Communism and Anarchy combined?

[beneath the wheel]

i would like to learn more about those who support both communism and anarchy. the way i see it, they are not realy related. anarchy calles for absolutly no government, and communism involves large governing bodies to oversee production and other concepts such as laws.

if someone could explain the concept of these to beliefs combined, or at least point me in the right direction it would be appreciated.

[Rawthentic]

Ok, well you need to be put on the right path.

Anarchism, as a society, is the same as communism: no classes, no state.

Russia, Cuba, China, etc., were not communist.

The main deviation between anarkiddies and communists is the question of the state. Communists hold that their is a practical necessity to form a worker's state to protect the revolution and its gains, while anarchists reject this because they see the state, in their flawed analysis, as an evil entity at all times.

[Janus]

anarchy calles for absolutly no government
No, anarchy argues against a state not government itself.


and communism involves large governing bodies to oversee production and other concepts such as laws.
What do you mean by "large governing bodies", seems more bureaucratic than communist.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

It is possible and in my view desirable to blend Marxian economics with anarchist organisational styles and concepts.

[Demogorgon]

Well both seek the same thing, abolition of the class system and in the end, no more state. It might stretch it to say Anrchism opposes all Government, because people running their own lives on a Communal basis could still be called a government if we are to be pedantic.

[Enragé]

The main deviation between anarkiddies and communists is the question of the state. Communists hold that their is a practical necessity to form a worker's state to protect the revolution and its gains, while anarchists reject this because they see the state, in their flawed analysis, as an evil entity at all times.

no its not, thats a debate based mostly around semantics. Outline your ideas of how a state should look like and often enough anarchists will respond that they dont consider that a state (i.e a federation of communes).

The main difference is organisation, but even that is mostly semantics since any serious organisation has unity in action, democratic centralism even, though anarchists wouldnt call it that.

biggest real difference would be attitude i guess.


In any case, anarchism and communism go hand in hand, anarchism=communism and communism=anarchism, the way of getting there is a different story though, although that seems mostly based in semantics.
What we should strive for is co-operation between the two currents, try to bring about revolution, and then we'll handle any disagreements which come our way.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:27 pm
The main deviation between anarkiddies and communists is the question of the state. Communists hold that their is a practical necessity to form a worker's state to protect the revolution and its gains, while anarchists reject this because they see the state, in their flawed analysis, as an evil entity at all times.
Anarchists aren't against the state just for the sake of being against a state. Anarchists are against a state after the revolution because as has been proven through experiment once the "Socialist states" are there they do not wither away.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by beneath the [email protected] 04, 2007 05:22 pm
i would like to learn more about those who support both communism and anarchy. the way i see it, they are not realy related. anarchy calles for absolutly no government, and communism involves large governing bodies to oversee production and other concepts such as laws.

if someone could explain the concept of these to beliefs combined, or at least point me in the right direction it would be appreciated.
First here are a few leaflets for you to read.

What is Communism? http://struggle.ws/wsm/rbr/extra/communism.html

and

An Anarchist FAQ http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/


Both anarchism and communism call for no state, no classes and possibly no government depending on what you consider to be a government. The differences are pretty much how to get to this kind of society. Some communists believe that to get to a society without a state you need to have a revolution, create a different kind of state and then destroy the state you made. Anarchists believe that there must be a revolution and then you must destroy the state.

I over generalized it a lot but these are the main points according to what I know of both.

[Rawthentic]

No, I agree with NKOS, its more of a semantics issue sometimes, but this is irresponsible on behalf of anarchists for deviating from what is a state and confuses people.

[syndicat]

both "anarchism" and "communism" are ideological buzzwords, and there are many different interpretations of what they mean. it might be best to try to explain what it is you advocate without using these terms.

if we agree that the aim is the liberation of the working class from class oppression and exploitation, and the dissolution of the various forms of oppression that coexist within in existing society (on the basis of race and gender for example), then how is this to come about? and what conditions need to be achieved to realize dissolution of the class structure?

for example, most Marxists in the early 20th century advocated centralized state planning. However, central planning tends to empower a planning elite, who want to have managers to carry out their plans. this conception is inconsistent with worker self-management, advocated by anarchists and syndicalists. The libertarian left (anarchists, syndicalists, etc) mostly were opposed to both the market and central planning, but were not always clear about how things would work in a horizontal system of economic self-management.

[beneath the wheel]

thanks for clearing this up.

in school, we never learn about other political systems besides capitalism, and even then it is only ever shown in a positive light. i suppose this cite is so interesting to me because it helped me to realize other political concepts and showed me that in reality, our society is far, far from the perfect capitalistic one portrayed in schools.

i am currently reading a translation of Marx's early writings, in an effort to learn more, both about the theories of the far left, and about the evils of capitalism, which i am now starting to see in my own society.

i probably should have done some research on my own before asking the question, but thanks for answering.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:27 pm
No, I agree with NKOS, its more of a semantics issue sometimes, but this is irresponsible on behalf of anarchists for deviating from what is a state and confuses people.
Why is it 'irresponsible' of anarchists?

Some non-anarchist communists use the term 'state' to describe their preferred mode of transistional revolutionary organisation, some dont - how are anarchists at fault at all in that situation?

It's not as if anarchists are forcing every non-anarchist communist who holds this view to define their ideas within the loaded language of 'states' - so i dont really see the utility in this sort of ideological finger-pointing?

[Tower of Bebel]

we can unite during protests and actions. I advice everyone to support anarchists or communists in your neighbourhood when they have local actions against policy of the state.

[LSD]

no its not, thats a debate based mostly around semantics.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

Debates between anarchists and Communists often do come down to nothing more than the difference in political terminology, but there are very real ideological gulfs between the two schools of thought.

And in so far as those terminological differences, I may be biased here, but I tend to blame Marxists for them. Because much more than anarchists, they have a tendency to obsessively stick to 19th century terms ...and then refuse to define them for everyone else, let alone adapt the more standard uses of the words.

And so instead of announcing that they're using a definition of the word "state" that absolutely no one else uses, they make fun of everybody else for not immediately understanding their meaning.

I can't count the amount of times on this board I've seen some Marxist insinuate that whomever they're debating with isn't up to political stuff merely because they're defining the word state to mean institutional government.

That's despite, of course, the fact that everybody uses the word state to mean institutional government

So here's an idea, how about from now on, whenever talking with someone who doesn't share your particular ideological sectarian persuasion, you agree to use words the way that they are most commonly understood.

That doesn't mean changing your conception on the nature of the state ... it just means been fucking decent.

[DeepWoodsJustice]

If Communism and Anarchy are the same thing in basic definition answer this, Anarcy defined by Webster dictionary is...a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. and communism is a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. how do you say these two theories are the same, because anarchy is the way we have no government at all, everything is ran by the people of the nation, while communism is a country, or nation, ran by one centralized government.

[Enragé]

well simply because


communism is a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state

is not true.
Communism is the ultimate goal of marxist theory, it is classless, and stateless, it is the same as anarchism.

[syndicat]

the meaning of words is determined by their actual use by the mass of ordinary speakers of the langauge. to most people "communism" refers to the sort of system that existed in the old Soviet Union and the other "Communist" countries. the old 19th century use of "communism" has been completely marginalized.

[Enragé]

and anarchy/anarchism means chaos for most people, now should we stop using that word as well?

[The Feral Underclass]

Malatesta actually propositioned that the term communism should be replaced with associationism because of it's bad history.

I'm not sure that I agree, simply because I think the word associationism is ugly. Essentially, does it really matter what it's called?

[Forward Union]

I think that if we called outrelves something different we'd just be accused of being "communists" and people would realise that, we have exactly the same politics.

[syndicat]

to the contrary, the word "communist" is very vague and has contradictory meanings. it only adds to our burden of explanation when talking to ordinary folks. and it isn't even clear what exactly communism is supposed to be, as an aim. the meaning of words is determined by the major mass of use by speakers of the language. here in the USA, anyway, "commumism" refers to what existed in the Soviet Union and the other "communist" countries, the politics advocated by the official Communist Parties and their offshoots.

i've never called myself a "communist" for these reasons. what i try to do is explain in ordinary language exactly what I'm for, and what I'm not for. if right wing jerkoffs accuse us of being "communist", the appropriate reply is to calmly say what one is for, and how that differs from what is ordinarily understood by the term "communism." This works for me.

[Janus]

The question of replacing communism with a new name has come up a couple times before.
Communism needs a new name (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35127&hl=workerism)

New term for communism? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=31446&hl=communalism)

I think the ideas behind a term are much more important and more focus should be placed on it than the name itself. Whether or not you want to call it workerism, proletarianism, communalism, etc. you're still going to have to discuss the ideas behind them and convince others to agree with these same ideas.

[DeepWoodsJustice]

so, what everyone is trying to say, im going to try to summarize what everyone has said, is that communism is basically a socialistic democracy? where everything is controlled by the people and ACTUALLY for the people? The only thing i still don't understand is how anarchy and ocmmunism are the same thing... only real part im confused about.

[Janus]

is that communism is basically a socialistic democracy?
Not sure what your definition of socialism but communism is a classless and stateless society.


where everything is controlled by the people and ACTUALLY for the people?
Yes, there is socialized production and distribution.


The only thing i still don't understand is how anarchy and ocmmunism are the same thing
Anarchists seek the end result as communists. An anarchistic society would operate on the same guidelines as a communist one so the two terms can be interchanged in this respect. However, anarchists and communists (mainly Marxists) do differ on strategy and the question of a transitional stage between the revolution itself and communism.

[DeepWoodsJustice]

OHHHH i see now, so communism and anrchy have the same goals, they will just reach it in different ways?

[Janus]

so communism and anrchy have the same goals, they will just reach it in different ways?
Yes, that's one of the divides between Marxists and anarchists.

[KC]

Some non-anarchist communists use the term 'state' to describe their preferred mode of transistional revolutionary organisation, some dont - how are anarchists at fault at all in that situation?

Because anarchists are stupid. Duh!



Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

Debates between anarchists and Communists often do come down to nothing more than the difference in political terminology, but there are very real ideological gulfs between the two schools of thought.

And in so far as those terminological differences, I may be biased here, but I tend to blame Marxists for them. Because much more than anarchists, they have a tendency to obsessively stick to 19th century terms ...and then refuse to define them for everyone else, let alone adapt the more standard uses of the words.

And so instead of announcing that they're using a definition of the word state that absolutely no one else uses, they make fun of everybody else for not immediately understanding their meaning.

I can't count the amount of times on this board. I've seen some Marxist insinuate that whoever they're debating with isn't up to political stuff merely because they're defining the word state to meet institutional government.

That's despite, of course, the fact that everybody uses the word state to mean institutional government

So here's an idea, how about from now on, whenever talking with someone who doesn't share your particular ideological sectarian persuasion, you agree to use words the way that they are most commonly understood.

That doesn't mean changing your conception on the nature of the state ... it just means been fucking decent.

I've found that most Marxists are so adament about the word "state" to define the dictatorship of the proletariat yet both Marx and Engels didn't really like using the word when describing it. I made a post about that here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65988&view=findpost&p=1292308887) which describes that Marx and Engels described the proletarian dictatorship as a state "not in the proper sense" and suggest that the word be replaced by community.

[syndicat]

Why do you keep treating Marx and Engels and Lenin like Holy Writ? Is politics a religion for you? Can't you engage contemporary society? Capitalism in the industrialzed countries has changed over time, and not all of Uncle Karl's ideas have held up. To engage with the existing society requires an ability to think for oneself.

[KC]

Why do you keep treating Marx and Engels and Lenin like Holy Writ? Is politics a religion for you?

Why do you keep treating Newton like Holy Writ? Is physics a religion for you?


Capitalism in the industrialzed countries has changed over time, and not all of Uncle Karl's ideas have held up.

Then point them out, o wise guru of politics.

[syndicat]

I don't mention Newton.

me: "Capitalism in the industrialzed countries has changed over time, and not all of Uncle Karl's ideas have held up."

Z:


Then point them out, o wise guru of politics.

Marx had not developed a theory of the coordinator class, which didn't really become a main class til the emergence of the corporate form of capitalism at the end of the 19th century, after Marx was dead.

Marx's view of the origins of genden inequality tends to be class reductionist.

[RevMARKSman]

Why do you keep treating Newton like Holy Writ? Is physics a religion for you?

Physics works. All the time. Physics can be shown to work. Physics can be mathematically proven.

Lenin in practice...well...not so much. I'm not talking about Russia either. You can't mathematically prove Trotsky's "Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam." mathematically. It's just an analogy.

[KC]

I don't mention Newton.

Well, I made the assumption you believe in Newtonian physics, which mostly everyone does, so my point stands.


Marx had not developed a theory of the coordinator class, which didn't really become a main class til the emergence of the corporate form of capitalism at the end of the 19th century, after Marx was dead.

You have said that "not all of Uncle Karl's ideas have held up" yet this doesn't show how any of his ideas "haven't held up". Try again.



Marx's view of the origins of genden inequality tends to be class reductionist.


This doesn't really mean anything. I want to see some specific quotes. Also, how is this relevant to anything I've posted here?

[syndicat]

Newtonian physics was falsified. That's why they moved on to relativity and quantum mechanics.

And Marx's writings don't comprise a science. Let me explain something about a science works. In a science there are a variety of relatively independent reseachers. They check each other's claims, try to refute them, and a consensus emerges only around those ideas that hold up.

What is the subject of Marx's writings? Political economy? His views are regarded as totally fringe, and even many radical economists don't accept Marx's views. Is his theory sociology? history? there is obviously no consensus in these fields in support of Marx's theories.

Marx's political economy is based on society being divided into a bi-polar opposition between labor and capital. These are the only two main classes in Marxism. A "main" class is a class around which an economy can be organized. But capitalism generated a third main class, the class of managers and top professionals. this class is defined by its relative monopolization of empowering conditions in social production, management jobs, other top professionals who have significant influence over production, such as lawyers, accountants, engineers, architects.

that this is a "main class" is shown by the fact it became the ruling class in the Soviet Union and the other "Communist" countries. this is a result that was not predicted by Marx's theory.

Marxism is merely an ideology. The legacy of the main political organizations that have defined themselves as Marxist is that of trying to get their paws on the apparatus of a state so that they could implement their idea of a centrally planned socialism from above, or in other words, a plan for the hierarchical management of labor. this approach cannot possibly liberate the working class from class oppression because it inevitably means the continued subordination of the working class to a coordinatorist elite. this makes Marxism internally selfcontradictory. in reality Marxism is a form of Left coordinatorism, that is, an ideology that empowers the coordinator class but under cover of leftist phrase-mongering which hides its real consequences even from its practitioners.

[Tiparith]

It is really common for communism to be mistaken for the Soviet Union which in my opinion bearly saw hints of communism. And I would like to say to all Anarchists. I'm told that you say we should have a revolution (probably violent) that in the end produces an institutional goverment that will have little purpose other then to hold the people together and retain progression. All the important decisions will be made by governing councils of much smaller regions. Is this correct?

I would also like to say that the only way I can imagine our world could save itself from resource deprevation and progress onward to expand is if there was a centrally planned industry and residential, etc. If we continue to place things where ever we want we won't have the resources to carry on.

[Tower of Bebel]

Wouldn't it be better to ask: how can communistis and anarchists work together? Wouldn't that be a good thread to work out a strategy?

[syndicat]

I would also like to say that the only way I can imagine our world could save itself from resource deprevation and progress onward to expand is if there was a centrally planned industry and residential, etc. If we continue to place things where ever we want we won't have the resources to carry on.

Central planning inevitbably gives rise to a techocratic elite class. That's because you have political apparatchiks at the top, and you have planning elite, they try to accumulate info about productive capacity and what consumers want and then issue orders for production. But they need bosses on site to make sure the plans are carried out. So say good bye to worker liberation from class subordination. And workers and managers will always lie to the planning authorities, and you end up with a system that can't really find out the facts about what people want, and all it expects is that people obey orders. In other words, you end abandoning self-management and you get an ineffiecent, ineffective economy.

Fortunately, there is an alternative. the alternative is participatory planning, based on negotiation between workers and consumers, and worker and community self-management. You can federate worker assemblies together and federate local neighborhood councils together, and thus get structures for making decisions that impact larger regions or whole countries. you don't need central planning.

[Boriznov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:45 pm
Wouldn't it be better to ask: how can communistis and anarchists work together? Wouldn't that be a good thread to work out a strategy?
Most authoritarian communists don't want to.


with this i mean leninists and the kind :)

[KC]

Newtonian physics was falsified. That's why they moved on to relativity and quantum mechanics.


Fine, then replace Newtonian physics with Einstein's relativity. Point still holds.



What is the subject of Marx's writings? Political economy? His views are regarded as totally fringe, and even many radical economists don't accept Marx's views.

Well, duh. Obviously theories that expose capitalist society for what it is and promote proletarian power are going to get dismissed by bourgeois economists and political scientists. Of course, this has nothing to do with whether or not his theories on political economy are correct or not.


Marx's political economy is based on society being divided into a bi-polar opposition between labor and capital. These are the only two main classes in Marxism. A "main" class is a class around which an economy can be organized. But capitalism generated a third main class, the class of managers and top professionals. this class is defined by its relative monopolization of empowering conditions in social production, management jobs, other top professionals who have significant influence over production, such as lawyers, accountants, engineers, architects.

I think you should go back and read Capital.


The legacy of the main political organizations that have defined themselves as Marxist is that of trying to get their paws on the apparatus of a state so that they could implement their idea of a centrally planned socialism from above, or in other words, a plan for the hierarchical management of labor.

Yeah that's exactly what the bolsheviks wanted to do from their founding. All of their work was to trick proletarians into supporting them. :rolleyes:


his approach cannot possibly liberate the working class from class oppression because it inevitably means the continued subordination of the working class to a coordinatorist elite. this makes Marxism internally selfcontradictory. in reality Marxism is a form of Left coordinatorism, that is, an ideology that empowers the coordinator class but under cover of leftist phrase-mongering which hides its real consequences even from its practitioners.

There's just no discussing anything with you is there? I don't even know why I bother with you; there's no hope for you of actually learning critical analysis. All I can do I guess is to tell you to stop talking because what you're saying is incredibly illogical.

[Janus]

Newtonian physics was falsified.
Fine, then replace Newtonian physics with Einstein's relativity. Point still holds.
Don't mean to get off topic but I don't think that most physicists would simply state that classical mechanics/Newtonian physics has been falsified in the scientific definition of the term as it is too much of a generalization. Classical mechanics is certainly inherently limited and thus is limited within the framework that Newton originally created it out of; this of course has led to new theories that are not only much more precise but can also correctly account for certain phenomenon that classical mechanics simply cannot. Still, it's not like anyone has simply tossed out the general basic guidelines/theories behind some of Newton's theories.