Socialism and Anarchism

[BOZG]

I have talked to many people on the topic of Socialism before Anarchism and have found mixed opinions on whether a socialist government should be implemented first and then eventually phased out. I myself believe that this is the only way Anarchy can ever succeed. What does everyone else think? Should we completely destroy all governments and introduce Anarchy or first introduce a socialist government and then eventually make an anarchistic society?

[peaccenicked]

This is what Marx says, from the critique of the Gotha programme.
I think he is right.
"Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotha Programme


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

IV

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



I come now to the democratic section.



A. "The free basis of the state."



First of all, according to II, the German Workers' party strives for "the free state".

Free state — what is this?

It is by no means the aim of the workers, who have got rid of the narrow mentality of humble subjects, to set the state free. In the German Empire, the "state" is almost as "free" as in Russia. Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".

The German Workers' party — at least if it adopts the program — shows that its socialist ideas are not even skin-deep; in that, instead of treating existing society (and this holds good for any future one) as the basis of the existing state (or of the future state in the case of future society), it treats the state rather as an independent entity that possesses its own intellectual, ethical, and libertarian bases.

And what of the riotous misuse which the program makes of the words "present-day state", "present-day society", and of the still more riotous misconception it creates in regard to the state to which it addresses its demands?

"Present-day society" is capitalist society, which exists in all civilized countries, more or less free from medieval admixture, more or less modified by the particular historical development of each country, more or less developed. On the other hand, the "present-day state" changes with a country's frontier. It is different in the Prusso-German Empire from what it is in Switzerland, and different in England from what it is in the United States. The "present-day state" is therefore a fiction.

Nevertheless, the different states of the different civilized countries, in spite or their motley diversity of form, all have this in common: that they are based on modern bourgeois society, only one more or less capitalistically developed. They have, therefore, also certain essential characteristics in common. In this sense, it is possible to speak of the "present-day state" in contrast with the future, in which its present root, bourgeois society, will have died off.

The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

.



(Edited by peaccenicked at 10:45 pm on Mar. 8, 2002)

[anarchoveganLAM]

well, for any difference in politics, economy, etc. people need to be organized.
if people are organized for a communist anarchism, then you do not need government at all. like subcommandate marcos had sad "a strong group does not need a leader" or something along those lines.

make them strong!

steve

[militantmindLAM]

marx always said that with socialism will come anarchism and it will be more free and more beautiful. in my opinion i that anarchism itself is socialistic because it is anarchistic as a collective.

[Marxman]

But anarchism must be very careful, it can turn into capitalism, as it has no order, so the main thing is to turn anarchy into marxism immediately.

[militantmindLAM]

no u don't turn anarchism into marxism u turn marxism into anarchism

[anarchoveganLAM]

the thing is socialism IS anarchism without a state. Stateless socialism is anarchism. Anarchism won't be capitalism unless everybody consents to it. I think after everybody lives in a collective state of freedom and equality, they would want no different. And to Marxman, you don't turn anarchism into marxism-you turn marxism into anarchism.
My problem with marxism is that it is far too authoritive. You don't turn non-authoritive INTO authoritive, but you can use a marxist economy, which is where I place in my little bit on Bookchin-farm!:)

[DeathToAmerica]

The thing with Anarchism... is well... you need policing and people in power to keep order and to fend for those in need.

That's why I see myself as a socialist, I don't think we would need an anarchist government if we could implement a socialist regime.. that is proper, free from greed... etc.

[anarchoveganLAM]

Anarchist government? No such thing, my comrade. Anarchism is governing of yourself, self-autonomy. And like I have said, anarchism and socialism are the same thing, just socialism causes regimes. With an eco-socialist society, there could be no greed. Greed with that is wanting to eat more! ha!

[DeathToAmerica]

When I say Anarchist government, I imply anarchy over the state. A governing of yourself well wouldn't be right for those in need. Corruption would increase dramatically. With anarchy comes Monarchy or Totalitarian rule. Groups form... racism also forms... the people become divided. The people must all be united, and equal. Everyone deserves food and water and shelter. We also need something more for those who give more to the community. Like doctors for example... making the same as... a shoeman for example just wouldn't work. They must be acknowledged by the people and state, not looked higher upon... but acknowledged so that you have doctors and the such. With anarchism, what is stoping the greedy from taking what they want? Where's the unification.. do you get what I'm saying?

[El Che]

"in that, instead of treating existing society (and this holds good for any future one) as the basis of the existing state (or of the future state in the case of future society), it treats the state rather as an independent entity that possesses its own intellectual, ethical, and libertarian bases."

Hence you must change society and not the state. When you have reformed society its self, when it its self changes, evolves, then so will the state. The state should remain free, that is, subordinated to society. It is society we must change. Or rather it must change its self or it is doomed.

[anarchoveganLAM]

What people get worried about is the whole no law thing. But that is why you have an organizing of people before hand. You do not have anarchism in days like today. You need heavy organizing. The member, El Che, is very correct and I stand behind him on his words.