Your Veiws on Communist Anarchism - what do you think

[IrieLittleDub]

im all for it what about you

[Xvall]

You could have said a bit more than that; and stated your reasons why. Communist Anarchism is quite the 'opposite' of Authoritarian Communism/Socialism. Communist Anarchists/Anarcho-Communists tend to take a more libertarian stance on things. I used to consider myself one; although I do not say that much anymore.

[Umoja]

I think that a system of governing *similar* to what the US has would be the best bet for the near future. The economy could gradually be replaced, and thus lead to the United States socializing, and bringing many other countries in the world along for the ride.

[redstar2000]

In the last century, it was expedient for the Leninists in all their variants to assert that a vast abyss existed between Marxism and anarchism.

Well, no, not really. There ARE and have been differences between SOME anarchists and SOME communists. The two streams of revolutionary thought have sometimes gone their own ways and other times merged.

In my own case, I would find it quite awkward to unite with a "spiritual" or christian anarchist (Tolstoy); but an anarcho-syndicalist and I would have so much in common that, depending on the circumstances, I'd have no problem joining his organization or him joining mine.

There is a remark attributed to Bismarck following the split in the First International between Marxists and Bakuninists (or communists and anarchists): "The Red and the Black have gone their separate ways...and woe to us if they should ever unite again." I don't know if Bismarck ever actually said that...but maybe he should have.

(Edited by redstar2000 at 5:12 am on Nov. 27, 2002)


(Edited by redstar2000 at 5:16 am on Dec. 1, 2002)

[Behind enemy lines]

I am reading about that now. The book is pro communist and they(Marx,Engels,Lenin) all give strong and harsh criticisms about anarchism, calling Bakunin many names. Came anyone tell me what those(bakuninists) are called these days and how they differ from other(anarchists).

Cheers

[redstar2000]

Curiously enough, modern anarchists are not NEARLY as oriented towards personalities as many "marxists". As far as I know, there are no "Bakuninist" counterparts of our Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyists and Maoists.

It's almost as if the modern anarchists have a better grasp of Marxism than the "marxists"--history is NOT a matter of personalities.

Another curiousity: my understanding of Bakunin is that he believed in small, elite groups of revolutionaries that would mount a conspiracy to seize power which, if successful, would THEN appeal to the working class for support. Would it be unfair, then, to suggest that Bakunin was a kind of "proto-Leninist"???

[Behind enemy lines]

Bakunin did believe in that.
I'm not following your "proto-Leninist" comment. Care to exlain what you mean.
Can you tell me the different kinds of anarchists and there views.

[Emmanual Goldstein]

Goddamn! Lenin's rolling over in his glass coffin in Moscow! It's so true though... Redstar gets +10 cool points.

What I think Red is referring to is ol' Vladimir's Illych's belief in a vanguard party to take power FOR the workers, and then rule in their interests. (am I reading you right?)

I would write something on anarchism but i'm kinda smacked right now.... gonna go get some pizza

[redstar2000]

EG, you're reading me right--thanks for the 10 points. I need them badly in other threads. ;-D

In fairness, bel, it's really better to go to some of the different anarchist sites and read what they say in their own words. I don't mind doing a "quick & dirty" summary of different versions of Leninism because I used to be a Leninist and I know that stuff pretty good...but the various trends in anarchism should really get the chance to speak for themselves.

[Behind enemy lines]

Ok, I'll check some out. Any good ones you know of?

[redstar2000]

http://www.anarchosyndicalism.org/as.php

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...ives/index.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/index.html)

There are MANY others; just do a search using the words anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, etc. You could spend a LIFETIME just reading the hits.

good luck, comrade

(Edited by redstar2000 at 2:26 am on Dec. 2, 2002)

[lifetrnal]

I considered my self an anarcho-communist for awhile. I still do most time. :-) The problem is I am not too convinced that the anarchism will work without first having a state to guide it. Unfortunately, I doubt that the state will ever evaporate, or even move towards communism. Instead, at least in the past, power has concentrated into the hands of a few, who usually become murdering bastards (Stalin). Or, alternativel, you have a situation where the murdering bastard state(maoist China) suddenly veers back towards capitalism and even greater oppression. So then I'm pushed back into the postion that capitalism and the state must be destroyed at the same time.
As for what bakunisit are called today. There is no such thing. For the most part Anarchists do not, as I believe someone already said, do not gravitate towards personalities. In fact I DO believe that most anarchists have a better understanding of marxism than classical marxists.
The problem with the anarchist movement is that it is so unorginized and they lack a sense of unification. You have anarchists, but they split themselves into mutally exlusive factions. You have the primitavists, the syndicalists, the anrcho-communists, individualists, etc, etc, etc.
I suppose though, I can answer your question, Bakunin would be considered an anarcho-communist.

[red warlock]

Anarchy is probably one of the sure ways to eliminate a political system, to change the constitution...
Anarchy can leadto revolution..I am refferin to a particular state of anrchy in acertain moment
viva la revolucion.

[RGacky3]

anarchy is'nt REALLY no government anarcho-communism is where the whole community is the government, anarcho-capitalism is where the indevidual is the government aka NO government. anarcho-ocmmunism I presume is what every one here is supporting, however, you can never always keep every one politically equal, people will want some one, or a group of people to be their leader(s). The one problem is controling it so that it does'nt go out of hand into a dictatorship or something.

[Som]

anarchy is'nt REALLY no government anarcho-communism is where the whole community is the government, anarcho-capitalism is where the indevidual is the government aka NO government.

Well that depends on your definition of government.
Since the sort of super democracy of communism isn't coercive and voluntary, you can't really call it a 'government'.
First of all, unless dealing with the anarcho-capitalists directly (both sides get all huffy and moany about whether theyre 'real' anarchists), anarchism is leftist.

Another curiousity: my understanding of Bakunin is that he believed in small, elite groups of revolutionaries that would mount a conspiracy to seize power which, if successful, would THEN appeal to the working class for support. Would it be unfair, then, to suggest that Bakunin was a kind of "proto-Leninist"???

This is sort of a misinterpretation of things. I read a letter Bakunin wrote about the subject (Its in the anarchy archives link you gave i think), where what he suggested wasn't really that sort of leninist organization. He fully believed in the popular working class revolution, but what he suggested was something like a shadow network of independent propagandists and revolutionaries to give a silent guide to this mass revolution. They aren't leaders of it, merely there to push it along. Its not too hard to see where this can be seen as vanguardism.

I think that the anarchist strain of thought that is closest to Bakunin would be collectivism. I'm not sure really the trademarks of this, but I know it differs from anarchist communism because it doesn't seek to abolish money immediately, though many believe it will dissolve into the communist economy through time.

[Geddan]

I think that the only sort of Communism or classless society worth the name would be libertarian with no or little centralized power, thus "anarchic".

I've came to think about one thing: What's really the difference between anarchosyndicalism and anarchocommunism? Is it just the syndicalists putting more effort on trade unions and strikes, or anything else?

Someone said that syndicalists will put something IN PLACE of the old rule, and that might be true, but so will every other sort of anarchist, if I got it right. If "put something in place" means put a new government in charge, that ain't true, either.

[mentalbunny]

I wouldn't call myself an anarchist but I am very libertarian. I think that for a society to really succeed it could not be authoritarian, so anarcho-communism or similar would be the best bet, but I think it would have to happen quite slowly, or be wide-spread or there would be too much opposition from other countries.