ABCs of Anarchism

[AGITprop]

I do not claim to know much about anarchists. I'm a Marxist, who understands Marxist ideas of revolution and post revolution but i want to hear from some anarchists what is there take on how revolution should occur and how they belive society should be organized post revolution.This thread is not intended to start any arguments, i simply want to read some different views.

[FireFry]

You're a trotskyist, who believes that society has matured far enough to be organised into a state-structure. But it hasn't. You believe that because libertarians are often capitalists, that libertarianism is nonsense and that liberties altogether should be abandoned for the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is typically just the dictatorship of the leninists or bolsheviks.

People still get offended by simple words like "nigger", "communist", "fascist", etc...

This site is chock of full of leninist and trotskyist clones.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There really isn't one way that society will be structured "post revolution". That's the whole beauty of anarchism, in the first place: flexibility.

[FireFry]

I guess what I mean is that anarchism means no state or no rule. When we have collective ownership of production with an educated democratic working class that produce with an educated population in general, then we can have a communist organisation of production.

We'd still have property and we'd probably need a fair way of distributing commodities, but we'd assume that people would just take what they know they need and leave behind what they don't. But this is a generous assumption, most people aren't prepared for this.

[AGITprop]

You're a trotskyist, who believes that society has matured far enough to be organised into a state-structure. But it hasn't. You believe that because libertarians are often capitalists, that libertarianism is nonsense and that liberties altogether should be abandoned for the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is typically just the dictatorship of the leninists or bolsheviks.

People still get offended by simple words like "nigger", "communist", "fascist", etc...

This site is chock of full of leninist and trotskyist clones.
Im not here to defend my position but to learn the anarchists position,

[AGITprop]

I guess what I mean is that anarchism means no state or no rule. When we have collective ownership of production with an educated democratic working class that produce with an educated population in general, then we can have a communist organisation of production.

We'd still have property and we'd probably need a fair way of distributing commodities, but we'd assume that people would just take what they know they need and leave behind what they don't. But this is a generous assumption, most people aren't prepared for this.
You say no rule, but to accomplish things like successful collective owneship and organization of production,you need the rule of structure, so in essence you are contradicting yourself because you DO NEED people to collaborate to create rules you all follow? Correct me if im wrong.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, anarchism is the ideology that all hierarchy is bad, and is to be opposed and (to the greatest extent possible), eliminated. So any sort of authority or order that would result from anarchism (because anarchism after all doesn't mean chaos) would come from horizontal organization and direct democracy, I would think.

[AGITprop]

Well, anarchism is the ideology that all hierarchy is bad, and is to be opposed and (to the greatest extent possible), eliminated. So any sort of authority or order that would result from anarchism (because anarchism after all doesn't mean chaos) would come from horizontal organization and direct democracy, I would think.

Yes but how do anarchists expect to reach these goals. And what kind of horizontal organization do you propose. What are your safeguards to prevent the abuse of authority?

[FireFry]

You say no rule, but to accomplish things like successful collective owneship and organization of production,you need the rule of structure, so in essence you are contradicting yourself because you DO NEED people to collaborate to create rules you all follow? Correct me if im wrong.

That is wrong, anarchists are concerned with survival, liberty and personal freedoms. Collectivism is obsolete peasant bullshit. Ownership would be inexistant. Not equal ownership, because the number of proletarians could be infinite -- are we to be proclaimed the .0001 percent owner of the factory at birth??

No, this is just another form of bourgois socialism. When I say communism, I mean, no money, no markets and no forced organisation. It's the higher stage of civilisation that we're working towards.

It's a paradise in many ways. It's the best of civilisation. Just imagine, no more censorship, no more institutionalised lies, no more dependency on wages for living (wage-slavery), no more eating shit and getting exploited. Imagine if you were free to do as you please without the bourgois constraints of money.

There would be no rule, democracy would be inexistant except in emergencies (war, famine, natural disasters, etc) where in which case we would immediately elect a temporary president to take care of the situatiion ( the best person for the job ) and when the situation is taken care of he is disposed and returns back to his ordinary life.

As for me, I can't imagine anything else for mankind's future without becoming rabidly nauseous.

[AGITprop]

That is wrong, anarchists are concerned with survival, liberty and personal freedoms. Collectivism is obsolete peasant bullshit. Ownership would be inexistant. Not equal ownership, because the number of proletarians could be infinite -- are we to be proclaimed the .0001 percent owner of the factory at birth??

No, this is just another form of bourgois socialism. When I say communism, I mean, no money, no markets and no forced organisation. It's the higher stage of civilisation that we're working towards.

It's a paradise in many ways. It's the best of civilisation. Just imagine, no more censorship, no more institutionalised lies, no more dependency on wages for living (wage-slavery), no more eating shit and getting exploited. Imagine if you were free to do as you please without the bourgois constraints of money.

There would be no rule, democracy would be inexistant except in emergencies (war, famine, natural disasters, etc) where in which case we would immediately elect a temporary president to take care of the situatiion ( the best person for the job ) and when the situation is taken care of he is disposed and returns back to his ordinary life.

As for me, I can't imagine anything else for mankind's future without becoming rabidly nauseous.

1. If you have no organsation, how do you proceed to survivng. A free for all?
2.No money is fine, but how do you propose to reach that goal without a transition? And how would your distribution function?
3.You say no democracy unless for emergencies? How do you settle problems then in everyday life? Who decides how much of what neds to be produced. And what are your safeguards for your proposed "temporary president" who gets al the power and expected to make decisions tat are best for everyone.
4. When you ownership would be inexistent, I assume you mean private property but how do you deal with personal property like cell phones, mp3 players, clothing, shoes, and who decides how this is distributed, once again ,how is distribution dealt with without some sort of organizations or structure.

This all seems implausible without some sort of democratic organization. I have the oddest feeling these are not anarchist notions!

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yes but how do anarchists expect to reach these goals. And what kind of horizontal organization do you propose. What are your safeguards to prevent the abuse of authority?

In my opinion, one of the most important things we can do at the moment is make efforts to instill workplace democracy, and to preach the elimination of hierarchy at people's jobs.

Unfortunately, I don't see the state going anywhere soon :glare:, so I think that the best bet is to construct some kind of "organic resistance" to capitalism, via worker's self management, stronger unions, etc.

Abuses of power could probably be staved off with an efficient system of recall for democratically elected represenatives.

[victim77]

You say no rule, but to accomplish things like successful collective owneship and organization of production,you need the rule of structure, so in essence you are contradicting yourself because you DO NEED people to collaborate to create rules you all follow? Correct me if im wrong.
There are rules and unwritten laws but no one to inforce them. It is up to the "people" to be "police" as well it is up to the "people" to be the government. I believe in syndicalism which is anarchism organized by workers. Instead of a CEO or Owner, the workers make the decisions. I believe that what is produced by the factory is then divided evenly among the ones who produced it and then used for barter among others with products you need. In other words "the land and the fruit it bares belongs to the one who tends to it, not the land lord".

[FireFry]

4. When you ownership would be inexistent,

Okay, first, consider reading what type before you hit the ENTER key, next time.



I assume you mean private property but how do you deal with personal property like cell phones, mp3 players, clothing, shoes, and who decides how this is distributed, once again ,how is distribution dealt with without some sort of organizations or structure.

Are these things not private property?? Of course, thanks to mass production, people will be able to get their own of things. So if you want an mp3 player, we can make one for you so you won't have to take one from somebody else through purchase or elsewise.

If we have no organisation?? Well then, we'd be free. Organisation is such shorthand for institution. Of course, if you've been raised in captivity in an urban center all your life, it would be hard to imagine any other means of survival.

What need would we have more democratic organisation? It seems to me that democracy brings some of the most useless tyrants. We would have no need for leaders, there would be no "center of command".


Who decides how much of what needs to be produced.

Well, we'd make basic judgments based on what people decide to have. If people like whole grain over white bread, if people like convertibles over closed-cabins, we'd produce those. It's just common sense. We'd take census, we'd produce according to that. You'd be free to do as you pleasaed without capitalist restraint.

There would be no money to be made. It would be real communism, now, is that so bizarre?

If there was a military decision to be made for the sake of the town or the commune, it would be made collectively by the workers and the people who have volunteered to fight. I think that a lot of people would like to live here. Don't you?

[AGITprop]

There are rules and unwritten laws but no one to inforce them. It is up to the "people" to be "police" as well it is up to the "people" to be the government. I believe in syndicalism which is anarchism organized by workers. Instead of a CEO or Owner, the workers make the decisions.

Well, i agree with that. Simply put it is workers democracy. But what I was understanding from the arguments was no democracy? What I really want to know is how you plan to achieve these goals. No one has yet answered this question for me.

[AGITprop]

[quote=FireFry;1088028]Okay, first, consider reading what type before you hit the ENTER key, next time.
I apologize, my keyboard is on the fritz. Stupid laptops! Engineered to break down quickly so you can bu another from the capitalists!



Are these things not private property?? Of course, thanks to mass production, people will be able to get their own of things. So if you want an mp3 player, we can make one for you so you won't have to take one from somebody else through purchase or elsewise.
I agree with this, but how will you decide what kind of mp3s to create, with what pieces, with what materials. How do you organize factories to obtain the necessary products to create things. ?


What need would we have more democratic organisation? It seems to me that democracy brings some of the most useless tyrants. We would have no need for leaders, there would be no "center of command".
Without this organization or structure, how would you coordinate the transfer of raw materials, or facilitate the construction of infrastructure?


There would be no money to be made. It would be real communism, now, is that so bizarre? Not at all, but real COMMUNISM, is the result of a transition from socialism to communism through the withering away of the dying state and the elimination of redundant currency. How do you propose achieving such high levels of collaboration between billions of people without something to build off?

If there was a military decision to be made for the sake of the town or the commune, it would be made collectively by the workers and the people who have volunteered to fight. I think that a lot of people would like to live here. Don't you?

Yes i do.

[victim77]

Well, i agree with that. Simply put it is workers democracy. But what I was understanding from the arguments was no democracy? What I really want to know is how you plan to achieve these goals. No one has yet answered this question for me.
Anarchism is like Communism, there are tons of different types and theory's. Some people believe it should be a pure democracy in which every one who chooses has a direct voice. Also some people believe a anarchist revolution should be a slow one in which the government grows and grows (in size not power) until every one is a direct member. Some people believe it must be through a direct revolt by the workers much like communism.

[AGITprop]

Anarchism is like Communism, there are tons of different types and theory's. Some people believe it should be a pure democracy in which every one who chooses has a direct voice. Also some people believe a anarchist revolution should be a slow one in which the government grows and grows (in size not power) until every one is a direct member. Some people believe it must be through a direct revolt by the workers much like communism.

What do you believe particularly?

[victim77]

What do you believe particularly?
I believe a worker upstart is needed and a civil war may pursue. I am more a syndicalist then a anarchist. For post-Revolution I believe each community must have a Town union in which any working person can join and that would serve as the municipal government. If a federal government is needed then each community would elect a representative to go to federal meetings and bring the news/discussions back to the municipal government to review and give a opinion. This would therefor lead to a society with out leaders ran by direct democracy. Each factory and company would be ran much the same way. Keep in mind this is my opinion at this stage of my life and I still have a lot to learn before I make a concrete opinion.

[AGITprop]

I believe a worker upstart is needed and a civil war may pursue. I am more a syndicalist then a anarchist. For post-Revolution I believe each community must have a Town union in which any working person can join and that would serve as the municipal government. If a federal government is needed then each community would elect a representative to go to federal meetings and bring the news/discussions back to the municipal government to review and give a opinion. This would therefor lead to a society with out leaders ran by direct democracy. Each factory and company would be ran much the same way. Keep in mind this is my opinion at this stage of my life and I still have a lot to learn before I make a concrete opinion.

I do not mean to judge, but you are now speaking of a government. The anarchist theory is based on non-existence of state. Your ideas are in the right direction, but they seem more communist to me. I would suggest reading the Communist Manifesto and speaking to some more Communists, but that is only my opinion.

[BobKKKindle$]

You're a trotskyist, who believes that society has matured far enough to be organised into a state-structure.What's that supposed to mean? What do you mean by a society "maturing"? Trotskyists recognize that workers will need to create organs of power to defend the revolution and eliminate hostile forces once workers have seized control of their workplaces - we base this opinion on the history of working-class revolution, particularly the October revolution, when the Bolsheviks faced imperialist intervention by other countries who were afraid that the revolution would encourage workers in their own countries to rise up and challenge the ruling class. These "organs of power" comprise a state apparatus - because Marxists understand a state as an apparatus of class oppression, and so as long as class antagonisms exist, a state will be necessary. However, unlike the bourgeois state, the workers state will not be based on armed bodies of men that are separate from the general population - as in the case of the army and police forces - rather, the state apparatus will be decentralized, in the form of a rotating workers militia. In the context of Soviet Russia, the peasants, soldiers and workers soviets formed the basis of the workers state. These were democratic bodies which represented the collective will of the working class. Similar bodies have also emerged during other revolutionary situations, even when workers have not taken power - for example, in 1919-1921 in Germany. This is what Lenin meant when he wrote:

"Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism suppression is still necessary, but it is now the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority. A special apparatus, a special machine for suppression, the “state”, is still necessary, but this is now a transitional state. It is no longer a state in the proper sense of the word; for the suppression of the minority of exploiters by the majority of the wage slaves of yesterday is comparatively so easy, simple and natural a task that it will entail far less bloodshed than the suppression of the risings of slaves, serfs or wage-laborers, and it will cost mankind far less. And it is compatible with the extension of democracy to such an overwhelming majority of the population that the need for a special machine of suppression will begin to disappear. Naturally, the exploiters are unable to suppress the people without a highly complex machine for performing this task, but the people can suppress the exploiters even with a very simple “machine”, almost without a “machine”, without a special apparatus, by the simple organization of the armed people (such as the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, we would remark, running ahead)."

Anarchists reject the notion of a state. This is, however, partly because Anarchists don't understand the state in the same way as Marxists, and so assume that Marxists are supporting an oppressive structure when we talk about the need for a state. Marxists do not support hierarchy - although we may recognize the need to maintain firm discipline within revolutionary organizations.


dictatorship of the proletariat, which is typically just the dictatorship of the leninists or bolsheviks.The DOP is not totalitarian. Marx considered the Paris Commune to be an example of the DOTP, and the first demand of the commune was:

"The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people."

Anarchists often hold up the Commune as an example of proletarian democracy. Your comment shows you don't know what the DOTP is.



I agree with this, but how will you decide what kind of mp3s to create, with what pieces, with what materials. How do you organize factories to obtain the necessary products to create things.This would not be a function of the state as such - when Socialists talk about destroying the state, or the state "withering away" we do not mean that people would no longer organize to get things done - this will obviously always be necessary, and no Anarchist rejects organization between human beings! The State is, remember, a political structure which is a characteristic of class societies - or, as Lenin wrote, the state is a "product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms". The fundamental power of the state rests in its ability to use armed force against those who try and challenge the power of the class which controls the state apparatus - the ruling class. Some Socialists draw a distinction between the state and "government" - the former meaning an apparatus of class oppression, the latter referring to organizing with others to achieve common goals, or the administration of public assets.

The CNT (an Anarcho Syndicalist Trade Union) actually did a good job of organizing production in Spain - an interesting case study of Workers self-management!

We may organize production through a system of workers councils, which will range in size from individual workplaces to entire industries, which could communicate with separate consumers councils to decide what should be produced. We will then draw up some kind of plan, which will have targets for the different sectors of the economy, and a time period within which those targets should be achieved. However, it's not always wise to try and guess how we will organize production in the future, because it might be necessary to have many different forms of economic organization, depending on the needs of different regions and communities. We can be sure, however, that a Socialist economy will be based on workers self-management - which means that workers will decide how to manage their workplaces and produce goods, and no-one will be able to deny them the products of their labour, because private property will be abolished.

Comrade, the classical Marxist work on the State is Lenin's "State and Revolution" available at the MIA - http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/

An excellent read! This passage gives us an idea of the kind of democracy we might have in a socialist society:

"All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary "workmen's wages" — these simple and "self-evident" democratic measures, while completely uniting the interests of the workers and the majority of the peasants, at the same time serve as a bridge leading from capitalism to socialism. These measures concern the reorganization of the state, the purely political reorganization of society; but, of course, they acquire their full meaning and significance only in connection with the "expropriation of the expropriators" either bring accomplished or in preparation, i.e., with the transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership."

Anarchists and Trotskyists are agreed on the need for a system of recall, which will allow workers to replace their delegates if they feel that their interests are not being well represented.

[BobKKKindle$]

I believe that what is produced by the factory is then divided evenly among the ones who produced it and then used for barter among others with products you needI disagree with this approach. Barter relies on the double incidence of wants and so you have to spend time searching for someone who has whatever you are looking for, and who is also willing to trade for what you have in your possession - this is clearly not a sensible system of resource distribution! It poses additional problems for workers that are producing goods which are use in the manufacture of other products, such as steel - do you really think we should divide up refined raw materials amongst the workforce? No ordinary consumer has reason to want these goods, and so getting consumer products might be a problem for these workers! The only way they could get consumer goods would be to barter with the factories which produce them, but supplying raw materials in this manner would be very strange, because factories would not be guaranteed a constant supply. Some sort of planning structure is necessary.

For finished consumer goods such as televisions, we might find it necessary to use some kind of currency system (such as labour time vouchers, which are awarded according to how long you work, and cannot be used as capital to generate profit) or distribute these goods through rationing. Both these systems are better than barter. Using a currency is not part of capitalism - it was invented to overcome the limitations of barter! It may not be useful to use one single system of distribution, we may adopt different system depending on the supply of individual goods, such that for some products, we could have an open system of distribution if the good is in plentiful supply, whereby people just take what they need from a communal stockpile.

Firms producing consumer goods can get the (refined) raw materials they need through communicating with the firms producing these materials, or might be allocated their raw materials through a plan.

[victim77]

I do not mean to judge, but you are now speaking of a government. The anarchist theory is based on non-existence of state. Your ideas are in the right direction, but they seem more communist to me. I would suggest reading the Communist Manifesto and speaking to some more Communists, but that is only my opinion.
I told you I'm a syndicalist. I am pretty much open to all left thought though.

[Bright Banana Beard]

There is 2 pratice kind of category of what Anarchist practice: social and individual. but I going to explain the social.

Most anarchists here are social anarchists. Social anarchists believe that the only way to destroy capitalist government making is through an organized working-class & the popularity from the masses. They also believe in taking the property or money of the bourgeoisie to prevent exploitation as to reach a communism society. They believe in workers self-management and distribution based on need. We opposed of authorian communism what it did in Soviet Union. We made mistakes by working with communist & republican, so we know what to do by not working together with you on the future.

[STOP]

In my opinion we can't understand what it would be like because we have know understanding of how a revolution would come out today. You have to take in the account of all people and how people would react in a time of chaos. because that is how it will turn out, then through that will you be able to state some facts and whatnot.

[pave_the_planet]

Because Anarchy is such a diverse ideology and there are so many different approaches to it, i find the best way to explain the gist of it is that its simply the lack of hierarchy.

the lack of hierarchy implies absolute freedom and equality.

you do not need a rigid authority system in place to organize as State Communists believe. throught the majority of human history people were organized in small communities that did not have any particular leader. to me the goal of anarchism is to take this idea from history and apply it to modern day humans.

[anarchy666]

Emma Goldman, one of the most influencal anarchist of her times once wrote about anarchy:

"Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations."

[anarchy666]

We'd still have property and we'd probably need a fair way of distributing commodities, but we'd assume that people would just take what they know they need and leave behind what they don't. But this is a generous assumption, most people aren't prepared for this.

This is very true, anarchy is all about the liberation from private property optionaly, without any government control. People must be beyond the typical shallow Americans that believe materials are more important that things such as love and unity.

[acr0ma]

This is how I see it as an Anarcho-communist/syndicalist:

I disagree with the idea that there would be no rules, because of the human nature. The human is dumb, and a bunch of humans together with no rules would lead to absolute complete shit.

I see the possible system as a kind of federation. Neighbourhoods would vote their rules and needs in a reunion that would be open to every human being(kids, too) living on the territory. These meeting would have a president that would be elected for each meeting. His/her only job would be to note in which orders people raise their hands to talk, and to organize votes.

Each and every of these small neighbourhood meetings would send a representant to city meetings. They would defends the interests of the counsils they came from. These counsils would send a representant to regional counsils, and then to provincial counsils, so on and so forth.

All representants would obviously be democratically elected by the counsil for each reunion that they must go to. This means that anyone can represent their counsil as long as they are elected.

There would be no state. All decisions would be taken by the people.

The economic system would be the same as the economic system of a communist society.

[anarchy666]

This is how I see it as an Anarcho-communist/syndicalist:

I disagree with the idea that there would be no rules, because of the human nature. The human is dumb, and a bunch of humans together with no rules would lead to absolute complete shit.

I see the possible system as a kind of federation. Neighbourhoods would vote their rules and needs in a reunion that would be open to every human being(kids, too) living on the territory. These meeting would have a president that would be elected for each meeting. His/her only job would be to note in which orders people raise their hands to talk, and to organize votes.

Each and every of these small neighbourhood meetings would send a representant to city meetings. They would defends the interests of the counsils they came from. These counsils would send a representant to regional counsils, and then to provincial counsils, so on and so forth.

All representants would obviously be democratically elected by the counsil for each reunion that they must go to. This means that anyone can represent their counsil as long as they are elected.

There would be no state. All decisions would be taken by the people.

The economic system would be the same as the economic system of a communist society.

Thank you! that is like exactly what I believe. Finnaly someone has some sense in this world. True democracy within anarchy:laugh:

[Harrycombs]

I do not claim to know much about anarchists. I'm a Marxist, who understands Marxist ideas of revolution and post revolution but i want to hear from some anarchists what is there take on how revolution should occur and how they belive society should be organized post revolution.This thread is not intended to start any arguments, i simply want to read some different views.

I'm not an anarchist, but there is actually a book called the ABCs of Communist Anarchism by Alexander Berkman which is pretty interesting. Definitely worth reading!

//dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc

Add .htm to the end of that, and http to the front. It wont let me post links. You can find the whole book there.