Anarchism vs Communism

[The Advent of Anarchy]

:A: ANARCHISM vs COMMUNISM :hammer:
Self-Debate Essay and Script


Communist: Now, we, as in I, have been a communist for exactly one year now. I, as in we, as in me and you, which is just one person (confused yet? IT'S A DEBATE BETWEEN COMMIE ME AND ANARCHME!), have learned alot and developed our/my political beliefs. Yet, you, anarchist Me, want to just sweep by and take over the Brain, Correct?

Anarchist: Yes. :D

Communist: Bastard. Anyways, let's get into a debate which might be as long as five years, while we beat ourselves up for not focusing on classwork while we work at McDonalds. Communism is clearly better, and Anarchism is, while good intentioned, destined to fail.

Anarchist: Why is that?

Communist: You do not recognize the need for a transitional period. There isn't a human nature, we can agree on that entirely, however, people can't just switch from one thought process to another. Things take time, and because of that, Marx recognized that a transition period is needed. The Capitalist State is overthrown when the Revolution is successful, however, remnants of the old Capitalist state still remain. Small, disorganized (or not) pieces of the old Bourgeois class remain, and there needs to be a central vanguard to help destroy those remnants, and lead the path to the society we work for: Communism.

Anarchist: Marx is a genius. He has worked these transitional phases out so well, it seems as though it's too perfect to work. Well, it is. It's a good theory, but then again, we've seen what that theory has brought about. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. You know why they are so prominent above everyone else in your vanguard? They are the leaders of the Transitional State. Obviously, not proletarian leaders, but representatives of the proletariat. Also, if the Masses were so revolutionary that they'd insurrect the State, wouldn't they smash what's left of the society they despised, hated, loathed, and suffered in? It seems to me that Marx did not put that into account. Also, if the masses were revolutionary, they already have the mindset needed to create the society they want so much. Call that society what you want, communist or anarcho-collectivist, but they want it, and if they believe in it to the point that they would actually kill and be willing to sacrifice their lives for it, they're obviously ready for the society where we are all held in common and free.

Communist: What you don't realise is that we need a vanguard organization. Organization is key; without a leader, and of course, the vanguard, the revolution collapses. I can use anarchist revolutions as a direct example---

Anarchist: Hey, I can use the collapse of Marxism-Leninism as a force EVERYWHERE as a direct example too. Be careful. However, I do see your beliefs. However, our Anarchist revolutions succeeded for a time.

Communist: Yes, for a time. However, within the first three years of Anarchist Catalon, it collapsed and was soon under control of the Fascist scum Francisco Franco.

Anarchist: Yeah, but we organized as a people, not as a small elite group, and put up one of the bloodiest battles of the Spanish Civil War before we went down. Also, Leninists had corrupted Anarchist Catalon, and weakened it. If it wasn't for you damn Leninists, Anarchist Catalon might have survived, and the territory might've spread.

Communist: Highly unlikely. However, I haven't seen any Anarchist Revolutions. You've only had one revolution, and that was the Spanish Revolution. We still have revolutions going on in Nepal, India, Latin America, and in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where are your revolts?

Anarchist: You do realise there are Anarchists revolting in Greece, right?

Communist: Oh my god, one damn country! :rolleyes: I repent!

Anarchist: Ah, also, if you can count petty violence, the RAAN in the US---

Communist: I don't.

Anarchist: Alright. *surfs wikipedia for answers*

Communist: WEEEAAAK! :D

[RedAnarchist]

Sorry, but I don't understand why you've posted this.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:46 pm
Sorry, but I don't understand why you've posted this.
1. Just in case anyone wants a communist/anarchist argument to read, and want to see both sides of the argument come together and argue, all the while be weirded out that this is actually a guy arguing with himself.

2. I sometimes lose track of my train of thought, and this is a good place to keep note.

3. People can comment and interject into this argument and, in all probability, get into arguments with each other.

4. Because I'm awesome.

5. Every list needs a five. IT'S NEEDED!

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by MilitantVL+November 11, 2007 10:54 pm--> (MilitantVL @ November 11, 2007 10:54 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 10:46 pm
Sorry, but I don't understand why you've posted this.
1. Just in case anyone wants a communist/anarchist argument to read, and want to see both sides of the argument come together and argue, all the while be weirded out that this is actually a guy arguing with himself.

2. I sometimes lose track of my train of thought, and this is a good place to keep note.

3. People can comment and interject into this argument and, in all probability, get into arguments with each other.

4. Because I'm awesome.

5. Every list needs a five. IT'S NEEDED! [/b]
Good reasons :lol:

[The Advent of Anarchy]

I'll continue posting my mental argument later on.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Posted more stuff.

[apathy maybe]

It is an interesting debate, and I look forward to seeing where it goes.

This quote

Anarchist: Marx is a genius. He has worked these transitional phases out so well, it seems as though it's too perfect to work. Well, it is. It's a good theory, but then again, we've seen what that theory has brought about. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. You know why they are so prominent above everyone else in your vanguard? They are the leaders of the Transitional State. Obviously, not proletarian leaders, but representatives of the proletariat. Also, if the Masses were so revolutionary that they'd insurrect the State, wouldn't they smash what's left of the society they despised, hated, loathed, and suffered in? It seems to me that Marx did not put that into account. Also, if the masses were revolutionary, they already have the mindset needed to create the society they want so much. Call that society what you want, communist or anarcho-collectivist, but they want it, and if they believe in it to the point that they would actually kill and be willing to sacrifice their lives for it, they're obviously ready for the society where we are all held in common and free.I particularly liked.

And as for this,

Communist: Highly unlikely. However, I haven't seen any Anarchist Revolutions. You've only had one revolution, and that was the Spanish Revolution. We still have revolutions going on in Nepal, India, Latin America, and in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where are your revolts?There are a number of rebuttals. There first is, that it doesn't matter how many revolutions there are, none of them are for communism, but rather for Leninism. Centralism, not democracy.
The second is, from Marx himself. It is obvious that the contradictions in capitalism are not so obvious that people are becoming sick of it. When people are revolutionary, there will be a revolution, and it won't be a Leninist one, it will be a mass movement. A third one, lets look at Nepal and India... Can you say reformism?

Anyway, good work!

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 12, 2007 09:45 am
It is an interesting debate, and I look forward to seeing where it goes.

This quote

Anarchist: Marx is a genius. He has worked these transitional phases out so well, it seems as though it's too perfect to work. Well, it is. It's a good theory, but then again, we've seen what that theory has brought about. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. You know why they are so prominent above everyone else in your vanguard? They are the leaders of the Transitional State. Obviously, not proletarian leaders, but representatives of the proletariat. Also, if the Masses were so revolutionary that they'd insurrect the State, wouldn't they smash what's left of the society they despised, hated, loathed, and suffered in? It seems to me that Marx did not put that into account. Also, if the masses were revolutionary, they already have the mindset needed to create the society they want so much. Call that society what you want, communist or anarcho-collectivist, but they want it, and if they believe in it to the point that they would actually kill and be willing to sacrifice their lives for it, they're obviously ready for the society where we are all held in common and free.I particularly liked.

And as for this,

Communist: Highly unlikely. However, I haven't seen any Anarchist Revolutions. You've only had one revolution, and that was the Spanish Revolution. We still have revolutions going on in Nepal, India, Latin America, and in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where are your revolts?There are a number of rebuttals. There first is, that it doesn't matter how many revolutions there are, none of them are for communism, but rather for Leninism. Centralism, not democracy.
The second is, from Marx himself. It is obvious that the contradictions in capitalism are not so obvious that people are becoming sick of it. When people are revolutionary, there will be a revolution, and it won't be a Leninist one, it will be a mass movement. A third one, lets look at Nepal and India... Can you say reformism?

Anyway, good work!
Booh!!

This anarchist here answers like someone who knows nothing of materialism and this communist here is giving every revolution the label of a communist one to prove his own statements.

[Raúl Duke]

What about the anarchists that are also communists? :P


Anarchist Catalon,

it's Catalonia.
Accurately, it's called Catalu~a (~ is usually used to symbolize the n with the ~ on top)


Highly unlikely. (referring to the Leninists actions in Catalonia)

That's not an argument, thats just brushing the topic aside.


We still have revolutions going on in Nepal, India, Latin America, and in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where are your revolts?

However, the question is, are they really going to succeed in the long-run?

As a communist, like I'm (of the anarchist variety), you would know that the revolution to create the transitional state does not signify victory only reaching communism is since that is our end-goal; unless you are a socialist (or "state-capitalist").

Leninist are as much failures (or more so, since they had so many tries of reaching communism through a transitional vanguard state and failed in all except maybe Cuba which is drifting.) as anarchists in this respect. (If any of us were actually victorious in the past/recently than we would have had communism before or in our time.)


Communist: What you don't realise is that we need a vanguard organization. Organization is key; without a leader, and of course, the vanguard, the revolution collapses. I can use anarchist revolutions as a direct example---

You are forgetting the failure of the Communist Part(ies) in Germany around the end of WWI.Even with the leadership those revolutions (which Lenin depended on succeeding) didn't succeed. There was even a short lived socialist republic in Hungary during the time (I think.).

Also, before WWII, the Communists were unable to stop the fascists in Germany and Italy....



Anarchist: Alright. *surfs wikipedia for answers*

Communist: WEEEAAAK! biggrin.gif

LOL :lol:

(Although you forgot Ukraine and maybe the Paris Commune.)

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 11:13 pm
What about the anarchists that are also communists? :P


Anarchist Catalon,

it's Catalonia.
Accurately, it's called Catalu~a (~ is usually used to symbolize the n with the ~ on top)

Way off-topic, but to write a letter with a Spanish accent, you hold alt and then type in a three digit number using the keypad at the right-hand side of the keyboard (num lock has to be on) -

á 160 ¿ 168
é 130 ¡ 173
í 161 ª 166
ó 162 º 167
ú 163 Ñ 164
É 144 ñ 165

[The Advent of Anarchy]

What about the anarchists that are also communists?

He comes in later and everyone gets so confused their heads explode.

[Herman]

Here's my conversation with CommunistME and AnarchistME:

Communist: Hey man.

Anarchist: What's up?

Communist: Smoking some crack, want some?

Anarchist: Dude, solidarity rules.

Communist: Should we work together to transform the current social order?

Anarchist: Let's.


The point? March separately, but strike together.

[commune]

Too true RedHerman we need some unity if we're ever going to succeed- the 20th century taught us that much.

--Good topic :D --

[Revolucija]

The topic title is absurd, and text is totally messed up.

;)

[Raúl Duke]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:04 pm

What about the anarchists that are also communists?

He comes in later and everyone gets so confused their heads explode.
:D :lol: :D
:)


Way off-topic, but to write a letter with a Spanish accent, you hold alt and then type in a three digit number using the keypad at the right-hand side of the keyboard (num lock has to be on)

True, but I've seen people on message boards, e-mails, etc just use the ~ when they want to refer to ñ.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by Rakunin+November 12, 2007 12:29 pm--> (Rakunin @ November 12, 2007 12:29 pm)
apathy [email protected] 12, 2007 09:45 am
It is an interesting debate, and I look forward to seeing where it goes.

This quote

Anarchist: Marx is a genius. He has worked these transitional phases out so well, it seems as though it's too perfect to work. Well, it is. It's a good theory, but then again, we've seen what that theory has brought about. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. You know why they are so prominent above everyone else in your vanguard? They are the leaders of the Transitional State. Obviously, not proletarian leaders, but representatives of the proletariat. Also, if the Masses were so revolutionary that they'd insurrect the State, wouldn't they smash what's left of the society they despised, hated, loathed, and suffered in? It seems to me that Marx did not put that into account. Also, if the masses were revolutionary, they already have the mindset needed to create the society they want so much. Call that society what you want, communist or anarcho-collectivist, but they want it, and if they believe in it to the point that they would actually kill and be willing to sacrifice their lives for it, they're obviously ready for the society where we are all held in common and free.I particularly liked.

And as for this,

Communist: Highly unlikely. However, I haven't seen any Anarchist Revolutions. You've only had one revolution, and that was the Spanish Revolution. We still have revolutions going on in Nepal, India, Latin America, and in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where are your revolts?There are a number of rebuttals. There first is, that it doesn't matter how many revolutions there are, none of them are for communism, but rather for Leninism. Centralism, not democracy.
The second is, from Marx himself. It is obvious that the contradictions in capitalism are not so obvious that people are becoming sick of it. When people are revolutionary, there will be a revolution, and it won't be a Leninist one, it will be a mass movement. A third one, lets look at Nepal and India... Can you say reformism?

Anyway, good work!
Booh!!

This anarchist here answers like someone who knows nothing of materialism and this communist here is giving every revolution the label of a communist one to prove his own statements. [/b]
He's a Maoist sympathizing Marxist Leninist. There are many MLM and ML Revolutions out there where he named.

[Sky]

Anarchism is a petit bourgeois social and political current hostile to proletarian scientific socialism. Its basic idea is the rejection of all state power and the doctrine of the totally unlimited freedom of each individual person. Anarchism proclaims as its ultimate goal a free federation of small, autonomous associations of producers; thus, anarchists preach a crude, primitive leveling. Anarchism regards any state (even a state that is implementing the dictatorship of the proletariat) as the primal cause of all social injustices and proposes to abolish the state as a first step toward creating a new society. Thus, anarchists reject all authority (not only state authority), reject social discipline and the necessity of the minority’s submission to the majority, and oppose the political struggle of the working class and the organization of workers into a political party.

Along with the petit bourgeoisie, the social base of anarchism includes the déclassé elements, the lumpenproletariat. At the same time, though determined criticism of the defects of bourgeois society, as well as the reformism and concilliationism waged by some of its representatives, anarchism attracts a certain stratum of participants of the revolutionary movement. Anarchism played a well known role in stimulating protest among the working masses against exploitation. But with the development of the workers movement, anarchism, which led workers along the wrong path, began objectively to obstruct the proletariat’s class struggle against the bourgeoisie.

With respect othe state, Lenin indicated three basic distinctions between Marxism and anarchism: (1) Marxists, “…while setting as their goal the complete abolition of the state, recognize that this goal can be achieved only after the elimination of classes by the socialist revolution, as the result of the establishment of socialism, which would lead to the withering away of the state”; anarchists “…want the complete abolition of the state overnight, without understanding the conditions under which this is possible”; (2) Marxists “…consider it necessary that the proletariat, in winning political power, completely destroy the old state machinery and replace it with a new one…; “anarchists…reject the use of state authority by the revolutionary proletariat and its revolutionary dictatorship”; Marxists “…demand the preparation for the revolution through the utilization of the contemporary state; anarchists reject this” (5th ed., vol.33, pp.112-13”)

Marx and Engels exposed the theoretical flimsiness and social nature of anarchism. In the first international they struggled persistently against Proudhonism, whose advocates sought to perpetuate the small, splintered system of production. After it was destroyed, they struggled against Bakunun and his followers, who reduced revolution to “spontaneous action”—that is, the spontaneous rebellion of the masses, primarily declassed elements and the peasantry.

In the second half of the 19th century, anarchists seriously harmed the socialist movement with their “direct action” (terrorist acts and sabotage) and opposition to political struggle and the proletariat’s political party. Anarchists attempted to disorganize the work of the Second International, which expelled them from its ranks in 1891. The dissatisfaction of the working class with the opportunistic policies of Social Democratic leaders aided the spread of anarchist moods even among a portion of the working class. During these years, the works of Lenin directed against anarchistic and right-wing opportunistic distortions of proletarian theory and tactics, were important in the ideological struggle against anarchism. During World War I, many anarchist leaders (Herve, Kropotkin, and others) maintained a chauvinistic position in direct contradiction to the antimilitarist doctrines which they had advanced earlier.

After the October Revolution, anarchism in the Soviet Republic lost its class basis; it degenerated into a counterrevolutionary current and was liquidated in the 1920s. During the upsurge in the revolutionary struggle of the working class, anarchism deteriorated in other countries. The only country in which anarchism continued to hold perceptible influence was Spain, where in 1926 an anarchist political organization, the Federation of Anarchists of Iberia was established. During the National Revolutionary War in Spain in 1936-39, some anarchists and their leaders rejected the necessity of revolutionary discipline during the war. They withdrew certain units from the fronts, arranged rowdy disturbances and provocations in the rear, and demanded “immediate revolution” and “libertarian communism” (that is, communism free from state power). These actions weakened the Spanish Republic.

After World War II, anarchists have shown activity only in Spain, Italy, and certain Latin American countries. Congresses of anarchists held periodically in France have been extremely small.

A segment of the Populists was under the influence of Bakunin’s ideas in the 1870s. Characteristic features of anarchism in that period were the denial of the necessity for political struggle against the government, the rejection of parliamenterism, faith in the socialist “instincts” of the peasantry, faith in the peasant commune as the basis of socialism, and the belief in an imminent social revolution in Russia which would allegedly result from a general peasant uprising.

Bakunun persuaded youth of the and inxhasutible revolutionary attitude of the peasant masses, believing that “it required no effort to incite a given village” to rebellion. Under Bakunin’s influence, a contumacious Bakuninist current developed in the revolutionary Populist movement of the 1870s. In the 1870s, anarchism expressed the interests of the petite bourgeoisie and part of the peasantry. “Going to the people” showed the futility of the Russian anarchists’ hopes that the peasantry was ready for revolution. The contradictions inherent in Bakunun’s doctrine were revealed. In the 1870s, anarchism was able “…to develop with extraordinary luxuriance and reveal its ultimate incorrecntess and unsuitability to serve as the guiding theory for the revolutionary class. In the 1880s anarchism played no role in the Russian liberation movement.

At the turn of the 20th century, Kropotkin emerged as an ideoilogist of anarchism. His works Anarchy, Its philosophy, Its Ideal and Anarchy and Its Place in the Socialist Revolution appeared in 1906. Anarchism’s social base was the backward strata of the working class and the petite bourgeoisie in this period.

During the 1905-07 revolution, anarchist groups appeared in all the large industrial centers, especially in southern Russia, and in the fleet. But their influence was negligible. Lenin, nothing the harm of the anarchists’ theoretical views and their tactics for the proletariat wrote in December 1905: “…We will use every means of ideological struggle in order to ensure that the influence of the anarchists on Russian workers remains as negligible as it has been up to this point. Along with the Mensheviks, anarchists in 1906-07 propagandized the summing of a nonparty “workers’ congress.” The 5th Congress of the RSDLP adopted a special resolution declaring such a congress useless. A number of trends developed among the anarchists at this time: the khleb I volia faction, which rejected expropriation and acknowledged the usefulness of workers’ organizations; the “anarchosyndicalists”, who regarded syndicates—the organization of workers into trade unions on the basis of their professional interest—as units of the future stateless society, and the “leaderless” and “black flag” factions who stressed terror and exproporation. Almost all the anarchist groups were smashed by the police.

In large measure, the anarchist movement of 1917 amounted to exproprations and terrorism. Bandits and adventurists acted in the guise of anarchists and helped to compromise anarchism completely as a political trend. The October Revolution, which deprived the bourgeoisie of political rights, eliminated the grounds for anarchist agitation. During the Civil war, armed anarchist bands fought against Soviet power. The All-Russian Organization of Anarchists of the Underground formed in Moscow in 1919. It committed a series of terrorist acts. on September 25, 1919, it blew up the building of the Moscow Committee of the Russian Communist Party on Leontevsky Pereulok.