are utopian socialist still around?

[R_P_A_S]

is this still a practice doctrine or belief? or whatever the hell it was consider?
or did It die out after Marx debunked it?

and if its still some utopian socialist. what are they call now?

[BobKKKindle$]

They are still around - we call them Anarchists. I say this not because I am sectarian, but because I contend that rejecting the need for a state, by which is simply meant a body of armed men that acts as an agent of class oppression, one is being utopian, in that one is showing an utter disregard for material conditions and necessities. Democratic Socialists could also be considered utopian, as a belief that the economic structure of society can be changed without some form of struggle rejects the lessons of history and the clear force of class division and the antagonisms that derive from this division.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 09:46 am
They are still around - we call them Anarchists. I say this not because I am sectarian, but because I contend that rejecting the need for a state, by which is simply meant a body of armed men that acts as an agent of class oppression, one is being utopian, in that one is showing an utter disregard for material conditions and necessities.
Don't they teach you anything in the SWP these days?

I think the vast majority of anarchists* today would agree that 'a body of armed men that acts as an agent of class oppression' is necessary, whether they would call it a state, or not is another point. They probably would also state the term class oppression more subtly too.

I think this just sounds like a cheap unthought-through jibe.

Devrim

*Of course by this I mean real anarchists, not hippy individualist lifestylists. They would be disqualified from utopian socialism on the socialist grounds though.

[BobKKKindle$]

I think the vast majority of anarchists* today would agree that 'a body of armed men that acts as an agent of class oppression' is necessary, whether they would call it a state, or not is another point.

My A Dictionary of Marxist Thought [Page 520] defines the state as "...the institution...whose function is to maintain and defend class domination and exploitation" and draws attention to Chapter 9 of Origin of the Family in which Engels supports this conception of the state, and Lenin's State and Revolution, in which Lenin evaluates the means by which the state maintains class rule. If you support ''a body of armed men that acts as an agent of class oppression" you therefore support the existence of a state - and since opposition to the state under all circumstances is what distinguishes Anarchism as a political ideology from Marxism, the 'vast majority' of Anarchists are not actually Anarchists at all, but simply people who do not actually understand what Marxists mean when they propose a state.

On a similar note, Anarchists also voice full opposition to 'Authoritarianism' - this denies the reality of revolution as a political act and is also in opposition to what Anarchists have done historically. I quote Socialist Worker:


He [In reference to Baukinin] travelled to the French city of Lyons the year before the Paris Commune to put himself at the head of a short lived uprising. He announced that the state was "abolished" and with it all "authoritarianism". He then called for capital punishment for anyone who "interfered in any way whatsoever" with the new society he and his 20 supporters had declared! The death penalty is, of course, a highly authoritarian act. - http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/archive/1747/sw174715.htm

The same is also true of the concept of a Vanguard party, defined simply as the most class conscious section of the proletariat organised as a formal political body. Anarchists constitute a 'vanguard' whenever they undertake any form of political action, even something that could be considered insignificant such as posting flyers, as they are demonstrating their superior understanding of capitalism and class society and are trying to engage with the broader proletariat in order to develop class consciousness.

In conclusion, Anarchism is a set of utopian, and really rather muddled ideas.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by bobkindles+September 01, 2007 10:38 am--> (bobkindles @ September 01, 2007 10:38 am) In conclusion, Anarchism is a set of utopian, and really rather muddled ideas. [/b]
Well, yes in my opinion, anarchism is often confused. That doesn't mean that you are right to criticise it for what it is not.


Originally posted by bobkindles+--> (bobkindles)The same is also true of the concept of a Vanguard party, defined simply as the most class conscious section of the proletariat organised as a formal political body. Anarchists constitute a 'vanguard' whenever they undertake any form of political action, even something that could be considered insignificant such as posting flyers, as they are demonstrating their superior understanding of capitalism and class society and are trying to engage with the broader proletariat in order to develop class consciousness.[/b]

Well in fact the 'Platformists', who I would say constitute one of the two main currents of anarchism today (the other one being anarchosyndicalism) are quite clear on this:


Originally posted by Organisational Platform
of the Libertarian Communists
Born out of the mass of the labour people, the General Union [of anarchists]must take part in all the manifestations of their life, bringing to them on every occasion the spirit of organisation, perseverance and offensive. Only in this way can it fulfil its task, its theoretical and historical mission in the social revolution of labour, and become the organised vanguard of their emancipating process.


Originally posted by bobkindles
My A Dictionary of Marxist Thought [Page 520] defines the state as "...the institution...whose function is to maintain and defend class domination and exploitation" and draws attention to Chapter 9 of Origin of the Family in which Engels supports this conception of the state, and Lenin's State and Revolution, in which Lenin evaluates the means by which the state maintains class rule. If you support ''a body of armed men that acts as an agent of class oppression" you therefore support the existence of a state - and since opposition to the state under all circumstances is what distinguishes Anarchism as a political ideology from Marxism, the 'vast majority' of Anarchists are not actually Anarchists at all, but simply people who do not actually understand what Marxists mean when they propose a state.

Your main argument here seems to be based on the fact that define terms differently than your 'A Dictionary of Marxist Thought', and don't agree with your definitions, hardly surprising seen as they are anarchists.


[email protected]
He [In reference to Baukinin] travelled to the French city of Lyons the year before the Paris Commune to put himself at the head of a short lived uprising. He announced that the state was "abolished" and with it all "authoritarianism". He then called for capital punishment for anyone who "interfered in any way whatsoever" with the new society he and his 20 supporters had declared! The death penalty is, of course, a highly authoritarian act.

I would suggest that before you criticise anarchism, you acquaint yourself with what it actually is today instead of reading the SWP's stale criticism of anarchism more than one hundred years ago. It is a bit like criticising Marx for being a social democrat for calling for:


Marx
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

Well in fact the 'Platformists', who I would say constitute one of the two main currents of anarchism today (the other one being anarchosyndicalism) are quite clear on this:


Your main argument here seems to be based on the fact that define terms differently than your 'A Dictionary of Marxist Thought', and don't agree with your definitions, hardly surprising seen as they are anarchists.

So if you agree with the concept of a Vanguard, and agree with the meaning and implications of a state in a post-revolutionary society (if not the actual term itself) what makes Anarchism any different from 'other' forms of Socialism that consistently argue for a state and have a full understanding of what a state means? Please explain to me the areas in which you, as an Anarchist, disagree with Marxism(-Leninism) and explain what you would consider to be a better alternative course of action of form of analysis.

Again, if you support 'bodies of armed men' then what do you understand by the term state? Some Anarchists I have spoken to in the past suggest that the way in which these bodies are organised is or importance, and have drawn attention to the concept of a 'monopoly on the legitimate use of force' as a characteristic of the state - would you agree with this?


I would suggest that before you criticise anarchism, you acquaint yourself with what it actually is today instead of reading the SWP's stale criticism of anarchism more than one hundred years ago.

Right. So, in the context of that quote, do you think Baukinin's decision was inconsistent with the principles of Anarchism? Again, let us return to the question of definitions; what do Anarchists define as authoritarian? To what lengths would Anarchists be prepared to go to ensure workers' power and the suppression of the bourgeoisie?

I have never read an Anarchist text or seen a book that clearly defines what these important terms mean from an Anarchist perspective. That in itself is indicative of the simplistic analysis (or lack thereof) that is typical of Anarchism.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by bobkindles+--> (bobkindles)Please explain to me the areas in which you, as an Anarchist, disagree with Marxism(-Leninism)[/b]

Bob, I am not an anarchist. I am merely pointing out that what you are criticisng is not what anarchism is. I think the fact that I say they are often confused, and I refer to them as 'they' should have made this clear.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Again, if you support 'bodies of armed men' then what do you understand by the term state? Some Anarchists I have spoken to in the past suggest that the way in which these bodies are organised is or importance, and have drawn attention to the concept of a 'monopoly on the legitimate use of force' as a characteristic of the state - would you agree with this?

...
Right. So, in the context of that quote, do you think Baukinin's decision was inconsistent with the principles of Anarchism? Again, let us return to the question of definitions; what do Anarchists define as authoritarian? To what lengths would Anarchists be prepared to go to ensure workers' power and the suppression of the bourgeoisie?

Take it up with anarchists not me.


bobkindles
I have never read an Anarchist text or seen a book that clearly defines what these important terms mean from an Anarchist perspective. That in itself is indicative of the simplistic analysis (or lack thereof) that is typical of Anarchism.

Actually, I think it is indicative of your lack of knowledge of anarchism, which was my original point.

Devrim

[Janus]

is this still a practice doctrine or belief? or whatever the hell it was consider?
or did It die out after Marx debunked it?
The term "utopian socialist" was/is used to specifically refer to a trend of socialism which existed in the early 19th century.


and if its still some utopian socialist. what are they call now?
There are still various religious and hippy communal experiments that are still around today which could be considered "utopian socialists" though they are generally very small and shortlived.

[RedCommieBear]

I'd say that utopian socialism lives on in two forms: the hippy communes that Janus mentioned, and some members of the co-op movement. The ones who believe that we should set up socialism in a single workplace, and build steps towards living outside the capitalist system. Co-ops are great, raise levels of class conciousness, and can make good examples of workerplace democracy, but it'd be pretty impossible overtaking capitalism one business at a time.

[phoenixoftime]

Anyone heard about venture-communism? That would probably qualify as utopian socialist.