ANARCHISM IS...

[hajduk]

People you are show me that you most of very educational about the revolution,but explain to me is it the anarchism still some kind the system without system?

[Goatse]

No, anarchism is a lack of government.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

,but explain to me is it the anarchism still some kind the system without system?

Anarchism is communism.

A classless, stateless society which operates according to the maxim "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

[partizan604]

Anarchism is just a part of system, living by its own rules(maybe even its own system). Anarchism is just a contructive part of socialism. In some way it is a kind of socialism, just a way to destroy capitalism annd create socialism.

[Organic Revolution]

Anarchism is free associative anti-capitalism. It is anti-coercion, anti-hierarchy, and pro-people. Anarchists believe that any state (socialist or capitalist) is inherently dangerous and hierarchal.

[BreadBros]

Anarchism is a heterogeneous ideological movement so its impossible to pinpoint one particular definition.

In the broadest way, anarchism is an ideology that advocates the establishment of a communist society, just like Marxism. However, it differs significantly on how to get there. The historical main dispute (Bakunin vs. Marx) is over the question of the State and whether the state must be dismantled in any revolution, or taken over by the revolutionary proletariat. Anarchists are also critical of Leninism on various fronts. They disagree with Democratic Centralism (the organizational model of Leninist groups) for various reasons. They disagree with how the Russian revolution played out (See 'Kronstadt', Makhno, various disputes over the organization of the Soviet state, etc). They also differ (albeit less significantly) over how a communist society might operate, such as on coercion to work, etc. Thats a very broad definition and of the "main" branches of anarchism. The term "anarchism" is rather inclusive (for better or worse, depending on your POV) so I'm surely leaving out some branches and issues, but I think you get the idea.

[partizan604]

Anarchism in history looks like 3 subjects:
1)Anarchy and Wars (Makhno)
2)Anarchy Vs. Capitalism(Bakynin)
3)Anarchy Vs. Communism
So there are at least 3 types of anarchystic theories, each with it's own system, history etc

[BreadBros]

Well, those are 3 marks of distinction for anarchism. But I would disagree that they form their own history or system. Bakunin was not only an anti-capitalism but he also critiqued Marxism and wrote about revolutionary wars and goings-on in his time. Similarly, while writing about war Makhno was also an anti-capitalist and a critic of Lenin. So I think those might three key points for anarchism or marks of ideological distinction, but they are not separate, in fact they are completely inter-related.

[Leo]

I'm moving this thread to the Learning Forum. If anyone has any objections please let me know.

[hajduk]

i understand most of this but tell me people then why some not formal groups like punk musicians and skeenheads tok anarchism under own philosophy?

[Lamanov]

"Anarchism is not a beautiful utopia,
nor an abstract philosophical idea,
it is a social movement of the labouring masses"
–- Dyelo Truda Group

Go to: Infoshop - Anarchism FAQ (http://infoshop.org/faq/index.html)

[Rawthentic]

Is there really any significant anarchist movement in the world? I'm not being sectarian, just want to know.

P.S. : The Zapatistas are not anarchists.

[Idola Mentis]

Given the basic ideals of anarchism and communism, it looks to me like there's bound to be at least one important difference between a future anarchist-socialist society and a communist one.

All other ideologies I know of are willing to employ some sort of coercion to ensure citizen participation. Most anarchisms worthy of the name denies themselves this option. Any future anarchist society must therefore include space for a large number of communities organized according to ideals which are partly or completely in opposition to anarchism. I can't ever recall communists suggesting anything of the sort; community participation will apparently take place the communist way or not at all. This ideology is "total", not in the negative sense, but in the sense that it seeks to achieve a uniform standard of community/support structure participation. Maybe it could be called a "uniformist" or "monostructural" approach to organization? (I'm not good at neologisms :) Anarchism, however, must be pluralist; an anarchism which is not must necessarily evolve into liberalism or communism, both of which are willing to employ coercion - economical/structural in the former case, political in the latter.

I think some level of structural coercion is unavoidable - people who try to go physically, individually autonomous are generally mentally ill or eventually become so. People need some kind of community to live, and all communities sometimes need an individual to subordinate her own wishes to those of others, or those of the majority of the community. Some forms of community also enables other forms of coercion, some of which are completely unacceptable. While other ideologies have the will and means to destroy such communities, all anarchism can do is ensure that participation in such communities is truly voluntary, and attempt to disband or starve out forms of community in which participation cannot be voluntary (such as those which indoctrinate members from birth, corporations employing slave labor or economic coercion, and cult-type organizations).

[Niemand]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 06, 2007 04:11 pm
Is there really any significant anarchist movement in the world? I'm not being sectarian, just want to know.

P.S. : The Zapatistas are not anarchists.
How, exactly, are the Zapatistas not anarchists?

[coda]

Anarchism is Marx's final stage of communism realized, without the bullshit in between.

[Rawthentic]

Niemand, because they dont call themselves that. They are autonomists. There are anarchists, and communists, and all the shit in between that work with them.

nya, are you suggesting that communism is realizable without a transition period?

[coda]

<<nya, are you suggesting that communism is realizable without a transition period? >>

no. all change has transition. I am suggesting transition with a lot less bullshit involved.

[Rawthentic]

No, I agree with you.

I honestly wish as well that there would not be a counter-revolutionary force of millions hell-bent on regaining their power, or bourgeois elements within the proletarian vanguard, etc. But its harsh reality, and something that the worker&#39;s councils and popular assemblies (i.e. the proletarian state) will have to organize effectively to deal with.

[Tower of Bebel]

I have a question about anarchism and worker&#39;s councils. Does anarchism needs worker&#39;s councils?

[Labor Shall Rule]

To acknowledge that there will be a transitional period; a period that would raise the productive forces to a point where the crude and simplistic divisions of labor that have characterized all previously existing class-societies will be gradually abolished; a realization that the basic needs and wants of life can not be satisfied without struggle or even inconvenience, is to fall in agreement with Marx that there is certain historical factors that must be bypassed in order to reach our objective. It is, in other words, to conclude that historical materialism is theoretically correct, but with flowerly language covering it.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:17 pm
People you are show me that you most of very educational about the revolution,but explain to me is it the anarchism still some kind the system without system?
STOP WRITING ALL YOUR HEADLINES IN CAPS&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;111111

:D :D :D

[syndicat]

well, it&#39;s sort of a pointless question because "anarchism" doesn&#39;t have a single definition. nor do i understand what h. means by "system." there are certainly a number of anarchist visions of what a post-capitalist society would look like, if that&#39;s what you mean by "system". but there is not a single such vision that all people who call themselves "anarchists" agree to. also, it&#39;s necessary to look at this in an historical sense, of evolution of views or ideas over time or in a context. there was, for example, the vission developed by the huge Spanish anarcho-syndicalist labor movement in Spain in the &#39;30s, of industries managed by the workers, federated via worker congresses over larger and larger areas, and community assembly based local governing bodies which they called "free municipalities", and regional and national coordinating bodies for the economy and for social-self-defense (militia, people&#39;s courts), an egalitarian working class controlled militia to replace the army. the distinct roles for community and workplace councils derived from their understanding of the different, in practice, between concerns common to the whole working class in a community, and concerns specific to people who work in a particular industry. they also recognized the need for a unified militia to be able to militarily defend the revolution.

i would understand a "transition" period as having somewhat different tasks than those reddali specifies. i think that training and educating workers to be able to replace the professional/managerial hierarchy that is characteristic of corporations and the modern state would an essential task of the transition period. also, there is the basic problem of defense of the revolution in a period when a substantial minority of the population are willing to take action in opposition to the revolution.

i think it&#39;s a mistake to convert "productivity" into a religion. we have currently the capacity to produce without there being any deprivation, meeting people&#39;s needs for housing, food, and so on. the kinds of needs that will need to be addressed include an increase in time off from work, increased education, as I mentioned above, for people to take on more skilled tasks than many have done before, in a society where the old hierarchical division of labor is being dissolved, and issues of investment in communities that have particularly disinvested in (such as communities of color in the USA). People don&#39;t only want more "products", they want less environmental destruction, more meaningful work, having more of a say in their work and community.

[Comrade Rage]

No offense, but I have never met two anarchists who agree on what anarchism is EVER&#33; As a matter of fact, almost all of the anarchist meetings I have attended (I&#39;m a Communist, but I work with anarchists.) begin with a 40-minute tedious argument as to what anarchism is&#33; Considering this, how practical is it to believe that there will ever be a successful anarchist revolution?

[RGacky3]

Anarchism, in its broadest sence is more of a philosophy, a philosophy of anti-authority and anti-oppression, most anarchists see the main forces of authority and oppression being the State and Capitalism, it kind of is a system without a system in a way because of the Anarchist attitude toward self-management and self-rule of work places and communities, meaning each community and each work place might have a different system.


I have a question about anarchism and worker&#39;s councils. Does anarchism needs worker&#39;s councils?

Not neccesarily, but workers councils probably would be one of the better ways to go about things.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente Trabajadora+August 06, 2007 04:11 pm--> (Voz de la Gente Trabajadora @ August 06, 2007 04:11 pm) Is there really any significant anarchist movement in the world? I&#39;m not being sectarian, just want to know.

P.S. : The Zapatistas are not anarchists. [/b]
This is entirely the wrong question.

I think MJ_TC summed it up best with this quote:


MJ&#045;TC
"Anarchism is not a beautiful utopia,
nor an abstract philosophical idea,
it is a social movement of the labouring masses"
–- Dyelo Truda Group

There is no significant class movement anywhere in the world. A significant anarchist movement can&#39;t exist outside of a significant class movement.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:28 am

I have a question about anarchism and worker&#39;s councils. Does anarchism needs worker&#39;s councils?

Not neccesarily, but workers councils probably would be one of the better ways to go about things.
Workers&#39; councils are an essential part of the movement towards communism. They are not &#39;one of the better ways to go about things&#39;, but the working classes major tool in establishing its dictatorship.

Devrim

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Serpent+August 06, 2007 10:01 pm--> (Serpent @ August 06, 2007 10:01 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 02:17 pm
People you are show me that you most of very educational about the revolution,but explain to me is it the anarchism still some kind the system without system?
STOP WRITING ALL YOUR HEADLINES IN CAPS&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;111111

:D :D :D [/b]
okaaaaay :D :D

[hajduk]

so if i understand you wel anarchism is the some kind of the system?...becouse lot of people told me that anarchy is the socitey without the law......but you didnt answer me why the non official groups like punkers and skeenheads tok the anarchism under own ideology?

[Niemand]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 06, 2007 07:00 pm
Niemand, because they dont call themselves that. They are autonomists. There are anarchists, and communists, and all the shit in between that work with them.

nya, are you suggesting that communism is realizable without a transition period?
And yet, they have no state telling them what they can and can&#39;t do. The members on the councils are rotated every few weeks and corruption is thusly avoided. There are no bureaucracies, which can be witnessed in every socialist government and inevitably send it back to capitalism. Therefore they function in a rather anarchic fashion and their governing style can very well be described as anarchist.

[Rawthentic]

There governing style is not anarchist, because Mexico is still capitalist (at least I know that from last December when I went.)

And the state is fucking them around, thats why they are confined to Chiapas.

[RGacky3]

There governing style is not anarchist, because Mexico is still capitalist (at least I know that from last December when I went.)

And the state is fucking them around, thats why they are confined to Chiapas.

I don&#39;t think the Zapatistas are that ambitious, and Mexico might be Capitalist, but the areas that the Zapatistas control are not, you don&#39;t have to change a nation to change a communities situation.


Workers&#39; councils are an essential part of the movement towards communism. They are not &#39;one of the better ways to go about things&#39;, but the working classes major tool in establishing its dictatorship.

Devrim

Its not he only way to go about it, there are many Anarchists that don&#39;t think Workers councils are essential, you can&#39;t put your own ideas on a whole movement.


Considering this, how practical is it to believe that there will ever be a successful anarchist revolution?

Anarchists don&#39;t need to agree, thats the beauty of Anarchism :)


The Zapatistas are not Anarchists perse (in name that is), but many of the principles they follow are ones that many Anarchists follow, which is why many Anarchists support the Zapatistas. You don&#39;t have to be called Anarchist to have an Anarchists support :).

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:21 am

Workers&#39; councils are an essential part of the movement towards communism. They are not &#39;one of the better ways to go about things&#39;, but the working classes major tool in establishing its dictatorship.

Devrim

Its not he only way to go about it, there are many Anarchists that don&#39;t think Workers councils are essential, you can&#39;t put your own ideas on a whole movement.


True, there are some syndicalists who believe the unions can be the organs of workers&#39; power. Other than those syndicalist, and those who support the councils, any other anarchists are in my opinion a disgrace the the historic reputation of anarchism.

Devrim

[Rawthentic]

I don&#39;t think the Zapatistas are that ambitious, and Mexico might be Capitalist, but the areas that the Zapatistas control are not, you don&#39;t have to change a nation to change a communities situation.
Are you telling me that the regions that the EZLN control are not capitalist? :blink: Thats ridiculous, thats like saying socialism is possible in one country. Capitalism is a global system, and thus socialism and communism can only be global as well. The communities&#39; situations may be better, but they are still capitalist like the rest of the world.

[An archist]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 08, 2007 03:36 pm

I don&#39;t think the Zapatistas are that ambitious, and Mexico might be Capitalist, but the areas that the Zapatistas control are not, you don&#39;t have to change a nation to change a communities situation.
Are you telling me that the regions that the EZLN control are not capitalist? :blink: Thats ridiculous, thats like saying socialism is possible in one country. Capitalism is a global system, and thus socialism and communism can only be global as well. The communities&#39; situations may be better, but they are still capitalist like the rest of the world.
Are the workers in those areas exploited by their bosses?

[syndicat]

Its not he only way to go about it, there are many Anarchists that don&#39;t think Workers councils are essential, you can&#39;t put your own ideas on a whole movement.



True, there are some syndicalists who believe the unions can be the organs of workers&#39; power. Other than those syndicalist, and those who support the councils, any other anarchists are in my opinion a disgrace the the historic reputation of anarchism.

if a union is acting as a means of workers&#39; power, how is that different than a workers council? the USI in 1920, at the time of the occupation of the factories in Italy, said that the Turin factory council movement was a form of revolutionary industrial unionism. in either case, whether one calls it a "union" or "workers council", the idea is an industry-based worker power organ, built and controlled by workers.

there are some anarchists who advocate that society be built up around neighborhood assemblies, as in Bookchin&#39;s libertarian municipalism. but Bookchin rejected the whole idea of the class struggle. if you base your conception of the process of working class emancipation/empowerment on the class struggle, this naturally gives rise to the idea of workers building their own organizations of power, to eliminate/replace the power of boss classes.

of course, it is also possible to advocate both neighborhood assemblies and industry-based worker power organs -- that&#39;s what the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists did in the &#39;20s/&#39;30s. partly this was to deal with things like exclusion of women from most formal wage-labor in Spain in that era and a large informal economy (e.g. street vendors), and they also worried about the industrial unions getting too narrow a focus on their particular industry and losing sight of larger issues confronting the working class as a whole (housing, education, etc). they also did a lot of organizing through neighborhood-based centers.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:46 pm

Its not he only way to go about it, there are many Anarchists that don&#39;t think Workers councils are essential, you can&#39;t put your own ideas on a whole movement.



True, there are some syndicalists who believe the unions can be the organs of workers&#39; power. Other than those syndicalist, and those who support the councils, any other anarchists are in my opinion a disgrace the the historic reputation of anarchism.

if a union is acting as a means of workers&#39; power, how is that different than a workers council? the USI in 1920, at the time of the occupation of the factories in Italy, said that the Turin factory council movement was a form of revolutionary industrial unionism. in either case, whether one calls it a "union" or "workers council", the idea is an industry-based worker power organ, built and controlled by workers.

I think that there are differences. I don&#39;t really want to argue them here though as they are a bit off topic.

I didn&#39;t suggest that the syndicalists though were a disgrace to the historic reputation of anarchism.


there are some anarchists who advocate that society be built up around neighborhood assemblies, as in Bookchin&#39;s libertarian municipalism. but Bookchin rejected the whole idea of the class struggle.

I think that sort of proves my point.

Devrim

[RGacky3]

True, there are some syndicalists who believe the unions can be the organs of workers&#39; power. Other than those syndicalist, and those who support the councils, any other anarchists are in my opinion a disgrace the the historic reputation of anarchism.

Devrim

That may be the case but thats just your opinion, although it may be valid other Anarchists have their opinoins.


QUOTE (Voz de la Gente Trabajadora @ August 08, 2007 03:36 pm)
QUOTE
I don&#39;t think the Zapatistas are that ambitious, and Mexico might be Capitalist, but the areas that the Zapatistas control are not, you don&#39;t have to change a nation to change a communities situation.


Are you telling me that the regions that the EZLN control are not capitalist? Thats ridiculous, thats like saying socialism is possible in one country. Capitalism is a global system, and thus socialism and communism can only be global as well. The communities&#39; situations may be better, but they are still capitalist like the rest of the world.


Are the workers in those areas exploited by their bosses?

Exactly, plain and simple, I think that statemeny might be to plain and simple for Voz de la Gente, try and think of a way to say it with more Materialistic Analytical Dialect representing class struggle and vanguardism :P. seriously, why can&#39;t some people here just look at things for what they are, rather than try put everything in ideological terms :P.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:14 pm
That may be the case but thats just your opinion, although it may be valid other Anarchists have their opinoins.

Yes, that&#39;s anarchy man... :rolleyes:
Devrim

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:42 am
so if i understand you wel anarchism is the some kind of the system?...becouse lot of people told me that anarchy is the socitey without the law......but you didnt answer me why the non official groups like punkers and skeenheads tok the anarchism under own ideology?
To answer your question anarchism is a form of society that would be highly organized. The difference between that and our current society is that an anarchist society would be non-hierarchical. That means no presidents of a section of land telling people what is going to happen. It would mean that the people who live in that area get to decide on how it is run and what not.

So yes I guess it can be called a system. A system of freedom and masterless living.