high communication, and was an idea restriced to small corners of earth around the great lakes and the medeterainian, whereas Anarchism was in the popular counsincesssince the get go. The idea of Democracy only entered popular cousnious in the 1700&#39;s, and anarchism entered in the 1800&#39;s. There not that far off.

[LSD]

Are you on PCP, cuz I think youre dissaccsociated from reality.

What class was Lenin? What class was Trotsky?

Positions of authority in political parties naturally fall to those who have the time and means to study politics and theory. Workers are generally too busy working to become "general secretaries" or "revolutionary chairmen".

Workers&#39; syndicates, however, are by their nature composed only of workers and so no "declassed" (you gotta love that term... ) petty-bourgeois academics can sieze power.


The only "Anarcho-Communist" and "Anarcho-Syndicalist" I know of in the west exist in small group&#39;s of petit-bourgoise types

The same could be said for "Marxist-Leninists".

The fact is there just isn&#39;t a large communist movement of any sort in the west today. Most "Marxists" that you&#39;ll meet in America or Europe are "petit-bourgegois types / generally acadamians".

There are no Anarchist or communist groups with significant power in the first world. That doesn&#39;t mean that either Anarchism or Marxism are "bourgeois" theories, it just means that the west is still emerging from a period of significant reaction.


The only signifigant "Anarcho-Communist" movement&#39;s ever where makhno&#39;s mov&#39;t, and the spanish peaseant mov&#39;t.

By "Spanish peasant mov&#39;t" I take it you mean the Catalonian factory siezures and industrial restructuring?


Then Anarchism is just plain bourgoise aswell, as many Anarchist orginizations are partys in all but name, maybe without anykind of responsibility.

I think you&#39;re missing my point, JC. I&#39;m not saying that Leninism is bourgeois, I&#39;m saying that if Anarchism is petty bourgeois then Leninism must be bourgeois. Obviously I reject that first conditional.

Remember, you&#39;re the one who started throwing class insults around and you&#39;re the one who started engaging in petty sectarian squabbling.

I was just trying to answer the initial question to the best of my abilities. For some reason you decided that it was nescessary to jump into this thread and start interjecting your nonsense theories about "political impotence" and "petit-bourgeois opportunists".

I understand that you&#39;re a proud "Marxist-Leninist" and in the spirit of that tradition you revel at attacking and destroying any fellow leftist who does not tow the line, but this message board is not a private forum for the we love Lenin club.

Posting on this board means interacting with Anarchists and Syndicalists and all those other revolutionary left groups that don&#39;t accept your definition of "solidarity".

If you are unable to do that without descending into petty name-calling, I would suggest that you find another board to post on.


Ideaology&#39;s have principle&#39;s, fundemental&#39;s. Anarchist just say what ever is popular to say at the time.

:rolleyes:

Ok, now you&#39;re just descending into baseless insults. If you want to come back to rational debate, let me know. But if you&#39;re just going to call people names, you&#39;d might as well not bother.


Here is the diffrence between lets say, representive democracy taking 2000 years to take off and anarchism never taking off.

Representive Democracy for one, was an idea generated before the class who&#39;s intrest&#39;s lied in this form of goverment realy existed.

The capitalist class existed for centuries before representative dmeocracy "took off". Any way you cut it, it took hundreds of years before republicanism became a major social force.

But if you had declared in, say, 1750 that republicanism was "impotent" because it hadn&#39;t had a manifestation yet, you would have been deeply mistaken. Similarly, if in 1915 you proclaimed Marxism "dead" (as some actually did), you would soon discover your grave error.

Basically, you only seem to be applying this "rule" of yours to theories that you don&#39;t like.

Socialism took well over 150 years to be a major political force, during all of which the working class existed. For a good deal of that time utopian socialism was the order of the day, but it was socialism nonetheless.

I don&#39;t know what Anarchism needs to "take off". It may well be that we need "another Marx" to hammer out the details of practical implementation. If that&#39;s so, then we may have decades yet to wait.

But regardless of whether Anarchism will be implemented next week or next century, the value of the theory cannot be extrapolated based on how long its been in existance. Political theories are not stagnant entities that "work" or don&#39;t.

They change and they evolve. That&#39;s what happened to Socialism before it became a viable option and that&#39;s what must happen with Anarchism.


The idea of Democracy only entered popular cousnious in the 1700&#39;s, and anarchism entered in the 1800&#39;s. There not that far off.

Democracy entered "popular consciousness" during the Roman empire. In terms of post-midieval Europe, it&#39;d be fair to say that most literate people were well aware of the concept by at least the mid 1600s.

Anarchism, meanwhile, while it developed in the nineteenth century was not really developed as a theory until the early twentieth.

And does all this quibbling over dates mean that you&#39;re sticking you your "longevity = impotence" equation?

How tired... <_<

Marxism took 70 years to politically manifest, fascism meanwhile was put into place barely ten years after it was invented. I suppose that means that Marxism is "more impotent" than fascism.

Look, if you want to attack Anarchist theory, fine (although it would have been preferable if you had chosen a more appropriate thread to do so in), but this Anarchism was first to the party crap is utterly pointless.


But, aside from that, and on the question that ComradeOm posed, I&#39;m sure there are quite a few syndicalists who are not communists.

No doubt, but anarcho-syndicalism as a Social Anarchist school descends primarily from Marxism and anarchocommunism.

A "Syndicalist" in strictest terms is anyone who advocates trade-union centered action. An anarchosyndicalist, however, is one who promotes such action to achieve the purposes of anarchocommunism.

[violencia.Proletariat]

The only "Anarcho-Communist" and "Anarcho-Syndicalist" I know of in the west exist in small group&#39;s of petit-bourgoise types, generaly acadamian&#39;s (e.g. debord&#39;s clique).

The CGT in Spain has 60,000 members, the CNT if I&#39;m not mistaken has around 10,000. Do you know of any leninist organizations in the first world that have that many members?


And that was mainly just youre normal union

Except for the fact that this union was libertarian and worker controlled. This union and its members were responsible for many insurrections and general strikes. The CNT was also a major reason why Spain was the first country to adopt the 8 hour workday. Can this be said of the alf-cio? No.


with a politisizied bureacracy

The moderate "bureacracy" (if you could even call it that, more like tendency) was removed from the CNT. These problems are no longer an issue in our world. We now have the technology to keep workers updated and enforce their decisions at every point in time and conflict.


that used "anarchism" as an ideaological front for making (oppritunist) aggreements with peaseants, petty-bourgoise suppourters of the political wing, and the liberal bourgoise.

You are completely mischaracterizing the situation between the CNT and the state. The union had no "agreements" to make with the state from its idealogy. The agreements with the popular front were a product of the situation and moderate tendency within the union, not the union and its principles itself. The moderate tendency felt that the republic was better than fascism. Before you cry "violation of libertarian principles", you must note that Spain had never succesfully retained a republic. Monarchist threats were always there, and this created an atmosphere of thought that comunismo libertario was in the future. The progressive thing to do would be to let a republic develope (the moderates also felt this was a tactically good decision because there would be less repression against the union under a republic, the opposite turned out to be true however). This moderate tendency, again, was voted out of councils. It&#39;s views were shown to be incorrect.


Ideaology&#39;s have principle&#39;s, fundemental&#39;s. Anarchist just say what ever is popular to say at the time.

There is a tendency, which we class war anarchists call "post left anarchism", which is exactly what you describe. These "anarchists" do not define anarchism, they keep it at a petty bourgeois intellectual level. However, class war anarchists obviously reject these ideas since they are not class based and idealistic/lifestylist in nature. We wish to define anarchism and give it principles (we have already done this but they need to be promoted to crush post left anarchy).

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:18 AM

But, aside from that, and on the question that ComradeOm posed, I&#39;m sure there are quite a few syndicalists who are not communists.

No doubt, but anarcho-syndicalism as a Social Anarchist school descends primarily from Marxism and anarchocommunism.

You missed my point....mainly because I just used the word syndicalism. The point was that some anarcho-syndicalists, like Rocker unless I&#39;m mistaken, don&#39;t consider themselves to be communists. I remember reading something on this, and there are quite a few of them, so I&#39;ll try and dig out the link.