my political thoughts lately - please give ideas/critiques

[red head]

1. its commonly thought that the more industrialized a country is, the more successful a democratic government can be. therefore, i think that countries like the US, the UK, canada, france, etc. are possibly ready for anarcho-communism.
2. dictatorships in severely poor and desperate 3rd world countries are sometimes a neccessary evil. if these countries were anarchist, there would be a threat of a right-wing coup de'etat (sp?). however these dictatorships should exist only for the good of the people. if there were powerful anarchist governments in the first world, communist governments could be put in place in the 3rd world and monitored to make sure they were advancing their country correctly. if they didn't seem to be advancing their country towards anarchy, or were in place when a more democratic system could work instead, the dictator (or other government) would be destroyed.
3. in this way, a truly internationalist government could be formed. no action could be based on the betterment of a single country, instead it must be based on the betterment of the whole world and must be based on countries most in need. for example, the creation of anarchist societies in the first world would be internationalist because it would make it easier to help the third world (god knows capitalism isn't doing that), but the use of tarriffs, isolationism, or any other self-serving policy wouldn't be allowed.
are there any serious flaws in my logic? i'd like to know what everyone thinks.

[MindCrime]

Third World dictatorships are a necissary evil.....of global capitalism. They are being used for raw resourses and slave labour, the dictatorship (set up by the West) is there to keep the flow going.

I agree that anarcho-communism is the (in theory) ideal government, but there is no way change is going to begin in the 1st world. Capitalism has a death grip, people see their wealth, think that things are good, and dont want change.

Like Georeg Orwell wrote in the classic 1984, "If there is any hope, it lies in the proles." The common people. The opressed masses in the Third World that experience the horrors of Imperialism on a daily basis. There was never such a thing as an upper class revolution, and middle class revolutions developed into the fascist states of europe (italy, germany, spain...)

The First World would never willingly give up its riches for the betterment of humanity. Dont look to merica for radical social change. Look to the majority of the world living in poverty and starvation. If anyone is willing to change the world, it is them.

[peaccenicked]

On a fundamental level I think you are right, but
dictatorhips are not wholely evil in themselves.
They are able to some extent to resist market forces
and improve their welfare states and local economy as a populist measure.
No matter the motive, socialists should defend social
gains not yet reversed by capitalism but be critical of bureaucratic administration and the divorce of governments from the workers interests which is in effect the dictatorship from above.

[Kez]

dictatorships can only be good if they are 100% good
because in democracy if ur in power, and u fuck up, then ur ridaculed, but if soviets fucked up, then no1 wud say, wtf u doing! such as turning a river flow completely the opposite direction in order to build a dam
how much money went there, all wasted
that cud never happen in uk or europe

comrade kamo

[red head]

i'm not saying communist-anarchy is plausable in the US any time soon, i'm just saying its possible with the political and economic level that country is on. therefore i think that is the system we should fight for directly in industrialized nations. marx said that the order of systems was primative communism, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism, communist anarchy. marx wasn't around to see how big capitalism would get though. i think that the economic conditions in the US and other modernized countries can sustain anarcy. mindcrime, it seems you are suggesting that we should fight directly for communo-anarchy in the third world. i just don't think anarchy can sustain in the third world. there are too many boarder disputes, religious fights, right-wing coups, etc.

[Rosa]

Sorry folks, but ethic philosophers still can't say what's good, and what's evil.
You think that your ideals are good, but isn't it just apologia of your need for the power? To really exist?
As Heidegger would say: to be here, make the world to be you. (my interpretation, to simplify his 300 and more pages of "Zein und Zeit")

[MindCrime]

Im not advocating we grab a chunk of the Third World and make an anarcho-communist state. It would never last in this global political climate. What I am advocating is the spread of The Revolution through the Third World. This can take the form of a military guerilla movement, organization to oppose the dictatorship, unionization of labor, strikes, protests, dissent.... Empowerment of the people. Arm the masses. A leftist movement throughout the Third World would be a conciderable blow to the dominancy of the Imperialist powers.

The right wing uses diffrence to seperate people from eachother. Your part of this tribe, that nation, whatever religon. Tear down the walls and people being to realize that they are all humans. In an ideal anarcho-communist setting, they're would be no nations and no organized religons.

I advocate direct opposition to Imperialist puppet dictatorships in the Third World, the dismantlement of Church and State, and the arming of the people. This will place the power in the workers hands and begin to move society towards the ultimate goal of anarcho communism.

The masses can overcome the elite. People shouldnt have to live their lives in economic slavery. Che was a proponent of action in the Third World. Strike at the production base of the ruling class. Talk can only get you so far, but eventually you have to jump in the treanches and make change happen!

[MindCrime]

Mind you, that was a broad overview. I'd be more than happy to elaborate on any of the points for you.

[The Iron Heel]

Quote: from red head on 6:20 pm on Feb. 18, 2002
1. its commonly thought that the more industrialized a country is, the more successful a democratic government can be. therefore, i think that countries like the US, the UK, canada, france, etc. are possibly ready for anarcho-communism.
2. dictatorships in severely poor and desperate 3rd world countries are sometimes a neccessary evil. if these countries were anarchist, there would be a threat of a right-wing coup de'etat (sp?). however these dictatorships should exist only for the good of the people. if there were powerful anarchist governments in the first world, communist governments could be put in place in the 3rd world and monitored to make sure they were advancing their country correctly. if they didn't seem to be advancing their country towards anarchy, or were in place when a more democratic system could work instead, the dictator (or other government) would be destroyed.
3. in this way, a truly internationalist government could be formed. no action could be based on the betterment of a single country, instead it must be based on the betterment of the whole world and must be based on countries most in need. for example, the creation of anarchist societies in the first world would be internationalist because it would make it easier to help the third world (god knows capitalism isn't doing that), but the use of tarriffs, isolationism, or any other self-serving policy wouldn't be allowed.
are there any serious flaws in my logic? i'd like to know what everyone thinks.


1. In the epoch of Industrial Capitalism (when Marx was writing) this was valid, however, in the epoch of monopoly capitalism, certain mehcanism were put in place by the ruling class to serve the defusion of class consciousness (i.e. the Welfare State, Kenysian Econo.), hence, we see succesful revolutions taking place in dependent rather than dominating nations. I'm not certain what anarcho-communism refers to, but it seems clear it is related to anarchism, a socialist-revolutionary (yet non-Marxist) doctrine Che, for example, was not associated with, and never were able to successfully succeed in forming their own government due to problems of decentralization and a lack of a vanguard. The only time Anarchists were in a position of power in post-revolutionary situation was within a United Front-type arangments.

2. I think Che (a Marxist, a Communist) would agree with me that an anarchist government is highly unliekly to ever have any sort of a mandate over a nation-state (as history clearly proves). Their succeptibility to a right-wing inspired/financed/etc. coup is the same as most nations led by a truly 'socialist' nation. Though, I argue that nations who have a genuine 'communist' governments, are at more of a threat precisely since they themsleves entail more of a threat to the capitalist class due to the greater effectiveness of their overall (short as well as longterm) 'plans'. Advancing a nation 'correctly' is not a simple conecpt in the context of Marxist theory/ies. Perhaps I'll elaborate my thoughts of that later, but for now, it is beyond the scope of my reply.

3. A government can be internationalist in spirit and some action, but the notion that once could simply leap from the revolution into the phase of the international comminist association (skipping the dictatorship of the proletriat phase), is wholly unMarxist, though true to many branches of anarchism. I find that notion to be idealistic and unrealistic. It is important, vital even, to have these ends/goals in mind, however, the practicality of implemetation of such a monumental leap, is one which I believe belongs in the realms of fantasy, not practice. The mantra think global, act local takes an additional meaning in this sense.

Feel free to ask me to clarify anything I've said here, English is not my first language and some of the meaning may be lost in the philological and etymological abyss that is my mind.

[red head]

i think the arguement that anarchy could never happen isn't valid. right-wingers always argue that communism could never happen don't they? anarchy existed in spain before and during the spanish civil war. i've done some thinking and i have come to the conclusion that arming the people is a viable way to prevent governments from forming. i thought about what i would do. i dislike guns, but if anarchy existed and some organization threatened my way of life, i would take up arms. i need to read more bakunin and kropotkin (already read up on emma goldman) but i'm seriously considering anarchy as my political ideology.

[MindCrime]

Not only did anarchist societys exist in Spain, but they were able to turn away the fascist war machine. Arming the people is how Lenin overcame the Tsar, how Castro overcame tha Batistas, and how George Washington overcame the British Empire. Revolutions are built on the strenght of the people. Guns violence IS a terrible thing, it requires a mature and respectful society to maintain such public armories. Weapons should be respected and only used to defend the commune, not for entertainment like Americans use them for.

[The Iron Heel]

Let's slow down here. The liberal democratic revolution of George Washington for the independence of the United States is not the same as the revolutions Castro or Lenin were involved in. And there was no anarchist society as such during the Spanish Civil world. You had anarchists with specific range of influence
within Spain, but amongst other groups: liberals, social democrats, communists, republicas, etc. They did not control the government, they were part of a United Front government. That was my original point, anarchism lacks a vanguard (such as in the Cuban or Soviet example mentioned), it lacks centralization for the sakes of organization & mere efficacy, they have never been able to form their own government to implement their own vision.

These are just the shorterm practical problems of an anarchist approach. I have read the anarchist literature to a thorough enough degree that I genuinely believe they have no answer as to how they plan to arrive at communism (their end/goal, in fact, much the same as the communists), it's this gigantic leap we are told nothing of, as if by magic, once the revoltuion comes everything will automatically workout, but in my opinion, reality does not work that way.

[red head]

what about anarcho-syndicalism? that seems to be a decent way to go about it. i don't think central planning, organization, industrial progress, or anything else can stand in as a substitute for personal freedom. in my mind, anarcho-syndicalism is a way to go about achieving and sustaining anarchist revolution while letting society organize itself naturally. if anyone knows any good anarcho-syndicalist liturature, please let me know.

[vox]

First, applause to The Iron Heel. Well said.

Red Head, if you're interested in anarcho-syndicalism, please check out the Wobblies at www.iww.org (http://www.iww.org). They were fairly influential in the early part of the 20th century in the US labor movement. I'm sure you can find a lot of Wobbly literature online.

Also, you might want to give a listen to "Fellow Workers" by Ani DiFranco and Utah Phillips, who tells stories about people like Mother Jones.

vox

[MindCrime]

I didnt mean to draw such a tight corolation between The American Revolution and the October Revolution in Russia or Castro's revolution in Cuba. I meerly meant it as an example of people with guns overthrowing and Empire at home (one Americans could relate to).

And when I said anarchist societies, I literally meant societies. There was never a control of the entire state (Anarchist state, thats an oxymoron, isnt it?) but many Spanish communities, especially in the south, were anarchistic. They only fell to the Fascists after allowing themselves to be integrated into Joseph Stalins Red Army, at which point they were on the move and fighting a uniformary war against the fascists, which lead to their inevitable defeat.

[The Iron Heel]

I don't want to get too deeply into the Spanish Civil War's history and related controversies, it is beyond the scope of the thread, I think. I will, however, comment about the anarchist state as an oxymoron since this is ties perfectly with my original point.

An anarchist State is indeed an oxymoron. But the struggle does not end when a given city, province, nation, is liberated. What do the anarchists do in the meantime, while the struggle (for survival itself) goes on? Not taking control over the instruments of the state invites an inevitable defeat, I would think. Can their decentralized approach properly handle times of emergencies & urgencies (beyond a local scope) ? I believe it cannot, and that only a vanguard can do this. The anarchists want to arrive at the phase of communism right away. How they plan to achieve this in practice, in the context of hostile domestic and international surroundings, is in my opinion, an matter which rests more with faith than it does reason.

[honest intellectual]

"I believe in benvolent dictatorship. Provided the dictator is me"
---------
Woody Allen

I'm actually getting very confused about benvolent dictatorship vs. anarcho-communsim. Let me think about it for a while and I'll be back

(Edited by honest intellectual at 12:37 am on Mar. 3, 2002)