Anarchism

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

I just read a sticky on anarchism and am a little confused..... It often refered to "from each acording to his ability to each acording to his needs" but then said it opposed marxism.

Also in a revolution u would be on supporting the proleterians as would M.L.'s like the spanish civil war. But i belive that capitalism will fall to socialism, drifting into communism then to anarchism........what does that make me, a M.L or Anarchist

[Delirium]

Anarchism is not necessarily opposed to marxism, anarchists would be opposed to a "Marxist state" or any sort of government which imposed hierarchy. There are also many different ways of interpreting and applying marx's writings. There are some marxists which would associate closer to anarchists than M-Ls.

If you think that communism/anarchy is impossible without an intermediate state then you would be some sort of marxist.

[Fawkes]

what does that make me, a M.L or Anarchist

It doesn't necesarily make you either. You would be considered an Authoritarian Socialist, but not necesarily a Marxist Leninist. While M-Ls are Auth. Socialists, they are not the only "type". But yes, you would fall closer to M-Ls than to anarchists.

[Janus]

But i belive that capitalism will fall to socialism, drifting into communism then to anarchism........what does that make me, a M.L or Anarchist
That's kind of broad though you're definitely a Marxist of some sort. What delineates orthodox Marxists and Libertarian Marxists from Marxist Leninists is the approach towards revolution in that the latter believe that a strict and disciplined vanguard party must lead the way.

[cb9's_unity]

Actually if a capitalist asked for a broad deffinition of what a Marxist-leninist and a anarchist believed they would give very similar answers. The debate between all forms of marxism and anarchism is the socialist transition state into communism. And actually by opposing the vanguard orthodox marxists may even fall closer to anarchism when talking about the actuall revolution to overthrow the capitalist state

[bezdomni]

It doesn't necesarily make you either. You would be considered an Authoritarian Socialist, but not necesarily a Marxist Leninist. While M-Ls are Auth. Socialists, they are not the only "type". But yes, you would fall closer to M-Ls than to anarchists.

ALL REVOLUTIONARIES ARE AUTHORITARIAN BECAUSE THE ACT OF REVOLUTION IS AUTHORITARIAN!

Why do anarchists always throw that word around! :wacko:

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:18 pm

It doesn't necesarily make you either. You would be considered an Authoritarian Socialist, but not necesarily a Marxist Leninist. While M-Ls are Auth. Socialists, they are not the only "type". But yes, you would fall closer to M-Ls than to anarchists.

ALL REVOLUTIONARIES ARE AUTHORITARIAN BECAUSE THE ACT OF REVOLUTION IS AUTHORITARIAN!

Why do anarchists always throw that word around! :wacko:
Yes, the means of production and life have to be seized from those who today illegitimately claim ownership, and if you want to say that's authoritarian then okay. But obviously what we're talking about is whether the revolutionary elements are organized on hierarchical, authoritarian lines or whether decentralized, democratic decision making is employed to the greatest extent possible.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:18 pm

It doesn't necesarily make you either. You would be considered an Authoritarian Socialist, but not necesarily a Marxist Leninist. While M-Ls are Auth. Socialists, they are not the only "type". But yes, you would fall closer to M-Ls than to anarchists.

ALL REVOLUTIONARIES ARE AUTHORITARIAN BECAUSE THE ACT OF REVOLUTION IS AUTHORITARIAN!

Why do anarchists always throw that word around! :wacko:
When most anarchists use the word they mean centralized authority as opposed to decentralized authority, exercised by individual workers and local groups (e.g, executing a Nazi). We don't oppose coercion carried out by the workers as a class, we just don't a centralized state can "represent" working class interests.

[bezdomni]

But obviously what we're talking about is whether the revolutionary elements are organized on hierarchical, authoritarian lines or whether decentralized, democratic decision making is employed to the greatest extent possible.

It should be obvious, but it really is not. As a Marxist-Leninist, I am sick of being labelled anti-liberty simply because anarchists like to pretend Marxism-Leninism is "authoritarian" whereas anarchism is "libertarian".

If you think a revolution is necessary - you are authoritarian.


When most anarchists use the word they mean centralized authority as opposed to decentralized authority, exercised by individual workers and local groups (e.g, executing a Nazi). We don't oppose coercion carried out by the workers as a class, we just don't a centralized state can "represent" working class interests.

Nobody advocates a centralized state that "represents" the working class while actually oppressing them. This is not a Marxist-Leninist idea, and I have no idea why is it constantly attributed to us.

Democracy and "Dictatorship" - Lenin (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/dec/23.htm)

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:39 pm

Nobody advocates a centralized state that "represents" the working class while actually oppressing them. This is not a Marxist-Leninist idea, and I have no idea why is it constantly attributed to us.

I've just never seen a working class state, they always end up oppressing the workers. Has a centralized body ever adquately represented the rank and file? If so, please do tell.

[bezdomni]

Has a centralized body ever adquately represented the rank and file? If so, please do tell.

I do not advocate a rigid centralized body. Marxism-Leninism does not advocate a rigid centralized body, it advocates the dictatorship of the proletariat, the abolition of private property and the withering away of classes and the state.

[Fawkes]

ALL REVOLUTIONARIES ARE AUTHORITARIAN BECAUSE THE ACT OF REVOLUTION IS AUTHORITARIAN!

No it's not. A group of people deciding to fight against their oppressors is not authoritarian. It is only authoritarian when that group wins the revolution and then exerts it's newly gained power over the defeated people.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:18 pm

It doesn't necesarily make you either. You would be considered an Authoritarian Socialist, but not necesarily a Marxist Leninist. While M-Ls are Auth. Socialists, they are not the only "type". But yes, you would fall closer to M-Ls than to anarchists.

ALL REVOLUTIONARIES ARE AUTHORITARIAN BECAUSE THE ACT OF REVOLUTION IS AUTHORITARIAN!

Why do anarchists always throw that word around! :wacko:
The authoritarianism that you are speaking of and the authoritarianism that anarchists speak of are two different kinds of authoritarianism.

[cenv]

I just read a sticky on anarchism and am a little confused..... It often refered to "from each acording to his ability to each acording to his needs" but then said it opposed marxism.

Well, you need to realize that the boundry between anarchism and Marxism is somewhat blurred. Just because someone is a self-described anarchist does not make them opposed to Marxism, and vice-versa. Moreoever, there are many people that sympathize with both anarchism and Marxism and that could easily call themselves either Marxists or anarchists without much debate.

The important thing to keep in mind is that anarchists and Marxists tend to stress different things. Anarchists, on one hand, tend to place a particular emphasis on horizontalism, anti-authoritarianism, decentralization, and so on. On the other hand, Marxists pay special attention to classes and such. Not to say that anarchists don't pay attention to classes or that Marxists don't pay attention to decentralization; it's just that anarchism and Marxism tend to emphasize different things. Many versions of anarchism, though, such as anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism, are completely compatible with Marxism.


But i belive that capitalism will fall to socialism, drifting into communism then to anarchism
A communist society is not substantially different than an anarchist society. Both are stateless and classless. In fact, I think it's safe to say that communists and anarchists have the same goal in mind and that any significant differences between the two spring from differing views on how to reach communism/anarchy, not incompatible goals.

Having said that, I'd suggest you do more research on both communism and anarchism before labeling yourself as a follower of one or the other.

[working class revolutionary]

Anarchists tend to focus much more on the future stateless society, spontanious organization of the masses, destruction of the state and the end of hierarchy, without the need of a state socialist intervention, as an earlier poster said.

Marxists and Anarchists share much of the same ideals and goals, however Anarchists tend to shun any sort of "vanguard" that would lead the proletariat, while I would imagine Marxists see the vanguard as a neccesary step towards the creation of a society of the free association of individuals.

I consider myself to be an anarchist, and yeah, I've been in some arguments with Marxists over the neccesity of a organized revolutionary class over the spontanious upheaval of the workers. But the end result is that we both recognize one truth, in that capitalism exploits and enslaves those without capital.

I suggest reading Bakunin and Proudhom if you're interested in learning more about anarchism.

[Brownfist]

There is a very good reader that anyone interested in Marxist criticisms of anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism should pick up. It was published by Progress Publishers in the USSR (1972) entitled Marxs*Engels*Lenin Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism. It is basically a volume in which they compile all of the relevant essays on the question by Marx, Engels and Lenin. I am pretty sure that it is available in second-hand bookstore (that is where I got my copy) or on some of the second-hand copy online bookstores. I paid $7.50 for it, but I see that it is normally available for around $12.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:39 am
If you think a revolution is necessary - you are authoritarian.
How is that the case?


Nobody advocates a centralized state that "represents" the working class...

Except for Lenin. Which is exactly what he created...


...while actually oppressing them.

No one argues that's what Leninists want; it's what Leninism creates.


This is not a Marxist-Leninist idea, and I have no idea why is it constantly attributed to us.

Who else creted this praxis if not Lenin...?


Democracy and "Dictatorship" - Lenin (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/dec/23.htm)

That proves nothing other than the fact that Lenin's ideas were not his praxis.


Marxism-Leninism does not advocate a rigid centralized body

That's patently not the case though. All Leninist parties are rigid and centralised as have the government in which it creates during a revolution.

Name one example where this none rigid decentralised Leninist organisaiton or state exists...?

[Fawkes]

Marxists and Anarchists share much of the same ideals and goals, however Anarchists tend to shun any sort of "vanguard" that would lead the proletariat, while I would imagine Marxists see the vanguard as a neccesary step towards the creation of a society of the free association of individuals.
You are right that anarchists do not support a "vanguard", however, neither do all Marxists. It is primarily Leninists, Maoists, and Stalinists whom support a vanguard party, though some Marxists do.