Can Anarchy Work??

[RedFlagComrade]

Can Anarchy Work??

The basic principle is, as far as im aware, not the absence of laws or government but the economic system, or absence of one.

Every good or service is free.

The teacher teaches the children without getting paid knowing that on his/her way home he can pick up the groceries for free.the grocer picks up his stock for free and lays them out in his shop with out charge.He obtains a new television without paying for it upon which popular news broadcasters read the news for free.The children taught by the teacher join any job they desire-provided that they have the skills-and work for free.I believe its called a gift economy.

Could it work??Or is it an unachievable utopia?Was this the final form of communism Marx described-after the dictatorship of the proletariat?Would inherent human greed bring it down?Without the capitalist profit motive or the direction of the communist state would anyone bother?
But if somebody started charging money for a item people would simply turnto a different free retailer and any money he made would be meaningless since anything he needed would be free?

[AGITprop]

Can Anarchy Work?? Yes.




Was this the final form of communism Marx described-after the dictatorship of the proletariat?
In essence, yes.



Would inherent human greed bring it down?

Doesn't exist.

[RedFlagComrade]

What about the lack of laws wouldnt crime be rampant?Wikipedia defination of anarchism says there would be rules if not strict laws.

i think the kibbutz movement, employed by the zionist left in the early days of israel, to build a rich nation from nothing in the middle of the desert surrounded by poor countries was a primitive rural form of anarcho-communism and its success proved it could work.Small communes of people where the work was done collectivally and the produce was shared equally.
(By the way this in no way condones the atrocities commited by israel against the palestinian people.)

[Dros]

Could anarchism work? No.

Could a system without a state function? Yes.

And no. Anarchy is not the absence of an economic system. The final goal, Communism, is the economic system you are describing. Everything is "free".

I don't know what you mean by "no economic system". I don't know how that is even possible as long as there are people. As long as labor is exchanged, there will be an economic system and any kind of life without the exchange of labor in some form or another would be shit.

[Raúl Duke]

Can Anarchy Work??

The basic principle is, as far as im aware, not the absence of laws or government but the economic system, or absence of one.

Every good or service is free.

The teacher teaches the children without getting paid knowing that on his/her way home he can pick up the groceries for free.the grocer picks up his stock for free and lays them out in his shop with out charge.He obtains a new television without paying for it upon which popular news broadcasters read the news for free.The children taught by the teacher join any job they desire-provided that they have the skills-and work for free.

Could it work??Or is it an unachievable utopia?Was this the final form of communism Marx described-after the dictatorship of the proletariat?Would inherent human greed bring it down?Without the capitalist profit motive or the direction of the communist state would anyone bother?
But if somebody started charging money for a item people would simply turnto a different free retailer and any money he made would be meaningless since anything he needed would be free?

1) Anarchism has many theorized versions of ideal economy. Actually that's one of the "divisions" in anarchism (as in, it's what differentiate, for example, mutualists and anarcho-communists). Another would be organizational (anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists. anarcho-communists are also divided by those who support some of the platform and those who reject it.). In essence, there will be an organized economy.

2) The ideal economic principle of anarcho-communists (and all communists really) is "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." A "form of gift economy" seems to be able to meet this criterion, although it's this principle that matters so if another form of economy can fulfill it better (the technocrats I think argue for energy accounting...although not sure if they consider it "communistic" or not) than it would be considered.

3) Most likely what you described is a simplified version of the final version of communism envisioned by Marx.

4) There's no such thing as a "communist state" but a communist society; since communism is by definition state-less and class-less. For some Marxists and all Leninists (and off-shoots) there is a transitory state which is called socialism which is by the guidance of a Communist Party but the more accepted term would be a Vanguard of a Vanguard Party. Personally I disagree that the Vanguard of the Proletariat, which is IMO hard to define who belongs to it, has the right to rule (for the proletariat..although their left critics contend they wish to rule over the proletariat "for their own good" much like any other ruler.); however if you are a Leninist this is one of your tenets.

5)In a fully entrenched Communist society trying to bring back capitalism (and class society) would be difficult (if not impossible. Marx argued that normally human societies don't regress much except in cases of disasters.)


Could anarchism work? No.The Leninists contend this because they believe that a socialist transitory state is necessary to prepare the working class for communism.

Personally I think such a view infantilizes the working class. However, there is good reason why Marx initially thought (until, arguably, the Paris Commune) this and why Lenin did. The working class of the 19th and early 20th century were quite "backwards" (I think Lenin used that word too.), closer to peasants. However, the working class of the 21st century is much different, specifically in the "advanced capitalist nations."

[rouchambeau]

Of course not!

[Os Cangaceiros]

Nah.

Everyone knows that anarchism is petit bourgeois nonsense.

[RNK]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Sorry, we didn't plan for the need for any sort of long answer... we just kinda figured the short answer would, y'know, happen overnight, and stuff...

[AGITprop]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Sorry, we didn't plan for the need for any sort of long answer... we just kinda figured the short answer would, y'know, happen overnight, and stuff...

ohH!
the class, the class
:D

i salute you.

[Fedorov]

Instead of just saying no and yes there should be support for your statements... Just a thought...
A simple way to look at anarchism is a straight transition into communism without the "withering of the state period". Now for all the nay sayers and Lenin lovers, during the entire 80 year life or so of the USSR, there was absolutely no withering of power and not too much progress towards communism. Now I understand that the situation of the Soviet Union was precarious throughout its history but its hard to see any body in power simply "give it up". That jumble of thoughts is my super simplified version of why crazy anarchism is better.

[Dros]

Personally I think such a view infantilizes the working class. However, there is good reason why Marx initially thought (until, arguably, the Paris Commune) this and why Lenin did. The working class of the 19th and early 20th century were quite "backwards" (I think Lenin used that word too.), closer to peasants. However, the working class of the 21st century is much different, specifically in the "advanced capitalist nations."

Firstly, the masses being generally backwards is a.) only one part of the need for a trasitionary state and b.) still true.

People are still ideologically fucked up. They believe they can rise to power/wealth through capitalism. They are racists. They believe in God. They oppose abortion. They beat women. All of this needs to be dealt with. Remember, the ideas of the ruling class are always the predominant ideals of a society. We must replace reactionary capitalist morality/ideology within the proletariat with a revolutionary communist ideology that will liberate people from these intellectual chains.

The more important reason for the need for a state comes from the obvious fact that economic and political development occurs unevenly throughout the world. This means everyone in the world isn't going to simultaneously rise up and cast off oppression at the same time. At that point, proletarian run societies must be able to defend against Bourgeois imperialism, the return of the Bourgeoisie internally, the development of a new Bourgeoisie, and other forces of reaction. Hence, the state.


A simple way to look at anarchism is a straight transition into communism without the "withering of the state period". Now for all the nay sayers and Lenin lovers, during the entire 80 year life or so of the USSR, there was absolutely no withering of power and not too much progress towards communism. Now I understand that the situation of the Soviet Union was precarious throughout its history but its hard to see any body in power simply "give it up". That jumble of thoughts is my super simplified version of why crazy anarchism is better.

This argument has been refuted numerous times. I don't understand why it still persists.

The state withers away once socialism has developed globally or near globally. It happens in the long term once the need for the state is gone. This situation never developed in the USSR because proletarian revolutions in Western Europe and the rest of the world never occured.

The idea that the withering of the state entails a group with privilidge voluntarily giving up their power is based on a misunderstanding of Leninism. The state is constituted as the repressive elements of government like the military, the cops, and the IRS. Secondly, you don't understand the political structure of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat wherein thousands of people become enfranchised in the system. This means that the gov't doesn't consist of a small group of people who "give up" power. Instead, as certain parts of government become superfluous, they are abandoned. And eventually, there is no longer any state, only organs of democratic popular organization.

[Os Cangaceiros]

People are still ideologically fucked up. They believe they can rise to power/wealth through capitalism. They are racists. They believe in God. They oppose abortion. They beat women. All of this needs to be dealt with. Remember, the ideas of the ruling class are always the predominant ideals of a society. We must replace reactionary capitalist morality/ideology within the proletariat with a revolutionary communist ideology that will liberate people from these intellectual chains.


Bologne. This isn't going to happen after the hypothetical revolution, because then the revolution would never happen in the first place! The majority of the population has to be heading in the general direction of..."progressive" ideals as a prerequisite.


The more important reason for the need for a state comes from the obvious fact that economic and political development occurs unevenly throughout the world. This means everyone in the world isn't going to simultaneously rise up and cast off oppression at the same time. At that point, proletarian run societies must be able to defend against Bourgeois imperialism, the return of the Bourgeoisie internally, the development of a new Bourgeoisie, and other forces of reaction. Hence, the state.

Important question: what's going to stop the leadership of any socialist state from simply branding anyone that disagrees with them or who they perceive to be hindering progress "bourgeois", and having them terminated? This is entirely hypothetical, of course...;)


Instead, as certain parts of government become superfluous, they are abandoned. And eventually, there is no longer any state, only organs of democratic popular organization.

I'll believe that bureaucracies will voluntarily disappear when I start believing in God. :lol:

[Fedorov]

The state withers away once socialism has developed globally or near globally. It happens in the long term once the need for the state is gone. This situation never developed in the USSR because proletarian revolutions in Western Europe and the rest of the world never occured.

The idea that the withering of the state entails a group with privilidge voluntarily giving up their power is based on a misunderstanding of Leninism. The state is constituted as the repressive elements of government like the military, the cops, and the IRS. Secondly, you don't understand the political structure of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat wherein thousands of people become enfranchised in the system. This means that the gov't doesn't consist of a small group of people who "give up" power. Instead, as certain parts of government become superfluous, they are abandoned. And eventually, there is no longer any state, only organs of democratic popular organization.
It puzzles me how to the IRS, cops, and military will just disband and democratic popular organization simply spring up. I doubt they would run themselves to being worthless and unneeded. I won't bring up the Soviet Union as many things prohibited it being able to achieve what was envisioned. Even as an anarchist the USSR has a warm spot in me but many aspects were unnecessarily repressive. (oops I started ranting about the USSR). If there is no extreme danger to a newly socialist society, anarchism can indeed find a home. Therein lies a catch 22, a "proletarian" dictatorship that is more likely to secure itself but fall into a state capitalism, or on the other hand, skip the bullshit and we have libertarian socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Like RNK said. :)

Lenin's error re. state capitalism vs. "socialism" (and "left-wing" childishness) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenins-error-re-t74487/index.html)

Anarchism would also stand in the way of the historically necessary post-revolution aggravation of the class struggle along with the transition to socialism!

[Raúl Duke]

People are still ideologically fucked up. They believe they can rise to power/wealth through capitalism. They are racists. They believe in God. They oppose abortion. They beat women. All of this needs to be dealt with. Remember, the ideas of the ruling class are always the predominant ideals of a society. We must replace reactionary capitalist morality/ideology within the proletariat with a revolutionary communist ideology that will liberate people from these intellectual chains.
This may ultimately be the case in most of the U.S. but I think there are European countries that which their working class has advanced away from most of those reactionary views and continue to progress are ready for a communist revolution. Actually, these people continue to progress away from such views in the absence of a "socialist transitory state."

If you compare than with now there has been progression in many places around the globe without any help of a socialist state. (sans the case of the post-socialist countries...although even there these reactionary ideas are stronger than in other places in Europe, although I heard the Czech Republic and Estonia are quite atheist compared to most other countries.)


The more important reason for the need for a state comes from the obvious fact that economic and political development occurs unevenly throughout the world. This means everyone in the world isn't going to simultaneously rise up and cast off oppression at the same time.This is expected: Marx himself said that the revolution would occur first in the "advanced capitalist nations." Even in the case of a revolution for a socialist state it won't happen around the world simultaneously either.

However, I suppose the socialist state could solve that problem by taking over other countries until there's a world federation of socialist state (and from their we are to expect that the vanguard generously wither the state. Sounds like the logic of "social imperialism" to me.


At that point, proletarian run societies must be able to defend against Bourgeois imperialism, the return of the Bourgeoisie internally, the development of a new Bourgeoisie, and other forces of reaction. Hence, the state.
This I concede is the crux. Can anarchist societies defend themselves as well as a socialist state? We have seen the "successful" revolution of China, Cuba, and Russia and they were able to survive (some for sometime, others are still going on, and one is I suppose is going to what is called revisionism or degeneracy). However, the success of these revolutions to defend themselves from external threats with the methods they (centralization) used ultimately lead to defeat of the revolution from within (from revisionism/bureaucratic degeneracy/whatever term you prefer. Although I think the Leninist model of vanguard parties and democratic centralism is susceptible to revisionism/degeneracy/etc.) . Russia became a capitalist nation, China is a capitalist nation under the head of a "communist party", and Cuba is, while admirably still "running", been flirting a little with capitalism.

However, in the terms of the actual act of revolution the Russian (and some other examples) experience (the 1st part of the October revolution; February Revolution) show that the old order can be toppled without "one guiding party"
The Russian people overthrow the Czar without any "vanguard party" giving them the orders as a series of "wildcat strikes". The only thing the vanguard party ordered was to take over the provisional government by coup "in the name of the soviets" without the authorization from the soviets (and this continued onwards, turning those soviets into "rubber stamp" organizations that were to approve what already been done.)

Another aspect is whether creating a professional army at the same style as the bourgeoisie imperialist would do any good once the threat are gone. The workplaces of professional army and professional police create fascist like mentalities.


Secondly, you don't understand the political structure of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat wherein thousands of people become enfranchised in the system. This means that the gov't doesn't consist of a small group of people who "give up" power. Instead, as certain parts of government become superfluous, they are abandoned. And eventually, there is no longer any state, only organs of democratic popular organization.What a claim...

We do know what it is because we can just examine how the USSR and other socialist states function. To see its real-life practice is more credible than what you claim or what Lenin wrote in State and Revolution.

The real-life practice shown them to be dictatorships over the proletariat that regress (or progress, since before they were semi-feudal or feudal society and HM states that after feudalism must come capitalism) to capitalism.

[Cult of Reason]

2) The ideal economic principle of anarcho-communists (and all communists really) is "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." A "form of gift economy" seems to be able to meet this criterion, although it's this principle that matters so if another form of economy can fulfill it better (the technocrats I think argue for energy accounting...although not sure if they consider it "communistic" or not) than it would be considered.

Energy Accounting, if unfettered and not tampered with*, is essentially Communistic: from the point of view of the end user they can get pretty much anything they want or need, with the expectation that they contribute (whether they do or not).


*like what NET seems to be advocating with its incentive schemes: "...the European model has begun to recognize the role of exchange and distribution in shaping human motivational behaviours, and refined the energy accounting role to one of managing the energy resources of an economy rather than distributing them." (Rubbish!) http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=96

[Dros]

Bologne. This isn't going to happen after the hypothetical revolution, because then the revolution would never happen in the first place! The majority of the population has to be heading in the general direction of..."progressive" ideals as a prerequisite.

Of course a certain section of the proletariat will be drifting towards "progressive" ideals but some will just be there because they have some general understanding that change is necessary. What won't happen is this: everyone won't be a communist prior to the revolution. And everyone won't have a revolutionary understanding of morality and ideology. There will still be religion. There will still be people who like capitalism, even within the Proletariat. This is the essential contradiction within the proletariat: we are the only class that can lead the revolution but we are also going to have a lot of reactionary ideology tying us down.


Important question: what's going to stop the leadership of any socialist state from simply branding anyone that disagrees with them or who they perceive to be hindering progress "bourgeois", and having them terminated?

Democracy.

I suppose your alternative to the suppression of the Bourgeoisie is some infantile notion of "human rights" that you are going to give them. I wish your "revolution" luck. It won't last a week.


I'll believe that bureaucracies will voluntarily disappear when I start believing in God.

Right. Because bureaucracies never go away when they aren't necessary. That's why all of the New Deal bureaucracies set up by FDR are still around today. Oh wait...


It puzzles me how to the IRS, cops, and military will just disband and democratic popular organization simply spring up. I doubt they would run themselves to being worthless and unneeded.

Probably because you got the order wrong. The Proletariat constructs democratic organs of people's power and they set up those bureaucracies that are necessary and then as they become unnecessary, those bureaucracies are slowly culled. As has been the case throughout all of human history.


I won't bring up the Soviet Union as many things prohibited it being able to achieve what was envisioned. Even as an anarchist the USSR has a warm spot in me but many aspects were unnecessarily repressive. (oops I started ranting about the USSR).

I think that (with the exception of some of Stalin's errors) the history of the USSR and the revisionist coup has shown that it was not to repressive.


If there is no extreme danger to a newly socialist society, anarchism can indeed find a home. Therein lies a catch 22, a "proletarian" dictatorship that is more likely to secure itself but fall into a state capitalism, or on the other hand, skip the bullshit and we have libertarian socialism.

Any revolution that occurs in the foreseeable future will require a powerful proletarian state. I can see no circumstance outside of the last few regions to develop proletarian democracy where a socialist state would not be necessary. "Libertarian socialism" can lead only to the restoration of capitalism in the world as it exists today.

===================

I have to go now, but I will respond to Johnny's post shortly.

[Raúl Duke]

That's why all of the New Deal bureaucracies set up by FDR are still around today. Oh wait...Actually those whither away easily because it benefits the ruling class and fits in with the idea of "the tendency of the rate of profit to fall."

The USSR whithered away because the bureaucrats in charge saw more to gain by becoming capitalists.

In the capitalist countries, what didn't whither away and has actually grown in the past years are the state's repressive organs such as the police, the army, etc. Although even they are growing differently (privatization) they still remain.

Does the state completely whither away or not? How can we be sure that the "benevolent" vanguards, who by their new relation and position to society (being determines consciousness) are probably no longer so benevolent/revolutionary, will actually whither the state away?


The Proletariat constructs democratic organs of people's power and they set up those bureaucracies that are necessary and then as they become unnecessary, those bureaucracies are slowly culled. As has been the case throughout all of human history.The only bureaucracies that I see culled are those that are concessions to the lower class. The ones that benefit the ruling class stays in existence.


I suppose your alternative to the suppression of the Bourgeoisie is some infantile notion of "human rights" that you are going to give them. I wish your "revolution" luck. It won't last a week.We'll let the worker's councils related to communications decide what is reactionary and what isn't or just the entire commune involved. Better than some "wise men" who might crack down people just because they threaten their hegemony from the left.


I have to go now, but I will respond to Johnny's post shortly.Thank you for your patience (as in taking your time to read and even answer my quite long posts) and civility; since usually I find my posts to be ignored in other threads. I will await your response (unless someone else answers it or the thread becomes 2 more pages longer from this post, I might be away as well).

But I have one more question: Do you have any new methods (as in not those already used by Stalin, Lenin, Mao, et al) in mind to deal with revisionism from within?

[apathy maybe]

Damn, other folks already took my joke :(. (It was, "no".)

But anyway, the non-anarchists who are saying no, seem to not actually know what anarchism is.

As such, I would suggest that you ignore what they say unless they actually provide detailed reasoning, complete with definitions of terms (including "authority", "communism", "state" and similar).

Much of the debate is because people use the same term (e.g. "state") to mean two different things (e.g. class rule, or minority rule, if you define it as the second, you can't have a "proletariat state", which is what most anarchists say).

So yeah. Fuck off ignorant fuckers who don't know what you are talking about. (I may respond later with a detailed answer, but at the moment, I don't have the time.)

[Dros]

This may ultimately be the case in most of the U.S. but I think there are European countries that which their working class has advanced away from most of those reactionary views and continue to progress are ready for a communist revolution. Actually, these people continue to progress away from such views in the absence of a "socialist transitory state."

If you compare than with now there has been progression in many places around the globe without any help of a socialist state. (sans the case of the post-socialist countries...although even there these reactionary ideas are stronger than in other places in Europe, although I heard the Czech Republic and Estonia are quite atheist compared to most other countries.)

Of course there's been progress. And by and large that maybe true about the US. But there are still wide spread reactionary ideas in Europe. For instance, there is still wide pro-capitalist (even if it's not laissez-faire) sentiment. There is still religion even if there is less. There is still racism especially in those countries experiencing large immigration from North Africa and South Asia.


This is expected: Marx himself said that the revolution would occur first in the "advanced capitalist nations." Even in the case of a revolution for a socialist state it won't happen around the world simultaneously either.

However, I suppose the socialist state could solve that problem by taking over other countries until there's a world federation of socialist state (and from their we are to expect that the vanguard generously wither the state. Sounds like the logic of "social imperialism" to me.

Of course. This is fundamental and obvious. This is why Marx envisioned the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.


Another aspect is whether creating a professional army at the same style as the bourgeoisie imperialist would do any good once the threat are gone. The workplaces of professional army and professional police create fascist like mentalities.

Which is why Socialist armies must be different. This is something that Mao talked about a lot. The People's Army must be controlled by the party and its leaders must understand and embrace Communism and apply those principles to the army. I think that good examples of this can be seen in China's PLA prior to Hua, in the PLA of the CPN(M), and in the military wing of the Communist Party of India(Maoist). These organizations were/are vibrant places where the masses are educated in Marxism and where they are given the ability to rise up against oppression within a framework of militant revolution Communism. These organizations are thoroughly tied to the needs of the masses.


We do know what it is because we can just examine how the USSR and other socialist states function. To see its real-life practice is more credible than what you claim or what Lenin wrote in State and Revolution.

The real-life practice shown them to be dictatorships over the proletariat that regress (or progress, since before they were semi-feudal or feudal society and HM states that after feudalism must come capitalism) to capitalism.

This is simply a fundamentally incorrect view of history that has been promulgated by the Bourgeoisie.

This is a huge topic and is kind of extraneous to this thread. If you'd like to talk about Proletarian democracy in socialist states like the USSR and PCR I'd be more than happy to. Feel free to start another thread or PM me.


Does the state completely whither away or not? How can we be sure that the "benevolent" vanguards, who by their new relation and position to society (being determines consciousness) are probably no longer so benevolent/revolutionary, will actually whither the state away?

Why is the vanguard less revolutionary after it seizes state power? It certainly wasn't less revolutionary in the PCR during the Cultural Revolution. The problem here is that you are viewing the vanguard as something external to the masses which it can't be.


The only bureaucracies that I see culled are those that are concessions to the lower class. The ones that benefit the ruling class stays in existence.

Correct. Those bureaucracies that no longer benefit the ruling class will be allowed to die. Under socialism, the ruling class will be the Proletariat. So, as these institutions lose their functionality, they will be discarded and eventually the state (as defined below) will be gone.


We'll let the worker's councils related to communications decide what is reactionary and what isn't or just the entire commune involved. Better than some "wise men" who might crack down people just because they threaten their hegemony from the left.

Again, you make the assumption that the party is disconnected from the proletariat. That also doesn't take into account that reaction may come from within the proletariat itself. And lastly, this idea of having isolated, self ruling communes falls prey to the same things anarchism does.

Are you an anarchist or a left communist?


Thank you for your patience (as in taking your time to read and even answer my quite long posts) and civility; since usually I find my posts to be ignored in other threads. I will await your response (unless someone else answers it or the thread becomes 2 more pages longer from this post, I might be away as well).
:) Same to you. It's nice to have some civil and intelligent discourse once in a while.


But I have one more question: Do you have any new methods (as in not those already used by Stalin, Lenin, Mao, et al) in mind to deal with revisionism from within?

There is of course Democratic Centralism and Cultural Revolution. I would say that these haven't been applied strongly or consistently enough in the past. Secondly, the way I envision Socialism, the party and the government will be very broad in such a way that there will be a much tighter connection with the people then there was under a man like Stalin. That would also play a significant factor. Lastly, the practice of concentrating power in one man like Stalin or Mao makes revisionist coups easier. I don't think that that kind of concentrated power is inherent to Marxism-Leninism.


But anyway, the non-anarchists who are saying no, seem to not actually know what anarchism is.

Does it oppose the state? If yes then I'm right.

If it's not, then you don't understand anarchism.


As such, I would suggest that you ignore what they say unless they actually provide detailed reasoning, complete with definitions of terms (including "authority", "communism", "state" and similar).

I never said authority and Communism is pretty apparent.

The State is the means by which the ruling class enforces its rule. It includes the military and all institution of repressive power.


So yeah. Fuck off ignorant fuckers who don't know what you are talking about. (I may respond later with a detailed answer, but at the moment, I don't have the time.)

Why don't you back up the claim that I don't understand what I'm talking about? Either that or you can actually engage what I'm bringing up and defend your theory.

[apathy maybe]

I never said you didn't know what you were talking about, I said that those people who didn't know should fuck off. My post was not directed at your post as such.

Does anarchism oppose the "state"? Anarchism opposes all hierarchy, that includes both the anarchist definition of a state, and what many Marxists say is the sort of state that will happen after a revolution. That is, anarchists oppose police, armies, central committees and that sort of crap.


I never said authority and Communism is pretty apparent.What is communism then? Explain! Because, to me, communism is anarchism. That is, communism is a society without hierarchy, leaders, rulers, police, armies etc. Of course, if you have a different definition, please explain it. Otherwise you accept my definition, and your argument fails.

The State is the means by which the ruling class enforces its rule. It includes the military and all institution of repressive power.
Yes, anarchists oppose this. However, we contend that you cannot have a state that is controlled by a majority of the population. That any "proletariat state" will require a "democracy", which will end up with a political system like we have now. I.e, people are elected from a small elite, who claim to represent the people, but in reality represent themselves and the small elite.
That sort of state doesn't whither away, it stays around. Power corrupts and all that.

[RedFlagComrade]

Damn should have put up a poll here!Anarchy Yes or No?

[Mujer Libre]

Damn should have put up a poll here!Anarchy Yes or No?
Polls in the learning forum would detract from the seriousness and in-depth nature of the discussion that should be going on- and is in this thread.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

What about the lack of laws wouldnt crime be rampant?
Laws really don't prevent crimes. Ultimately crimes are caused by poverty.

In a country like America, which has some of the strictest drug laws and still clings to the death penalty, crime still occurs on a massive scale. Is this because of an absence of laws? Or is it because 30 million Americans are living in poverty, probably many millions more are close to it, and society in general denies these people any legal chance at bettering themselves?

If poverty and social alienation were to be eliminated, crime would be as well.

[apathy maybe]

Indeed, laws don't prevent crime, they simply outlaw it.

What is crime? Much "crime" is related to either property, or to things that don't affect others (drug use for example). Obviously in an anarchy, the second wouldn't matter, and with property as we know it non-existent, the first lot would go as well.

Really, the only 'crime' that is worth mentioning is crimes against other people (murder, rape, assault etc.). There are a number of threads on these issues.

[RedFlagComrade]

Really, the only 'crime' that is worth mentioning is crimes against other people (murder, rape, assault etc.). There are a number of threads on these issues.
-On the subject of rules in an anarchic state?Direct me!

[Holden Caulfield]

if you have your revolution what then, dissolve the state?
this is impractical and would weaken your own revolution and leave the door open for systematic destruction of it by interal and external enemies

[Colonello Buendia]

Anarchism can work and has worked. The Zapatista territories are run according to Platformist ideas, the Cnt/FAI liberated areas of Spain worked fantastically and are a glowing example for Anarchists everywhere.
The whithering of State will never happen, you tell someone to take power to then relinquish it willingly at the end of a transitional period and the Transitional period will never end. Marxism is a great Idea, however in my opinion anyway every time Marxism has been tried it's given way for Tyrranical Totalitarian states which were decidedly anti worker in Nautre. By removing the Transitional period the whole after the revolution we make the Ideal society come closer to reality. IMO the transitional period is before the revolution, when people start thinking proggressively and move towards a better future.:star::blackA:

P.S. see my Dp for the short answer

[Raúl Duke]

"Of course there's been progress. And by and large that maybe true about the US. But there are still wide spread reactionary ideas in Europe. For instance, there is still wide pro-capitalist (even if it's not laissez-faire) sentiment. There is still religion even if there is less. There is still racism especially in those countries experiencing large immigration from North Africa and South Asia."

Than we must both attack those ideas in there here and now if we have any hopes of having a revolution soon.
I do not see any hope of any sort of progressive revolution if these problems are faced by either Leninist groups or anarchist groups.
Especially in the case of racism and pro-capitalist sentiment, which would block any attempt towards revolution.


"Why is the vanguard less revolutionary after it seizes state power? It certainly wasn't less revolutionary in the PCR during the Cultural Revolution. The problem here is that you are viewing the vanguard as something external to the masses which it can't be."


"Correct. Those bureaucracies that no longer benefit the ruling class will be allowed to die. Under socialism, the ruling class will be the Proletariat. So, as these institutions lose their functionality, they will be discarded and eventually the state (as defined below) will be gone."

Apathy Maybe:


"As such, I would suggest that you ignore what they say unless they actually provide detailed reasoning, complete with definitions of terms (including "authority", "communism", "state" and similar)."

"Much of the debate is because people use the same term (e.g. "state") to mean two different things (e.g. class rule, or minority rule, if you define it as the second, you can't have a "proletariat state", which is what most anarchists say)."

"That any "proletariat state" will require a "democracy", which will end up with a political system like we have now. I.e, people are elected from a small elite, who claim to represent the people, but in reality represent themselves and the small elite.
That sort of state doesn't whither away, it stays around."

I think what apathy maybe said is likely to be occurring. We might be using the same terms to mean something else,etc.

The reason why I state that the vanguard (or more specifically the vanguard party really; since there could always be a "vanguard of the working class" outside the party) can be separate from the masses is based on the difference of relationship that they develop towards the means of production than the relationship workers have. If the state is ruled by a certain amount, smaller than the whole, of working class individuals claimed to be part of the vanguard and if the state has control of the means in production this is also controlled by this small vanguard party. The vanguard party as a whole will have direct control and management of the means of production while the working class as a whole won't have direct control of the means of production. This is a difference in their relationship towards the means of production and, since "being determines consciousness", the vanguard party can potentially develop a different perspective/class consciousness than that of the working class.

Although maybe you don't mean all that by the word "state" maybe you imagine the state to have many assemblies and such with a high amount of participation from the working class and that the workplace are run by the working class without the presence of a commissar to act as a supervisor/manager. This would be something close to what I want.

Thus it's possible we are using the same term to imply different things.

About the Cultural Revolution, while featuring many progressive things,...wasn't Mao also actually fighting against reaction ("capitalist roaders") inside his own "vanguard" party? Even after all the hustle and bustle of the cultural revolution it seems that the reaction won anyway (maybe had to do with what the Chinese ultra-left thought; that there was more capitalist roaders than Mao thought. Although they tried hard to stop Deng during this revolution he had quite a few friends such as Zhou Enlai and was actually allowed back to politics by Mao himself.).


"That also doesn't take into account that reaction may come from within the proletariat itself. And lastly, this idea of having isolated, self ruling communes falls prey to the same things anarchism does.

Are you an anarchist or a left communist?"

Ummm...

Anarchists, specifically anarchist-communists, call cities and surrounding areas communes... (think of the concept of polis)

Also the anarcho-syndicalists use the words "syndicates" but they are quite the same/similar as worker's councils, which is the left communist's preferred word.

Since I don't consider myself much of a syndicalist I'll use the left communist word; however, I don't think left-communists ever think of communes or neighborhood assemblies.

There's some lack of understanding of anarchist theory, We will not be isolated yet federated in a decentralized manner or so (if only I had that picture that Wat Tyler had showing the "differences" between decentralized, centralized, and a third option). Because there's no sole political center it's easier to deal with reaction from the "proletariat itself" (I've heard that if this happen we'll just decide attack the commune; if there was too much reaction in the proletariat among the area that the anarchist's somehow managed to control, which I doubt since as I said earlier revolutions need to occur in places where the conditions are favourable, I think the Socialist State in the same area would face a similar problem of having to repress a lot of people and potentially being overthrown by those reactionaries.) than in a centralized state where once the vanguard party falls pray to reaction will be much harder to stop (not even a cultural revolution stopped reaction in China.). There are probably other threads that deal with this.

This also contradicts what you said earlier ( "The problem here is that you are viewing the vanguard as something external to the masses which it can't be.") since if reaction can come from the proletariat itself it can also come from the vanguard party too since you consider it part of the masses.


"Same to you. It's nice to have some civil and intelligent discourse once in a while."

It surely is since actually I'm turned off by these kinds of threads because it turns into an inane flame sessions divided by ideological lines.

That actually turns down the purpose of revleft; since it features a broad cross-section of the left they should all be able to discuss with one another.


"There is of course Democratic Centralism and Cultural Revolution. I would say that these haven't been applied strongly or consistently enough in the past. Secondly, the way I envision Socialism, the party and the government will be very broad in such a way that there will be a much tighter connection with the people then there was under a man like Stalin. That would also play a significant factor. Lastly, the practice of concentrating power in one man like Stalin or Mao makes revisionist coups easier. I don't think that that kind of concentrated power is inherent to Marxism-Leninism."

I agree that the more centralization there is the more likely the possibility for revisionism and find your goal of making a "tighter connection with the people" admirable.

Although I actually wished that maybe I would hear a slightly different answer than just Democratic Centralism and Cultural Revolution. I really hoped to hear of someone from the Leninist milieu actually trying to develop something that would in theory reduce revisionism (or degeneracy, which is the term the Trotskyists use).


interal and external enemies

I think that the only real way to look at it is that anarchism has a problem with external enemies (well, it only seems that way because of military defeats in all of the quite fewer anarchist influenced revolutions and betrayals from allies...there have also been military defeats from socialist revolutions in Germany and Hungary during WWI) while the Leninist model of a socialist state has a problem with internal enemies (revision or degeneracy in your case since you, the one who said this above quote, is a Trotskyist.).

We don't have both and I think we can solve the problem of external enemies (after all the mahkno's army and the Spanish anarchists were able to hold out and fight onwards till they were betrayed, the case more tragic for the Spanish anarchists since some also accepted cooperating with the state which was a mistake they tried to reverse when it was too late....).

[Rosa Provokateur]

It basically comes down to a persons ability and willingness to run their own life and cooperate with others when the time calls for it. It requires creativity, critical thinking, situationist inivation, etc. I think that when met with problems that get in the way of desirable living people are always able to get together and work that problem out in some way or another until a desirable outcome is met. That what makes me an anarchist and this is my fundamental belief in anarchy.

[Rosa Provokateur]

if you have your revolution what then, dissolve the state?
this is impractical and would weaken your own revolution and leave the door open for systematic destruction of it by interal and external enemies

Whats impractical is building a new state on the ashes of an old one where power and authority can re-build themselves. If a new state is formed then theres nothing to prevent the revolutionaries holding it from becoming rulers. If there is no state, theres nothing left to destroy.

[Unicorn]

Anarchism doesn't work. It was true in 1901, it is true in 2008.

Lenin on anarchism:



Theses:

1. Anarchism, in the course of the 35 to 40 years (Bakunin and the International, 1866–) of its existence (and with Stirner included, in the course of many more years) has produced nothing but general platitudes against exploitation.

These phrases have been current for more than 2,000 years. What is missing is (alpha) an understanding of the causes of exploitation; (beta) an understanding of the development of society, which leads to socialism; (gamma) an understanding of the class struggle as the creative force for the realisation of socialism.

2. An understanding of the causes of exploitation. Private property as the basis of commodity economy. Social property in the means of production. In anarchism–nil.

Anarchism is bourgeois individualism in reverse. Individualism as the basis of the entire anarchist world outlook.

{
Defence of petty property and petty economy on the land. Keine Majorität.[1]

Negation of the unifying and organising power of the authority.
}

3. Failure to understand the development of society–the role of large-scale production–the development of capitalism into socialism.

(Anarchism is a product of despair. The psychology of the unsettled intellectual or the vagabond and not of the proletarian.)

4. Failure to understand the class struggle of the proletariat.

Absurd negation of politics in bourgeois society.

Failure to understand the role of the organisation and the education of the workers.

Panaceas consisting of one-sided, disconnected means.

5. What has anarchism, at one time dominant in the Romance countries, contributed in recent European history?

– No doctrine, revolutionary teaching, or theory.

– Fragmentation of the working-class movement.

– Complete fiasco in the experiments of the revolutionary movement (Proudhonism, 1871; Bakuninism, 1873).

– Subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics in the guise of negation of politics.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/dec/31.htm

[Bright Banana Beard]

Anarchism doesn't work. It was true in 1901, it is true in 2008.

Lenin on anarchism:


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/dec/31.htm


Totally outdated, anarchism were just new during those time. Can you bring up the one in 21st century article? We been re-defining as the same goes for Marxism-Leninism, M-L-M, all those ideological doesn't exist back in those time.

[RedAnarchist]

Anarchism will, anarchy won't.

[Lensky1917]

I think that the question is not about "whether Anarchism can work", but whether if it actually has a strong enough following to attempt. The people that Anarchism attracts are probably not the kind one should enlist for the formation of a revolution.

[Fedorov]

I think that the question is not about "whether Anarchism can work", but whether if it actually has a strong enough following to attempt. The people that Anarchism attracts are probably not the kind one should enlist for the formation of a revolution.And what kind of people do you suppose it attracts? Drugged out confused teenagers that have no real clue of what they stand for? Get that dogmatic crap out of your head.

On to Unicorn



1. Anarchism, in the course of the 35 to 40 years (Bakunin and the International, 1866–) of its existence (and with Stirner included, in the course of many more years) has produced nothing but general platitudes against exploitation.

These phrases have been current for more than 2,000 years. What is missing is (alpha) an understanding of the causes of exploitation; (beta) an understanding of the development of society, which leads to socialism; (gamma) an understanding of the class struggle as the creative force for the realisation of socialism.That seems rather biased since it states that the only thing anarchism has achieved is less adherents to Leninism (gasp) the most "logical" of all theories. Now Lenin simply states that his view that it is class antagonism and cannot be possibly anything else that fuels all. Its a difference of opinion and in no way a fact. Take it further and you can see that a part of class difference is authority, one has authority over another so its not that dissimilar.


2. An understanding of the causes of exploitation. Private property as the basis of commodity economy. Social property in the means of production. In anarchism–nil.

Anarchism is bourgeois individualism in reverse. Individualism as the basis of the entire anarchist world outlook. Anarcho -syndicalysts? anarcho communists? Obviously all of them are individual bastards that only look out for themselves. No one owns the means of production (no individual) so I see it as Lenin just justifying centralized control.


3. Failure to understand the development of society–the role of large-scale production–the development of capitalism into socialism.

(Anarchism is a product of despair. The psychology of the unsettled intellectual or the vagabond and not of the proletarian.) Reacts purely on emotion, vagabond my ass. Yes anarchists have a failure to see things his way. There is the difference a lack of transitional socialist period which is claimed necessary but given no real justification.



4. Failure to understand the class struggle of the proletariat.

Absurd negation of politics in bourgeois society.

Failure to understand the role of the organisation and the education of the workers.

Panaceas consisting of one-sided, disconnected means. Anarchists do indeed organize and abstain from elections for certain reasons. Revolutionaries don't think they can work with the system, hence revolutionary. Anarchists understand the role and education in a different light.


5. What has anarchism, at one time dominant in the Romance countries, contributed in recent European history?

– No doctrine, revolutionary teaching, or theory.

– Fragmentation of the working-class movement.

– Complete fiasco in the experiments of the revolutionary movement (Proudhonism, 1871; Bakuninism, 1873).

– Subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics in the guise of negation of politics.Just bullshit. Nothing more than egoistic banter about his ideology trumping all.

Now give a little more substantial criticism of Anarchism.

[Lensky1917]

And what kind of people do you suppose it attracts? Drugged out confused teenagers that have no real clue of what they stand for? Get that dogmatic crap out of your head.


I'm just saying; that although there are intelligent Anarchists, there may some who are mistaken about its' goals.

[Bastable]

I'm just saying; that although there are intelligent Anarchists, there may some who are mistaken about its' goals.


and what confusion could there possibly be? if you're referring to "punks" who run around drawing anarchy symbols and swearing at cops, then you are the mistaken one.

they are not anarchists.

and neither would many of them consider themselves to be anarchists.

[Lensky1917]

and what confusion could there possibly be? if you're referring to "punks" who run around drawing anarchy symbols and swearing at cops, then you are the mistaken one.

It's answers like that which make me really dislike Anarchists. It is those people and more, which give Anarchism a bad name. It is that image, which wll not make the right people join your cause. Also, typing in lower case all the time does not help either.

[Bastable]

It's answers like that which make me really dislike Anarchists. .

It’s replies like that that make me really dislike non-anarchists



It is those people and more, which give Anarchism a bad name. It is that image, which wll not make the right people join your cause.

That is why we must work hard to make the right people join our cause.


Also, typing in lower case all the time does not help either.

Picky, picky, picky

[Fedorov]

It's answers like that which make me really dislike Anarchists. It is those people and more, which give Anarchism a bad name. It is that image, which wll not make the right people join your cause. Also, typing in lower case all the time does not help either.
By all means give a refutation of Anarchism the ideology. We'll abstain from people and pretend thats not an issue (which it is not). What exactly about it won't work?

[Lensky1917]

If I am correct; anarchism is the exact same thing as communism, except that anarchism lacks the transitional stage of socialism. It is this stage that is essential for a classless society to work. This transitional stage, is where people will need to be educated and disciplined.

[Fedorov]

If I am correct; anarchism is the exact same thing as communism, except that anarchism lacks the transitional stage of socialism. It is this stage that is essential for a classless society to work. This transitional stage, is where people will need to be educated and disciplined.

Essentially you are right but on what grounds exactly? Take for example the Soviet Union, people were highly educated in all aspects (especially Marxism). But this didn't lead to a mellowing of bureaucracy. In the end slow reforms and sell-outs brought the whole experiment down. Lenin responded to situation at hand I don't think I can debate that he did the right thing for the time but ideally society can indeed transition to a more communist form of government. Look at Spain during the war, anarchists were the most organized and effective of all the far left groups. People are certainly capable of making a transition.

[Awful Reality]

Can Anarchy Work??

The basic principle is, as far as im aware, not the absence of laws or government but the economic system, or absence of one.

Every good or service is free.

The teacher teaches the children without getting paid knowing that on his/her way home he can pick up the groceries for free.the grocer picks up his stock for free and lays them out in his shop with out charge.He obtains a new television without paying for it upon which popular news broadcasters read the news for free.The children taught by the teacher join any job they desire-provided that they have the skills-and work for free.I believe its called a gift economy.

Could it work??Or is it an unachievable utopia?Was this the final form of communism Marx described-after the dictatorship of the proletariat?Would inherent human greed bring it down?Without the capitalist profit motive or the direction of the communist state would anyone bother?
But if somebody started charging money for a item people would simply turnto a different free retailer and any money he made would be meaningless since anything he needed would be free?

I'm going to break this down for you. Anarchy is the lack of a government. And, what the fuck is the lack of an economic system? Such a thing can't exist.

You don't really realize what anarchy is. Yes, essentially "communism" as described by Marx is anarchy. But you dipshits don't realize that it's impossible to go immediately from advanced capitalism to communism. Never. Going. To happen.

[RedFlagComrade]

I'm going to break this down for you. Anarchy is the lack of a government. And, what the fuck is the lack of an economic system? Such a thing can't exist.

You don't really realize what anarchy is. Yes, essentially "communism" as described by Marx is anarchy. But you dipshits don't realize that it's impossible to go immediately from advanced capitalism to communism. Never. Going. To happen.


I get the feeling you dont like me!

[Fedorov]

I'm going to break this down for you. Anarchy is the lack of a government. And, what the fuck is the lack of an economic system? Such a thing can't exist.

You don't really realize what anarchy is. Yes, essentially "communism" as described by Marx is anarchy. But you dipshits don't realize that it's impossible to go immediately from advanced capitalism to communism. Never. Going. To happen.

First of all go fuck yourself you dipshit and stick to the topic without flaming. Where's your evidence or theory of why? Just because? Why don't you read up a bit before getting emotional about something you don't know about.

[Lensky1917]

You don't really realize what anarchy is. Yes, essentially "communism" as described by Marx is anarchy. But you dipshits don't realize that it's impossible to go immediately from advanced capitalism to communism. Never. Going. To happen.


First of all go fuck yourself you dipshit and stick to the topic without flaming. Where's your evidence or theory of why? Just because? Why don't you read up a bit before getting emotional about something you don't know about.

Mellow out you two. Especially you, fourthinternational.


But this didn't lead to a mellowing of bureaucracy. In the end slow reforms and sell-outs brought the whole experiment down.

Unfortunately, when the Bolsheviks seized power they had many obstacles to climb. It was most likely these obstacle that resulted in bureaucracy. After Stalin, the country was also very erratic in their policies.

[Bastable]

Unfortunately, when the Bolsheviks seized power they had many obstacles to climb. It was most likely these obstacle that resulted in bureaucracy. After Stalin, the country was also very erratic in their policies.


is this your admission that the only way to go is anachism?

[Lensky1917]

is this your admission that the only way to go is anachism?


You wish. I am perfectly loyal to my cause, and am merely pointing out the problems that the Soviet Union faced.

[Bastable]

You wish. I am perfectly loyal to my cause, and am merely pointing out the problems that the Soviet Union faced.

These are problems, that all "communist states" (to use the oxymoron) face, not just the USSR, problems that you would have to face in a successful revolution.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Anarchism will, anarchy won't.
I don't follow.

[RedAnarchist]

I don't follow.

There's a difference between Anarchism and Anarchy.

[Rosa Provokateur]

There's a difference between Anarchism and Anarchy.
Could you elaborate?

[Awful Reality]

is this your admission that the only way to go is anachism?

Anarchism will most likely lead to more struggles and obstacles to surmount. Abolishing the state immediately while expecting to immediately jump to communistic labor is impossible as it will allow a) a very strong counter-revolution (as is inevitable), and b) massive economic problems as material value is not regulated.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Anarchism will most likely lead to more struggles and obstacles to surmount. Abolishing the state immediately while expecting to immediately jump to communistic labor is impossible as it will allow a) a very strong counter-revolution (as is inevitable), and b) massive economic problems as material value is not regulated.
Nobody said that it would immediately jump to anything, we're not the PLP here.

A counter would have nothing to build off of because all offices of government would be gone and they'd have to start by going around with guns and giving orders. People dont stand for gung-ho stuff like that and would knock it down. As for the economy, we can live without it.

Everybody has got something that somebody else will want and everyone is able to do something useful than another might not be able to do; by working according to a barter of good per service/service per good, you solve the "problem" of economic collapse.

[The Douche]

Nobody said that it would immediately jump to anything, we're not the PLP here.

A counter would have nothing to build off of because all offices of government would be gone and they'd have to start by going around with guns and giving orders. People dont stand for gung-ho stuff like that and would knock it down. As for the economy, we can live without it.

Everybody has got something that somebody else will want and everyone is able to do something useful than another might not be able to do; by working according to a barter of good per service/service per good, you solve the "problem" of economic collapse.

For fuck's sake you need to learn about anarchism before you go around claiming to be an anarchist. (but the again, calling yourself a "christian anarchist" is a sure way to make sure everybody knows you're not really an anarchist)

You might want to start here http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

No anarchist wants to see a barter society put into practice. Except for maybe some primitivists.

[The Feral Underclass]

There's a difference between Anarchism and Anarchy.

What are you talking about?

[SocialDemocracy19]

no because the examples you are giving of this working are of tiny tribes of people who agree to live like this, and not everyone wants anarchy so on a world level it would never work as much as u want to argue that people would be motivated to protect people from human rights abuse, but if they have nothing to earn than this would be pointless, it would also support excessive greed since theres no laws to say how much someone can and cant have making the market more free and less planned than it allr eady is so in essence its like radical capitalism and free trade which supports massive poverty and oppression.

[Unicorn]

I think anarchism would not work because there is no state which protects the collective ownership of the means of production. The society would simply degenerate into anarchocapitalism.

How are the anarchists going to stop the cappies from becoming private entrepreneurs selling whatever they produce to the highest bidder?

[Kropotesta]

I think anarchism would not work because there is no state which protects the collective ownership of the means of production. The society would simply degenerate into anarchocapitalism.

How are the anarchists going to stop the cappies from becoming private entrepreneurs selling whatever they produce to the highest bidder?
Well with anarchist communism things would be distributed according to need, along with the money system being abolished. Also by getting rid of private property there would be no basis for this anarcho-capitalism to grab hold of- which means no selling.
What would protect collective ownership? hmm...hard one....maybe the collective? crazy I know.

[RedAnarchist]

What are you talking about?

Nevermind, my posts in this thread are stupid.

[Unicorn]

Also by getting rid of private property there would be no basis for this anarcho-capitalism to grab hold of- which means no selling.
If some capitalist fishes some fish what would stop him from selling them? Another cappie baking bread would be happy to trade bread to the guy for his fish. A third guy could make wagons for them in exchange for their fish and bread. That's anarchocapitalism.

Because there is no socialist transitionary period anarchocapitalism would reign outside the anarchist collectives . It is unreasonable to expect that the bourgeois would like to participate in the collectives. Eventually, the bourgeois counter-revolutionaries would establish the state again and crush the anarchist experiment.

[Comrade Rage]

I don't think it will work. Under an anarchist method, production has never surpassed it's capitalist level.

Anarchist Spain is proof of this, particularly Spain.

Besides, without the benefit of a State, how do you combat reaction?:confused:

[Kronos]

If we consider the contexts in which anarchy was theorized (Kropotkin, Godwin, etc), we see that industrialized society was far less developed than our modern world, and that the working classes lived in extremely impoverished conditions when compared to our own. Combined, I think these two factors played a large role in the development of the theory. On one hand, you have a far simpler society with less people and less complexity. On the other hand you have a working class that hasn't much to lose (the working classes today live like kings by comparison). Therefore it would be the appropriate reaction by the working classes to suppose that a lack of state and government could work, and that the working classes could spontaneously organize. But, I believe that anarchy, today, would be impossible or very short lived, due to the complexity of industry, technology, and especially the size of the populations on the earth. There is simply too much to be "spontaneously organized" through collective efforts. A central state must exist for ordinance.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Besides, without the benefit of a State, how do you combat reaction?:confused:

Through the democratic organs of a revolutionary society. When the revolution beomes consolidated in a state form it fails, it becomes reactionary.

[Rosa Provokateur]

For fuck's sake you need to learn about anarchism before you go around claiming to be an anarchist. (but the again, calling yourself a "christian anarchist" is a sure way to make sure everybody knows you're not really an anarchist)

You might want to start here http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

No anarchist wants to see a barter society put into practice. Except for maybe some primitivists.

I don't go by "anarchism"; I believe in anarchy, living life without domination or human authority. I don't need anything to define what my beliefs are or how I should believe.

This one does. I'm not a primitivist (although I see that they arent entirely wrong nor completely right) nor do I have to be one in order to believe in bartering.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I think anarchism would not work because there is no state which protects the collective ownership of the means of production. The society would simply degenerate into anarchocapitalism.

How are the anarchists going to stop the cappies from becoming private entrepreneurs selling whatever they produce to the highest bidder?

I cant speak for all anarchists but personally I'd let them be so long as they arent forcing others to work if they dont want to and so long as no one is getting ripped off.

If it falls to "anarcho-capitalism" then that means people want to live that way and who am I to force my way of life on them.

That is where the state fails, by forcing people to live in accordance to its laws and regulations... not freedom but tyranny.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Besides, without the benefit of a State, how do you combat reaction?:confused:

By doing it yourself and not relying on the breast of the nanny state to provide for you. What could the state do... use cops? Isnt that a part of what were against?

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

I don't go by "anarchism"; I believe in anarchy, living life without domination or human authority. I don't need anything to define what my beliefs are or how I should believe.


But ecclesial authority and imaginary dictat are all fine and dandy? :laugh:

[Rosa Provokateur]

But ecclesial authority and imaginary dictat are all fine and dandy? :laugh:

I don't believe in organized religion so ecclesia is out of the question. As to whether God exists, I cant prove that He does or doesnt but I choose to believe that He does and I will never under any circumstances force that belief onto anyone.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

But you have no democratic control over the teachings of Jesus (or any other of these fine characters) and religious belief represents essentially an unquestionable social hierarchy that distorts the true nature of reality.

[RebelDog]

The words 'Christian' and 'anarchist' have separate meanings. When someone puts them together in order to try and achieve some ridiculous hybrid ideology they still are words that combined will never make any sense. Religion is about hierarchy, control, mysticism and anarchism is the antitheses of that.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The words 'Christian' and 'anarchist' have separate meanings. When someone puts them together in order to try and achieve some ridiculous hybrid ideology they still are words that combined will never make any sense. Religion is about hierarchy, control, mysticism and anarchism is the antitheses of that.

While it's pretty hard to disagree with this, I do think that one can be religious (although certainly not a member of an organized religion) and still be an anarchist. It's a bit contradictory, but I'd consider someone like Leo Tolstoy to be an anarchist.

[RebelDog]

While it's pretty hard to disagree with this, I do think that one can be religious (although certainly not a member of an organized religion) and still be an anarchist. It's a bit contradictory, but I'd consider someone like Leo Tolstoy to be an anarchist.

If are people who want anarchism but also regard themselves as Christians then that is a contradiction for them to resolve. However one is the negation of the other and they cannot actually both co-exist forever as opposing ideologies.

[RebelDog]

I mean if Tolstoy or the poster here were to actually have the privilege of growing up in the anarchist society they seek they would more than likely (if not actually) reject religion as immaterialist and see that religion is a human construction that thrives in certain material circumstances. Also the fact that Tolstoy is a bad example in this case as his pacifism is also incompatible with any real notion of how we achieve anarchism or what anarchism actually is. Its nothing without class war.

[Red Equation]

Greed is a human concept brought upon capitalism.

When you are young, what is the first thing you are taught? Be nice and share, because sharing and caring... correct? Yes it is. But when you grow up, everyone tells you that you won't survive with those kinds of skills, it's a dog eat dog world. You have to fight to survive, Greed is brought on by this, and that is the only reason it exists.

So in essence yes, Anarchy can exist.

[cappin]

Well, it could work, but it wouldn't be civilized. People need a medium of which they can reach fellow man, and anarchism doesn't provide any kind of way to do that.

[pave_the_planet]

Well, it could work, but it wouldn't be civilized. People need a medium of which they can reach fellow man, and anarchism doesn't provide any kind of way to do that.

wait. what?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't think it will work. Under an anarchist method, production has never surpassed it's capitalist level.

Anarchist Spain is proof of this, particularly Spain.

Besides, without the benefit of a State, how do you combat reaction?:confused:


Actually, both the syndicalist and communist areas in anarchist Spain outperformed the capitalist production capacity.

[Unicorn]

Actually, both the syndicalist and communist areas in anarchist Spain outperformed the capitalist production capacity.
Source?

[Kami]

Well, it could work, but it wouldn't be civilized. People need a medium of which they can reach fellow man, and anarchism doesn't provide any kind of way to do that.
wha? Anarchy is merely a society lacking class or state. Infrastructure would still be present, and likely improved.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Source?
The Anarchist Collectives by Sam Dolgoff.
Collectives in the Spanish Revolution by Gaston Leval.
The Spanish Civil War by Burnett Bolloten

A more recent example:
http://workers.labor.net.au/features/200609/c_historicalfeature_spain.html

"If one enters a Mondragon factory, one of the more obvious features is a European style coffee bar, occupied by members taking a break. It is emblematic of the work style, which is serious but relaxed. Mondragon productivity is very high -- higher than in its capitalist counterparts. Efficiency, measured as the ratio of utilized resources (capital and labor) to output, is far higher than in comparable capitalist factories.

One of the most striking indications of the effectiveness of the Mondragon system is that the Empressarial Division of Mondragon has continued to develop an average of four cooperatives a year, each with about 400 members.


Only two of these have ever failed. This amazing record can be compared with business start-ups in this country, over 90 percent of which fail within the first five years."

∑ Open admission
∑ democratic organization
∑ sovereignty of labour [note: all economic textbooks in Australian universities take as their basic premise sovereignty of the consumer]
∑ the instrumental and subordinate character of capital
∑ participatory management
∑ payment solidarity
∑ interco-operation
∑ social transformation
∑ universality
∑ education

[Rosa Provokateur]

But you have no democratic control over the teachings of Jesus (or any other of these fine characters) and religious belief represents essentially an unquestionable social hierarchy that distorts the true nature of reality.

Jesus essentially taught that we should love eachother and treat everyone with the same kindness and love that we ourselves would want to be given. The backdrop on all of it is the crucifixion but I dont think that people have to believe in that in order to follow the teachings of Jesus.

Belief doesnt come without doubt or questioning and in order to truly know Jesus and what he meant I, as a christian, have to constantly question and re-evaluate everything. Blind faith isnt faith at all but is instead fear and ignorance.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I mean if Tolstoy or the poster here were to actually have the privilege of growing up in the anarchist society they seek they would more than likely (if not actually) reject religion as immaterialist and see that religion is a human construction that thrives in certain material circumstances. Also the fact that Tolstoy is a bad example in this case as his pacifism is also incompatible with any real notion of how we achieve anarchism or what anarchism actually is. Its nothing without class war.

I reject organized religion, it's a human construction like you said.

I leave class war to the marxists; the truth is that I have no idea how anarchy will come about nor will I speculate as to its construction.

Tolstoy's pacifism is the only thing I hold against him but other then that I think he contributed alot and we'd be extremely behind without him.

[apathy maybe]

Really? You don't hold Tolstoy's hypocrisy against him? Personally, I think that Tolstoy did contribute something useful to the collected anarchist library. Of course, I think that there is a lot of stuff which isn't useful as well.

(By the way, we wasn't even a Christian.) He crapped on about how one shouldn't have sex, and proceeded to fuck every other women near by. Anyway, yeah.

[Renewed Revolution]

It really depends on what your definition of "Anarchy" is. When most people (albeit non-Leftists and Stalinists) think of "Anarchy" they think of a system without bounds and with no order, and as V said, "Anarchy" is not without order but without leaders. Anarcho-Capitalism or Free Market Capitalism would not work because it would eventually transform into a Corporate Police State by giving large businesses and corporations more control. Would Anarcho-Communism or Anarcho-Syndicalism work? Most likely yes, but it has never been attempted on a large scale before. Would true Communism (not Stalinism, the transitionary stage after Socialism in Marxist thought) work? Yes, for it is very close to Anarcho-Communism except with a transitionary stage. So yes, basically, "Anarchy" in a certain sense would work with a transitionary stage.

[Dust Bunnies]

It would take alot of cooperation for an Anarchist state to be made. I voted "no" because I can't see it happening within this century and possibly not in the next.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It would take alot of cooperation for an Anarchist state to be made. I voted "no" because I can't see it happening within this century and possibly not in the next.

"Anarchist state" is such a strange phrase. A contradiction if I've ever seen one.

[Comrade Krell]

Anarchy will never be 'achieved' because people don't understand anarchism from a Marxist analytical approach. Anarchism is an arm of the bourgeois state aimed at trying to make the worker's movements 'fringe' by isolating the worker's through ridiculous cultural cringe and ridiculous actions.

Anarchists are almost always the offspring of petty-bourgeois parents.

[Kropotesta]

Anarchists are almost always the offspring of petty-bourgeois parents.
you are pretty stupid.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anarchy will never be 'achieved' because people don't understand anarchism from a Marxist analytical approach. Anarchism is an arm of the bourgeois state aimed at trying to make the worker's movements 'fringe' by isolating the worker's through ridiculous cultural cringe and ridiculous actions.

Anarchists are almost always the offspring of petty-bourgeois parents.

Oh, bother. What's next, the obligatory rant about the "anarcho-trots"?

Isn't there a show trial you should be at right now?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Well, from what I know about anarchism (which may be a little more limited then some other people on here), there are various groups within the term of anarchism. I can't think of any that I think could work and actually have a positive outcome in the end offhand at the moment, but I'm sure that some forms of anarchism must at least be better than other forms. But once again, I haven't read all that much anarchist literature. I did read some of Emma Goldman's writings a couple years back. It was well written, I just don't agree with a good portion of what she wrote in the way of content. Her friend, (who she would often debate with) John Reed, was a little closer to my way of thinking. I guess it could work, in certain circumstances, however I find it to seem highly unlikely. Anything is possible. Even if it did happen, the question would be: would it be a good thing? I guess if it actually happens time will have to tell.

My speculation would be:

Can it work? Possibly.

Is it likely to work? I'm leaning towards no.

It's too complicated for a simple yes or no answer.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Anarchy will never be 'achieved' because people don't understand anarchism from a Marxist analytical approach. Anarchism is an arm of the bourgeois state aimed at trying to make the worker's movements 'fringe' by isolating the worker's through ridiculous cultural cringe and ridiculous actions.

Anarchists are almost always the offspring of petty-bourgeois parents.

The argument about making worker's movements fringe doesn't apply to all all forms of anarchism. It applies to a good portion of them. Now, I don't consider myself an anarchist in any way but sweeping generalizations are often unfair and for the most part not completely true. People often make sweeping generalizations about Marxist-Leninists and I take offense to those statements, therefore it would be a double standard to do the same to another group just because I don't subscribe to their beliefs. I don't believe that there is a one-size-fits-all solution for every time and place. Factors change things to some degree (culture, climate, technology, etc.) I do believe, though, that some commonalities should remain true in all times and places.

[Thíazì]

you are pretty stupid.

Hahaha. Yeah I know, because all the Spanish workers who decided to rise up against Fascist rule were the by-products of petty-bourgeois parents.

I think he's totally misidentifying actual anarchists with the typical image of a teenage 'anarchist' who listens to pop-rock (contradiction) and spends all his time at the mall.

[Malakangga]

Yes,Anarchy can work, guys

[trivas7]

Wow, right on -- you are better than US!

[Kropotesta]

Wow, right on -- you are better than US!
fucking duh

[trivas7]

fucking duh
What kind of social formation is anarchism?

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm amazed at the bickering that has taken place here. Firstly, there are very few differences between Anarchism and Communism - namely, the transitional stage of socialism.

But, in the end, anarchists and communists generally envision an identical utopia.

Now if we want to debate how to get to anarchy/communism that's fine. We will have a fine rowdy debate. But please people, we are all working towards the same thing - stop beating each other up over nothing (though I'm sure our reactionary friends love this form of ignorance ;)).

Furthermore, I would like to point out the irony of our comrades here who claim that one "cannot be X" or "cannot do Y" etc... and be a communist/anarchist/whatever. When I read your posts I was stunned by the similarities to the capitalist/reactionary jargon which is thrown around all day in our culture (you know: "you can't be an American if ...."). Your divisive tactics do not help any sort of 'cause' what-so-ever, in fact, the limit the possibilities of success as they blatantly alienate others who are openly trying to work towards the future we all envision!

Thirdly, who says one cannot believe in God and be an anarchist/communist (I know many of you do, and I do not believe in God, but I wish to argue that it is possible)? I understand that most conventional religious beliefs involve a hierarchical structure, and I openly oppose said structure, but there are many 'religious' beliefs which do not. Gnostics, for example, did not believe God was a hierarchical being, but rather was existent in all of us (somewhat similar to Buddhism). And the teachings of Jesus do not oppose communism/anarchism is any way, they are basically the teachings of love (although the church has distorted them into many things). I would venture the claim that anarchism/communism are basically ideologies of love, as they attempt to bring people together under equal conditions rather than oppression. I see no contradiction here.

- August

[gla22]

I'm amazed at the bickering that has taken place here. Firstly, there are very few differences between Anarchism and Communism - namely, the transitional stage of socialism.

But, in the end, anarchists and communists generally envision an identical utopia.

Now if we want to debate how to get to anarchy/communism that's fine. We will have a fine rowdy debate. But please people, we are all working towards the same thing - stop beating each other up over nothing (though I'm sure our reactionary friends love this form of ignorance ;)).

Furthermore, I would like to point out the irony of our comrades here who claim that one "cannot be X" or "cannot do Y" etc... and be a communist/anarchist/whatever. When I read your posts I was stunned by the similarities to the capitalist/reactionary jargon which is thrown around all day in our culture (you know: "you can't be an American if ...."). Your divisive tactics do not help any sort of 'cause' what-so-ever, in fact, the limit the possibilities of success as they blatantly alienate others who are openly trying to work towards the future we all envision!

Thirdly, who says one cannot believe in God and be an anarchist/communist (I know many of you do, and I do not believe in God, but I wish to argue that it is possible)? I understand that most conventional religious beliefs involve a hierarchical structure, and I openly oppose said structure, but there are many 'religious' beliefs which do not. Gnostics, for example, did not believe God was a hierarchical being, but rather was existent in all of us (somewhat similar to Buddhism). And the teachings of Jesus do not oppose communism/anarchism is any way, they are basically the teachings of love (although the church has distorted them into many things). I would venture the claim that anarchism/communism are basically ideologies of love, as they attempt to bring people together under equal conditions rather than oppression. I see no contradiction here.

- August


Wow. great post. Communists and Anarchists are brothers in arms, we work towards the same end. I think a transitional stage is necessary but if you can go straight to anarchy without the stage I will support the movement wholeheartedly.

[Black Sheep]

ok,i hope this thread isnt buried away and someone will respond..

the question should be "can anarchism/communism be achieved by the means proposed by the anarchists?"

i ve been sniffing around the anarchist faq, but certain points remain fricking blurry. anyway, lemme share some stuff i ve been thinking lately:

1)The no hierarchy IS the ideal and best (theoretically) way to revolt,because it eliminates reaction and corruption of the proletariat.However it requires a LONG pre-revolution era where the frickin VAST majority of the exploited masses would have a solid revolutionised state of mind.

this leads to

2)If you want no vanguard party or vanguard part of the proletariat, then you need a pretty high standard of class awareness of the proletariat at its vast majority.

3)The vanguard party way, is a quick and efficient way to lead the masses to revolution under objectively "correct"( at least in general, like anti-capitalist) ground of theory.However this can lead to corruption of the vanguards (or vanguard party), losing sight ofg the goal, or willingly betraying the revolution.

[LiberaCHE]

"Anarchy" exists right now ...




in Darfur


:ninja:

[F9]

of course it can be achieved by what we propose,thats why we are Anarchists.

1)correct.
2)Of course and we want class awareness but it isnt a "must" to be high,but yes workers must be aware to accomplish a revolution and i think that goes on every revolution!Thats why our of main goals now is to spread our ideas to the workers you must get them with you.
3)vanguard of anything always leads to corruption thats why(and not only) we dont support it.

Fuserg9:star:

[Black Sheep]

another question ( i think it s better to add up to existent threads, right?)

-what are the reasons for the rejection of participating in the parliament?
not for a ruling purpose, but for propaganda and revealing the true character of the capitalist reforms claiming to aim to the "well being of the people".

[Trystan]

Yes . . . I mean maybe. Can a government-less system exist? Sure. Without hierarchy at all? Hmm . . . probably not.

[F9]

why should we contribute to the system?we would follow the system by participating.And by trying be in to the parliament that means that you seek for hierarchy etc.Moreover this thing by itself would mean authority in between us because there are going to be organized from up to the bottom(katheta).Our organizations are "ruled" in a straight line(orizontia;))
For propaganda reasons federations and organizations are the better thing where through our organizations we spread the propaganda and aim to the "well being of the people".;)

Fuserg9:star:

[F9]

Yes . . . I mean maybe. Can a government-less system exist? Sure. Without hierarchy at all? Hmm . . . probably not.

what are you a Communist?what you see in communism?still having hierarchy?:confused:

Fuserg9:star:

[Trystan]

what are you a Communist?what you see in communism?still having hierarchy?:confused:

Fuserg9:star:

Yeah, some hierarchy. Chomsky in "Chomsky on Anarchism" describes an anarcho-syndicalist society that is essentially hierarchical, although he doesn't call it such. I've yet to see an anarchist prove that a society without any hierarchy at all can exist. Just how I see it.

[F9]

chomsky?:lol:i have never heard about this that you say but if it is there are bullshit.
that non hierarchy society we(anarchocommunists) want is Communism where there isnt hierarchy.Do you stand against Communism too, which is a non hierarchical society?

Fuserg9:star:

[Trystan]

Do you stand against Communism too, which is a non hierarchical society?

Fuserg9:star:

No. I just feel that there would be some hierarchy.

[Aurelia]

'Anarchy' exists now today within the decays and destructive losses incurred by capital.

[F9]

No. I just feel that there would be some hierarchy.

where?and why there will be in those places?


Fuserg9:star:

[gla22]

I see anarchy working possibility and i see it as superior to Marxism (theoretically) because we don't see the totalitarian potential of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." However for feasibility I think a revolutionary state will have to exist for a short period of time (less than 5 years) after the revolution, where communities secede from services ect. until the state is dismantled completely. I have a feeling that the sudden change would allow possibility for a reactionary government to take control.

[Black Sheep]

What i see as a problem is that anarchist havent proposed a clear WAY, a PATH to achieve classless society.It is like capitalism, GAP , anarchy. like, "poof"! and all is well.

You may (stupidly IMO) argue that there is no blueprint, and spontaneous action and circumstances will uncover the path.But all that is ust blind talk with high hopes.

Until the above and the matter of zero hierarchy in the revolution process are cleared to me, i cannot take anarchism too seriously.

I m not being snob and stuff:rolleyes:, i just need some good reasons and solidified ground to your thesies.

[F9]

the way to Anarchism is REVOLUTION!what more you need from that?And nothing changes magically like "poof" as you said,we will overthrow capitalists and hierarchical positions during revolution and we will also start the way of "owning" the factories so we start production and reach Anarchism.We would also be prepared and people will contribute from farms outside of the revolt area,some people will get and this crucial position to help revolution.If there isnt food for the revolts there wont be revolution!
What really concerns you on zero hierarchy?you do want hierarchy?if yes answer me the question i made and to Trystan:where?and why there will be in those places?

Fuserg9:star:

[nuisance]

What i see as a problem is that anarchist havent proposed a clear WAY, a PATH to achieve classless society.It is like capitalism, GAP , anarchy. like, "poof"! and all is well.
What? That is blatently not true.


You may (stupidly IMO) argue that there is no blueprint, and spontaneous action and circumstances will uncover the path.But all that is ust blind talk with high hopes.
Also wrong. There are plently of 'blueprints' of anarchist 'means and ends'. I suggest a reading of Kropotkins the conquest of bread.


Until the above and the matter of zero hierarchy in the revolution process are cleared to me, i cannot take anarchism too seriously.
As an anarchist-communist I propose a leadership of ideas through a strong revolutionary organisation. However the shaping of the new society with have to be via the implementation of the working class. It is for this organisation to federally infuse libertarian ideas into practical processes and fend off the groups whom are trying to drag the working class along to an undesireable authortarian direction.

[Black Sheep]

"What? That is blatently not true"
WOW, that answer completely satisfied my question.I was asking what is the path, the details, etc.

quote by Fuserg "the way to Anarchism is REVOLUTION!"
WOW again.That is the kind of daydreamingtalk that pisses the living chupacabras out of me.And the latter stuff in ur post sound like oversimplified deterministic premonitions!

gah, ok i l calm down.
I ll return after the conquest of bread is read.

[nuisance]

"What? That is blatently not true"
WOW, that answer completely satisfied my question.I was asking what is the path, the details, etc.
:rolleyes:
That fully answered what I quoted in that section, you are wrong to believe that anarchists don'y have blueprints.
Actually if you cared to read on I briefly explained the role of a revolutionary organisation in achieveing anarchist-communism.

[F9]

.quote by Fuserg "the way to Anarchism is REVOLUTION!"
WOW again.That is the kind of daydreamingtalk that pisses the living chupacabras out of me.And the latter stuff in ur post sound like oversimplified deterministic premonitions!

gah, ok i l calm down.
I ll return after the conquest of bread is read.

wtf are you talking about?
anyway if you really interested in Anarchism you can pm me or write it on my profile,i have some e-books in greek if you want to download them!

Fuserg9:star:

[Black Sheep]

lol
well, i ll read the conquest of bread, and i ll pm u for more.:)

[Mindtoaster]

(( Made a thread on this but decided the question would be better off here ))

I'm currently in a crises of ideology and I'm trying to figure out what revolutionary group best suits me.

Anyway, I have a fairly short question for the anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists of Revleft.

During an anarchist revolution what happens to incarcerated prisoners? Are they all wantonly freed; regardless of their crimes?

I would be all for releasing all the minor offense/demeanor prisoners who are in the system for being a drug user, rebellious youth or minorty without much investigation into their case... These peoples crime are for the most part, crimes of poverty, and the result of being on the bottom rung of a capitalist society. But what happens when you reach the maximum security prisons?

I'll use Louisiana's infamous Angola State Prison as I am familiar with it and have visited it. Many of the people there are innocent, and many of the guilty are new men. Visitors walk freely throughout some of the prison dorms, with no bars or anything between them and the prisoners. I actually got to sit down and speak with a prisoner, an old african-american man, who had just awoken from his afternoon nap. Many of these people are not different from you and I.

However, at Angola there is also the infamous J-Block, where the rowdier of the prisoners go. In this block they constantly attack eachother and the guards, sometimes shitting in milk cartons and hurling them at each other. These people were extremely violent and unreasonable when they entered the prison, and most will be till the day they die (the J-blockers).

So the revolution is underway in the state of Louisiana, and the red/black banner has reached the gates of Angola, and the guards have abandoned the prison and fled the area, with the people's militias hot on their tails. But what will they do with the prisoners at Angola? Is everyone freed, down to the last J-Blocker? Or are they investigated on a case-to-case basis and only a few freed? If so who decides which prisoners are freed? Who guards and supplies the freed prisoners? Are materials re-directed from the frontlines of the revolution back to the prison system?

Thanks ahead of time

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/misc/progress.gif http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/edit.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../editpost.php?do=editpost&p=1207445)

[Pogue]

My personal opinion is that the prisoners should not be freed and the prison guards should not be chased off.
A prisoner is locked away from society becuase they harm society. The prisoner ruins people's lives, and takes away their liberty, by means of stealing from them, harming them, etc. Such people thus lose their right to the priviliges and freedoms of decent people. A prison guard is there to ensure the prisoners don't cause more shit inside the prison. He is not doing anything wrong (unless of course, he abuses his power, and anyone can do that).
Post-revolution I'd say we should look into the prisons to see if the conditions are good enough and if the guards are doing their job well, and we'd probably also review certain cases, but I think any rational anarchist would realise that letting the prisoners free and chasing off prison guards is a stupid idea.

[bcbm]

What will we do with the prisons? Break them wide open and then burn them to the ground, preferably with the screws still inside. It worked for the Bastille, it works now.



I would be all for releasing all the minor offense/demeanor prisoners who are in the system for being a drug user, rebellious youth or minorty without much investigation into their case... These peoples crime are for the most part, crimes of poverty, and the result of being on the bottom rung of a capitalist society. But what happens when you reach the maximum security prisons?

You think people in maximum security prisons are there for different reasons than those in any other prison? They aren't. Crime is a byproduct of the society it occurs in, not something that happens in a vacuum. To be sure, there are violent in dangerous people in jail- violent and dangerous in this society. But what happens in a society where there is no benefit to being violent, nothing to be gained from destroying other people's lives?

[Socialismo_Libertario]

of course! Anarchy is not as simple as "there will be no state / economic system". I suggest you read the works of Bakunin and Noam Chomsky for the ideology of libertarian socialism. The political and economic system proposed is far from an impossible utopia, this is proved by the fact that in the long term cooperatives make more profit than large multinational corporations.

An example is pre-Franco Spain. Spain is probably the only country where a mass movement of anarchy existed that was backed by a large number of workers and peasants. Several workers organised themselves in cooperatives and if it wasn't for the fascists and the treason from the stalinist soviet union we would be talking about the first libertarian socialist state in the world.

[welshboy]

My personal opinion is that the prisoners should not be freed and the prison guards should not be chased off.
A prisoner is locked away from society becuase they harm society. The prisoner ruins people's lives, and takes away their liberty, by means of stealing from them, harming them, etc. Such people thus lose their right to the priviliges and freedoms of decent people. A prison guard is there to ensure the prisoners don't cause more shit inside the prison. He is not doing anything wrong (unless of course, he abuses his power, and anyone can do that).
Post-revolution I'd say we should look into the prisons to see if the conditions are good enough and if the guards are doing their job well, and we'd probably also review certain cases, but I think any rational anarchist would realise that letting the prisoners free and chasing off prison guards is a stupid idea.

You use the term prisoner as if all people locked up in prison have in some way harmed society. The vast majority of people are in prison for petty crimes such as shop lifting and the like or have fallen foul of the three strikes and you're out system.
I've been in prison and I never harmed anyone. Every single prison guard I met however was an absolute ****. You have to be of a certain sick mentality to take on that sort of a job. Most of them seemed to be blokes who couldn't pass the entrance exam to be cops.
Prisons should only exist to keep those who need to be isolated permanently from the rest of society where execution isn't an option. They should not be used as a punishment or as a weapon in the class war, which is how they are used today.

[ashaman1324]

can anarchism work?
of course.
human beings are perfectly capable of working to survive, without need of any government or authoritarian unit to direct them.

[TheCagedLion]

You use the term prisoner as if all people locked up in prison have in some way harmed society. The vast majority of people are in prison for petty crimes such as shop lifting and the like or have fallen foul of the three strikes and you're out system.
I've been in prison and I never harmed anyone. Every single prison guard I met however was an absolute ****. You have to be of a certain sick mentality to take on that sort of a job. Most of them seemed to be blokes who couldn't pass the entrance exam to be cops.
Prisons should only exist to keep those who need to be isolated permanently from the rest of society where execution isn't an option. They should not be used as a punishment or as a weapon in the class war, which is how they are used today.

Just as a reference, how many have you met?

[ZeroNowhere]

Can Anarchy Work??

The basic principle is, as far as im aware, not the absence of laws or government but the economic system, or absence of one.

Every good or service is free.

The teacher teaches the children without getting paid knowing that on his/her way home he can pick up the groceries for free.the grocer picks up his stock for free and lays them out in his shop with out charge.He obtains a new television without paying for it upon which popular news broadcasters read the news for free.The children taught by the teacher join any job they desire-provided that they have the skills-and work for free.I believe its called a gift economy.

Could it work??Or is it an unachievable utopia?Was this the final form of communism Marx described-after the dictatorship of the proletariat?Would inherent human greed bring it down?Without the capitalist profit motive or the direction of the communist state would anyone bother?
But if somebody started charging money for a item people would simply turnto a different free retailer and any money he made would be meaningless since anything he needed would be free?
Can anarchism work? Of course. Can a gift economy work immediately? That's a tougher question.
See, 'socialism' to Marx needs to be international, while 'anarchy' can exist even when it is not international. Thusly Marx had to use the term 'rule of the proletariat' (or 'dictatorship of the proletariat' when he wanted to differentiate himself from the Blanquist 'dictatorship of the minority')


I see anarchy working possibility and i see it as superior to Marxism (theoretically) because we don't see the totalitarian potential of the "dictatorship of the proletariat."
What totalitarian potential of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'? Most social anarchists (unless some believe in a revolution that happens internationally at the same time and succeeds at the same time too, or believed in socialist revolution in the times of feudalism) believe in the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', they just get scared off by the word 'dictatorship'. The whole, "Ha, Bakunin was right!" thing in reference to the Soviet Union doesn't help much either.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Whoever made this poll messed up. It only has absolute answers. I selected "Yes" just so the Leninists don't get too happy but my real answer is "I don't know". We can only know when it does work for an extended period of time. Any other answer is bullshit.

You see some people like to learn from the results of experiments and other people are Marxists


By the way everyone knows that anarchism and the end product of communism are pretty much the exact same thing right? So the people that voted no..... I guess now is the time to pick a new ideology. :D

[PostAnarchy]

Short answer - Of course it can! In fact if not for fierce repression multiple fronts: Bourgeois democracy, Leninist, and fascist it most likely would have already succeeded in places like Spain.

[wigsa]

Where do the groceries,and tvs,and everything,come from if no money exists?Do people honestly think other nations would deal with an anarchist one without getting paid fucking money?

Is the general consensus among anarchists that all things fall out of the good sky??

[#FF0000]

Where do the groceries,and tvs,and everything,come from if no money exists?Do people honestly think other nations would deal with an anarchist one without getting paid fucking money?

Is the general consensus among anarchists that all things fall out of the good sky??

Er, no. They come from factories. You know. Where labor goes into things and those things come out shiny and useful.

And not all trade between countries uses money. I was always under the impression that countries oftentimes traded goods for goods.

And, uh, I don't think other countries would be willing to trade with an anarchist federation anyway, since we'd be supporting any/all anarchist groups in other countries as well.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Where do the groceries,and tvs,and everything,come from if no money exists?Do people honestly think other nations would deal with an anarchist one without getting paid fucking money?

Is the general consensus among anarchists that all things fall out of the good sky??

Well, using no form of money is a communist principle that some strands of anarchism accept. So the general consensus among anarchists is not that there should be no form of money.

Now how does taking away money mean that things will need to fall out of the sky to come into being? Where do groceries come from? Easy... farmers, slaughterhouses, factories etc... Taking money out of the equation does not make factories and farms disappear.

Would capitalist nations trade with an anarchist society... no probably not but anarchist communes could trade with other communes.

Money has never made anything in society. Workers make everything. In an anarchist society people would still be able to chop down trees, put them through a lumber mill etc... without money.

[wigsa]

Right,so,people believe all these material goods would come from factories...therefore the lack of need for money in order to produce goods...this is a fair enough statement about groceries,but about those tvs that were mentioned:

You realise there are hundreds of different components in a tv,or any electrical item?And that these come from dozens of different countries?So what if you have a factory,you need to have the huge number of different components,the electricity to to keep the machinery going,a steady supply of all these different components,the ability to package the tvs,the ability to distribute them,the ability to pay for the fuel to run the lorries/vans that will distribute these tvs...

And you think money won't be necessary?YOU'RE FUCKING RETARDED THEN.You think we'll be able to pay other countries with groceries and fucking cattle for electrical equipment?You think we'd be able to pay countries with groceries for fucking barrels of oil?You think electricity is cost free?WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

What you are all suggesting is a throwback to medieval times,where we lived in different communities and rarely ventured out of them.We had no electricity,grew all our own food and slaughtered and cooked animals ourselves.It is so primitive and anti-progressive that I wonder how anarchists can consider themselves either left wing or right wing.They should have their own category-fucking loopy.

[ZeroNowhere]

So, why are we differentiating between communismm and anarchism? Anarchism is communism, Blanquism is communism too, and Marxism is anarchism.


And you think money won't be necessary?YOU'RE FUCKING RETARDED THEN.You think we'll be able to pay other countries with groceries and fucking cattle for electrical equipment?You think we'd be able to pay countries with groceries for fucking barrels of oil?You think electricity is cost free?WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?
...Good argument against anarchy in one country? Um... What are we arguing about here?
Of course, a gift economy is not a necessary attribute of anarchism, as labour credits and such could be possible, as well as a mutualist system.

[F9]

So, why are we differentiating between communismm and anarchism? Anarchism is communism, Blanquism is communism too, and Marxism is anarchism.

No they are not!!!!!!In what basis do you support those two claims?:confused:
First of all Anarchism isnt Communism of course, Anarchism is a "tactic" and ideology to overthrow the current system so we get to Anarchism, and then when Anarchism is spreaded(whatever is called) people will "divide" in communes where there will decide the economical plan of the commune, and there only could be communist and whatever else people may choose!
Marxism is Anarchism?Then this board is full of Anarchists, we have Anarchists and Marxists, but as you say we are all Anarchists!:lol:Marxism=/=Anarchism at all!

Fuserg9:star:

[Vendetta]

So, why are we differentiating between communismm and anarchism?

The two are different; though they have the same 'end goal' (mostly) of a free, classless society, they differ in how to reach that goal.

[apathy maybe]

The two are different; though they have the same 'end goal' (mostly) of a free, classless society, they differ in how to reach that goal.

Actually, I disagree. People who say that "anarchism = communism" are wrong.

Anarchism is much broader and wider than communism. OK, communism is a class less, state less society, where resources are held in common, perhaps run along the lines "from each ..., to each ...".

Communism, could therefore be a subset of broader anarchism.

Anarchism is much more than that though. Anarchism also includes individualist anarchists, mutualists and others, who believe that resources should be held individually (as this is more likely to guarantee freedom).

Who is correct about providing the most freedom without impinging other people's freedom? That's the question which will have to wait until after the revolution to be answered.

(Please note, this is drastically simplified. If you are going to attack it, don't bother. I have left out many important details. If you wish to know more, do a search for posts on "adjective free anarchism", and also have a look around the anarchist forum. Oh, and have a squiz at the relevant sections of An Anarchist FAQ http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html. Enjoy.)

[ZeroNowhere]

The two are different; though they have the same 'end goal' (mostly) of a free, classless society, they differ in how to reach that goal.
Generally, I use 'communism' as a synonym of 'socialism' in the tradition of Marx and such, just meaning basically a classless society regardless of whether it is a gift economy or mutualist. I suppose that it is defensible to do things otherwise.
However, communism and anarchism are certainly not different in terms of how to reach their goals, or anarcho-communism wouldn't exactly be much of a possibilty. Socialism has never referred exclusively to Blanquism.
Also, "where resources are held in common"? What do you mean by 'resources' here?


Marxism is Anarchism?Then this board is full of Anarchists, we have Anarchists and Marxists, but as you say we are all Anarchists!http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-anarchy-work-t75049/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gifMarxism=/=Anarchism at all!
You're assuming that all 'Marxists' are Marxist. Maximilien Rubel's explanation for this is that some works of Marx (such as the Critique of the Gotha Program) had not been published, or only in some places/languages, until later on, and thus many 'Marxists' did not actually read Marx's works in which he develops his critique of the political economy, and reveals himself as libertarian. Rather, they may have read the Communist Manifesto, and the 10 planks, though Marx later called them 'antiquated'. Whether he had authoritarian leanings there is debatable, but he certainly shed them quickly if they were there.
Marx later pointed out that "a revolution is not done by a party, but by a nation".
While he did have, ehm, not much sympathy with a few fellow anarchists, Bakunin's labelling of Marx as 'authoritarian' was based on misconceptions. For example:

Bakunin: "The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?"
Marx: "Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune."
Bakunin had then written on about how Marxism means that there would be a minority governing, using arguments such as this:

Bakunin: "But those elected will be fervently convinced and therefore educated socialists. The phrase 'educated socialism'..."
Marx: "...never was used."
Bakunin: "... 'scientific socialism'..."
Marx: "...was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself; see my text against Proudhon."
Bakunin: "...which is unceasingly found in the works and speeches of the Lasalleans and Marxists, itself indicates that the so-called people's state will be nothing else than the very despotic guidance of the mass of the people by a new and numerically very small aristocracy of the genuine or supposedly educated. The people are not scientific, which means that they will be entirely freed from the cares of government, they will be entirely shut up in the stable of the governed. A fine liberation!"

Followed by this conclusion (italicized bit was added by Marx): "The Marxists sense this (!) contradiction and, knowing that the government of the educated will be the most oppressive, most detestable, most despised in the world, a real dictatorship despite all democratic forms, console themselves with the thought that this dictatorship will only be transitional and short."

Bakunin: "This dilemma is simply solved in the Marxists' theory. By people's government they understand..."
Marx: "(i.e. Bakunin)"
Bakunin: "...the government of the people by means of a small number of leaders, chosen (elected) by the people."

Of course, the Anarchist FAQ rejects Marx for apparently implying that there would still be rulers. They obviously didn't see this bit, "If Mr. Bakunin only knew something about the position of a manager in a workers' cooperative factory, all his dreams of domination would go to the devil. He should have asked himself what form the administrative function can take on the basis of this workers' state, if he wants to call it that." Basically, Marx used the term 'state' differently to Bakunin, thus the misunderstanding. He seems to have gotten a bit pissed off at Bakunin using the term when he meant a completely different thing by 'state'.
Well, unless they're implying that democratically elected and recallable managers and other co-ordinators are somehow in opposition to anarchism, which is silly.

Bakunin: "...which is unceasingly found in the works and speeches of the Lasalleans and Marxists, itself indicates that the so-called people's state will be nothing else than the very despotic guidance of the mass of the people by a new and numerically very small aristocracy of the genuine or supposedly educated. The people are not scientific, which means that they will be entirely freed from the cares of government, they will be entirely shut up in the stable of the governed. A fine liberation!
The Marxists sense this (!) contradiction and, knowing that the government of the educated (quelle reverie) will be the most oppressive, most detestable, most despised in the world, a real dictatorship despite all democratic forms, console themselves with the thought that this dictatorship will only be transitional and short."
Marx: "Non, mon cher! -- That the class rule of the workers over the strata of the old world whom they have been fighting can only exist as long as the economic basis of class existence is not destroyed."

The above bit was somehow used to prove that Marx was somehow trying to refute Bakunin and 'failing miserably', presumably in reference to the USSR. That's just being silly.

Bakunin: "What does it mean, the proletariat organized as ruling class?"
Marx: "It means that the proletariat, instead of struggling sectionally against the economically privileged class, has attained a sufficient strength and organization to employ general means of coercion in this struggle. It can however only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat, hence as class. With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared."

[F9]

Marxism is an ideology, fortunately or not, an ideology which developed around his name and this ideology has nothing to do with Anarchism except some natural commons(anti-capitalism, internationalism etc).Dont misunderstand Marxism with what maybe Marx did, and what he later said or was, Marxism is an ideology independent of that, and again it has nothing to do with Anarchism!!If they think otherwise than the person they familiar their ideology with did in some certain time, dont different s what Marxism is, or what Anarchism is!So yeah is the ideology who counts really, not Marx himself(even that Marx wasnt an Anarchist)!


Generally, I use 'communism' as a synonym of 'socialism' in the tradition of Marx and such, just meaning basically a classless society regardless of whether it is a gift economy or mutualist.

But its not that way, Communism (for us anarchocommies and other anarchists especialy) is just an economical organization in some communes, nothing less nothing more



However, communism and anarchism are certainly not different in terms of how to reach their goals, or anarcho-communism wouldn't exactly be much of a possibilty.

Yes it is, thats our MAIN difference!:confused:The one needs a vanguard party, and a socialist transitional stage where state is still there but controlled by proletarians, and on the other hand we Anarchists we just dont need vanguard party and our transitional stage is the revolution where the state is destroyed!

ps:tbh i got confused trying to answer those, but mate you really have to understand that you have a mistake here!;)

Fuserg9:star:

[ZeroNowhere]

The one needs a vanguard party, and a socialist transitional stage where state is still there but controlled by proletarians, and on the other hand we Anarchists we just dont need vanguard party and our transitional stage is the revolution where the state is destroyed!
What's a vanguard party?
Also, again, anarcho-commies don't need some kind of 'transitional stage' and are communists. Communism was a word used by Marx and Engels as a synonym for socialism, a classless society, and to describe the ideology of 'scientific socialism', rather than utopian socialism (which the word 'socialism' generally referred to at the time, while 'communism' referred to more practical movements, and was thus used until the utopians died out, and they started using 'socialism' more). 'Libertarian communism' is a term originating from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it. The use of 'socialism' to describe some kind of transitional stage originates from Lenin and the Bolshie(t)s.


Marxism is an ideology, fortunately or not, an ideology which developed around his name and this ideology has nothing to do with Anarchism except some natural commons(anti-capitalism, internationalism etc).
In which case it's a fairly silly name. :D

[F9]

What's a vanguard party?

This (http://www.revleft.com/vb/vanguard-party-t86457/index.html?t=86457)and this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/vanguard-party-t39686/index.html), maybe will help you, its a common question around here!


Also, again, anarcho-commies don't need some kind of 'transitional stage' and are communists

Yes we do, a transition, needs and a transitional stage, the opposite is unlogical!


Communism was a word used by Marx and Engels as a synonym for socialism, a classless society, and to describe the ideology of 'scientific socialism', rather than utopian socialism (which the word 'socialism' generally referred to at the time, while 'communism' referred to more practical movements, and was thus used until the utopians died out, and they started using 'socialism' more). 'Libertarian communism' is a term originating from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it. The use of 'socialism' to describe some kind of transitional stage originates from Lenin and the Bolshie(t)s.

I dont know tbh about the history of the words!


Fuserg9:star:

[Vendetta]

Actually, I disagree. People who say that "anarchism = communism" are wrong.

Anarchism is much broader and wider than communism. OK, communism is a class less, state less society, where resources are held in common, perhaps run along the lines "from each ..., to each ...".

Communism, could therefore be a subset of broader anarchism.

Anarchism is much more than that though. Anarchism also includes individualist anarchists, mutualists and others, who believe that resources should be held individually (as this is more likely to guarantee freedom).

Who is correct about providing the most freedom without impinging other people's freedom? That's the question which will have to wait until after the revolution to be answered.

(Please note, this is drastically simplified. If you are going to attack it, don't bother. I have left out many important details. If you wish to know more, do a search for posts on "adjective free anarchism", and also have a look around the anarchist forum. Oh, and have a squiz at the relevant sections of An Anarchist FAQ http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html. Enjoy.)

Well, I was trying to answer in simple generalizations, but, that works. :)

[apathy maybe]

Well, I was trying to answer in simple generalizations, but, that works. :)

Umm, I re-read your post, and I can see what you mean. I just found it too simple :). I think my brain ignored the word "mostly" in the first reading. But even my post is a simplification of the actual issues. I would even argue that not all possible "communist" systems have to be anarchistic. That is, it is surely possible to have a "class-less state-less" society with entrenched hierarchy (something that can't exist for a society to be called anarchistic).


Also, again, anarcho-commies don't need some kind of 'transitional stage' and are communists
As Fuserg9 says, that's wrong.
Only a hand-full of anarchists think that it is possible to move overnight from capitalism to anarchism. Traditionally, some level of collectivism has been accepted as required as a transition to a "communist" system.

What anarchists don't think is required is a "state" (in the anarchist sense). Indeed, we think that it is illogical to think that a state (again, by our definition) would just "whither away". We do recognise that there will be some level of political authority that won't disappear, but we would suggest that it is best to aim as fast and as early as possible for a proper anarchistic society.

None of this 90 years and back to capitalism shit.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yes we do, a transition, needs and a transitional stage, the opposite is unlogical!
Perhaps, I was referring to a 'transitional stage' to mean what is commonly referred to as 'socialism'. That is, an excuse for party dictatorship after a revolution. Generally people differentiate between anarchism and 'communism' based on one maintaining the 'state' after the revolution, and another abolishing it. I was pretty much referring to a transitional stage before abolishing the 'state' (in the political definition), that is, since it's just the 'transitional stage' I hear referred to most often. Sorry about that.


None of this 90 years and back to capitalism shit.
?


That is, it is surely possible to have a "class-less state-less" society with entrenched hierarchy (something that can't exist for a society to be called anarchistic).
Well, yes, that's true. It does sometimes slip my mind. So this would pretty much involve free skooling, unschooling, and such, I presume (of course, free skooling pretty much originated from an anarchist), as well as the usual unholy trinity of capital, state and church.


This (http://www.revleft.com/vb/vanguard-party-t86457/index.html?t=86457)and this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/vanguard-party-t39686/index.html), maybe will help you, its a common question around here!
It's just that there are often different definitions used, so yeah. For example, an organization made out of socialist workers? Most anarchists wouldn't be against this. A small clique that is to take and hold power? I don't think so.

[Black Sheep]

The problem with Marxists is that a transitional stage,in order to be a transitional stage, it has to be a Marxist and statist transitional stage.
If it is not, then it is not a transitional stage.

[ZeroNowhere]

The problem with Marxists is that a transitional stage,in order to be a transitional stage, it has to be a Marxist and statist transitional stage.
If it is not, then it is not a transitional stage.
Wait, what?

[Black Sheep]

Ironic remark.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Right,so,people believe all these material goods would come from factories...therefore the lack of need for money in order to produce goods...this is a fair enough statement about groceries,but about those tvs that were mentioned:

You realise there are hundreds of different components in a tv,or any electrical item?And that these come from dozens of different countries?So what if you have a factory,you need to have the huge number of different components,the electricity to to keep the machinery going,a steady supply of all these different components,the ability to package the tvs,the ability to distribute them,the ability to pay for the fuel to run the lorries/vans that will distribute these tvs...

And you think money won't be necessary?YOU'RE FUCKING RETARDED THEN.You think we'll be able to pay other countries with groceries and fucking cattle for electrical equipment?You think we'd be able to pay countries with groceries for fucking barrels of oil?You think electricity is cost free?WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

What you are all suggesting is a throwback to medieval times,where we lived in different communities and rarely ventured out of them.We had no electricity,grew all our own food and slaughtered and cooked animals ourselves.It is so primitive and anti-progressive that I wonder how anarchists can consider themselves either left wing or right wing.They should have their own category-fucking loopy.
Well generally anarchists don't consider themselves left wing or right wing. Some say anarchists aree not within the political spectrum of left and right.

How do you have a picture of Lenin next to your name and tell me I am retarded for thinking a society could work without currency. The idea of communism is not how many cattle I should pay someone for a TV. The idea is that I shouldn't have to trade anything for that TV. The motto to live by would be "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

By the way electricity is free. Does it inherently require money to produce electricity? Have you ever done that experiment with the potato and the light bulb? How much money did the electricity ask of you before you turned that light bulb on?

We are not calling for a return to primitive times. We currently have people in our society that grow they own food and slaughter their own animals... they are called farmers. They would not disappear after the revolution.

[el_chavista]

In an anarcho-Bolivarian circle's blog I found this symbol:
http://www.freewebs.com/propuestalibertariapsuv/Libertad.jpg
I wonder if that "skull and bones" is a common anarchist symbol.

[Dimentio]

Anarcho-bolivarianism sounds very interesting.

Did you know there was an anarcho-monarchist movement in France a hundred years ago?

[Black Sheep]

I wonder if that "skull and bones" is a common anarchist symbol.
It is.You can wiki 'anarchist symbolism'

[Invincible Summer]

You realise there are hundreds of different components in a tv,or any electrical item?And that these come from dozens of different countries?So what if you have a factory,you need to have the huge number of different components,the electricity to to keep the machinery going,a steady supply of all these different components,the ability to package the tvs,the ability to distribute them,the ability to pay for the fuel to run the lorries/vans that will distribute these tvs...

And you think money won't be necessary?YOU'RE FUCKING RETARDED THEN.You think we'll be able to pay other countries with groceries and fucking cattle for electrical equipment?You think we'd be able to pay countries with groceries for fucking barrels of oil?You think electricity is cost free?WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

What you are all suggesting is a throwback to medieval times,where we lived in different communities and rarely ventured out of them.We had no electricity,grew all our own food and slaughtered and cooked animals ourselves.It is so primitive and anti-progressive that I wonder how anarchists can consider themselves either left wing or right wing.They should have their own category-fucking loopy.

Are you sure you aren't a capitalist?

The only reason why we pay for electricity and natural gas, etc now is because capitalists are making money off of it.

Also, just because the workers control the factories and industry doesn't mean that suddenly everything transforms into huts, cows and fields!!

And why would we want to trade with capitalist nations anyway? No one wants that... remind me why you have a picture of Lenin as your DP again?

[Comrade B]

This is really just asking if you are a communist or anarchist....
If I believed Marxist anarchists had a system that would fully function
I would be one

[Black Sheep]

And why would we want to trade with capitalist nations anyway?
It is not a matter of will but a matter of need.Does every country have the means of production in order to produce all necessary and vital goods for the people?
I doubt it.

And no offence,but such views are quite annoying, like 'bah! as if we want to trade with the god damn cappies!'
The circumstances force you to do things..You are not independent and isolated from ur environment.

[StalinFanboy]

Right,so,people believe all these material goods would come from factories...therefore the lack of need for money in order to produce goods...this is a fair enough statement about groceries,but about those tvs that were mentioned:

You realise there are hundreds of different components in a tv,or any electrical item?And that these come from dozens of different countries?So what if you have a factory,you need to have the huge number of different components,the electricity to to keep the machinery going,a steady supply of all these different components,the ability to package the tvs,the ability to distribute them,the ability to pay for the fuel to run the lorries/vans that will distribute these tvs...

And you think money won't be necessary?YOU'RE FUCKING RETARDED THEN.You think we'll be able to pay other countries with groceries and fucking cattle for electrical equipment?You think we'd be able to pay countries with groceries for fucking barrels of oil?You think electricity is cost free?WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

What you are all suggesting is a throwback to medieval times,where we lived in different communities and rarely ventured out of them.We had no electricity,grew all our own food and slaughtered and cooked animals ourselves.It is so primitive and anti-progressive that I wonder how anarchists can consider themselves either left wing or right wing.They should have their own category-fucking loopy.
Motherfucker, I give you 1930's Spain. Production rates actually increased after Anarchists took over. Had we not been fighting both the Fascists and the counter revolutionary Stalinists, we would have done a LOT better.

[scarletghoul]

Yeah, Catalonia functioned better than any communist country I can think of.

[8bit]

It is not a matter of will but a matter of need.Does every country have the means of production in order to produce all necessary and vital goods for the people?
I doubt it.

And no offence,but such views are quite annoying, like 'bah! as if we want to trade with the god damn cappies!'
The circumstances force you to do things..You are not independent and isolated from ur environment.

This argument does not make sense to me.

How can we trade with Capitalists when our global 'economy' is Communist and the only state we lay claim to is Anarchy? Surely there would be no Capitalists to trade with- and if they wished to trade their attempts would be futile. Everything is freely available, so why consult the middleman?

[StalinFanboy]

This argument does not make sense to me.

How can we trade with Capitalists when our global 'economy' is Communist and the only state we lay claim to is Anarchy? Surely there would be no Capitalists to trade with- and if they wished to trade their attempts would be futile. Everything is freely available, so why consult the middleman?
His hypothetical situation was where one country had achieved communism within it's borders. The need to trade capitalists would be strong obviously, but this situation is illogical.

[Andres Marcos]

Had we not been fighting both the Fascists and the counter revolutionary Stalinists, we would have done a LOT better.

You are acting like the anarchists were the only ones fighting the fascists. Catalonia was an inactive front compared to the rest of Spain(I didn't say it, in fact Orwell said it in an Homage to Catalonia). The Poumists(who numbered a mere 10,000) and anarchist troops had 10 months of relative peace(and thats Orwell for you!), where they had amble time to organize a population of 5 million people with a strong industrial base(don't blame someone else for the fact that with 10 months time and on an inactive front the CNT-FAI leadership wasn't able to pull anything off that helped the war effort in the South or anything outside of Catalonia) while those same "counter revolutionary Stalinist" troops from the International Brigades tore the guts from an Italian army of 60,000 at Jarama, and sent the Army of Africa into retreat at Madrid; you know those same "counter revolutionary" stalinists the FAI joined when they sent a ministers[sic] to the Republican coalition govt. to represent them only to rebel and take an ultra-leftist stance that any statist power was equal to Francoism, and thus they would oppose both.

This revisionist history about the anarchists being the vanguard of "revolution" in spain has got to stop. I never hear the fact that there were over 1 million foreign German, Portuguese, Italian crack troops who supposedly had nothing(:rolleyes:) to do with the fall of Republican Spain to fascism, that the Republican forces were always outgunned and had inferior firepower, and was only till the end of the war that the govt. started arming the workers, maybe it was the odds were stacked against the anti-fascist forces to begin with.

[#FF0000]

maybe it was the odds were stacked against the anti-fascist forces to begin with.

I agree with this point. I don't think Spain ever really had all that great a chance either way.

Still, you can't deny that denying the anarchists weapons and then arresting POUM and CNT-FAI members wasn't a dick move at the very least.

[Andres Marcos]

I agree with this point. I don't think Spain ever really had all that great a chance either way.

Still, you can't deny that denying the anarchists weapons and then arresting POUM and CNT-FAI members wasn't a dick move at the very least.

Well actually the anti-fascist forces actually defeated Franco in a week, it was only when the "socialist" Blum in France decided to not trade with the Spanish govt. and the massive aid, transports, and troops from Italy, Germany and Portugual came that gave the "nationalists" a fighting chance.

anyway we shouldnt act like anyone was innocent in Spain, there were atrocities on both sides(mostly by ideological extremists and purists who just did not understand the concept Popular Front). There were Communists killing anarchists and vice versa. No left militia was armed by the govt. anyway not the Socialists or The Communist militias, actually the Catalan Communists actually voted to give their guns to the Spanish govt. and fight with the new Army.

Now if you take this into context you can see how the govt. was intent on stopping them.

1. The F.A.I. leadership intended on using the gold reserves of the Spanish govt. to fund their "libertarian revolution"(while a damn Civil War was going on!) by sending Abad de Santillan to transfer the gold to Barcelona. which was obviously resisted by the Republican govt.

2. The Generalitat supported the rightist-separatist group headed by Catalan president Juan Casanovas and his government[sic] and meddled in the affars of the Bank of Spain in Catalonia. When the govt. resisted, Federica Montseny, a Faista, penned an article that threatened a total breakdown between the Popular Front, which the FAI was apart of; even after the Popular Front was making a lot of concessions to the anarchists.(The poumists should also be mentioned on "starting a revolution" despite having little support in doing so.

3. Abad Santillan actually confessed on a prepared assault on the Bank of Spain in Madrid by the anarchists, with 3,000 units to be sent on the way not to defend the city but to loot its banks. The only reason it was stopped at the last minute was from the intervention from the CNT Executive.

I'll be fair not all anarchists were extremists like these, the CNT(technically they were syndicalists) actually never wanted to leave the Popular Front, like J.P. Frabregas, who said, "If we do not recieve help from the state, I do not know if we can be saved", he was talking of the bleak situation of the economy in Catalonia and btw the CNT never lost its representation in the Republican govt. even on the last days of the Democratic govt.

[not_of_this_world]

Anarchy would be fun to watch for awhile. All the rich stripped down to their underwear in the cold without homes or cars to live in. Every establishment catering to the rich would go bankrupt and the rest of us would be left to laugh for awhile. Even that would become a bore. Climbing over the dead bodies would be a drag. Like logs in the road of life. I think it is just a pot head dream we all have had. At 67 I am banking on a Latin America gone left and that is the most I can hope for now that another capitalist has been elected here. I am a realist and the real story is more gloom and doom. I am under house arrest for credit card default and can't afford to go anywhere so it makes no matter to me. I will watch it on my computer while I can afford the tariff for my Internet hook up.

[StalinFanboy]

Regardless of the mistakes made during the Spanish Civil War, there WAS Anarchy in Catalonia.

[Black Sheep]

Anarchy would be fun to watch for awhile. All the rich stripped down to their underwear in the cold without homes or cars to live in. Every establishment catering to the rich would go bankrupt and the rest of us would be left to laugh for awhile. Even that would become a bore. Climbing over the dead bodies would be a drag. Like logs in the road of life. I think it is just a pot head dream we all have had. At 67 I am banking on a Latin America gone left and that is the most I can hope for now that another capitalist has been elected here. I am a realist and the real story is more gloom and doom. I am under house arrest for credit card default and can't afford to go anywhere so it makes no matter to me. I will watch it on my computer while I can afford the tariff for my Internet hook up.
:blink::blink:
laugh out loud or restrict?

[jaffe]

anyway we shouldnt act like anyone was innocent in Spain, there were atrocities on both sides(mostly by ideological extremists and purists who just did not understand the concept Popular Front).

I think the biggest mistake of the CNT was to participate in a popular front. The same front that even at the beginning had a lot of anarchist prisoners. O yeah, and of course the great sovjet aid where the Spanish republic got the oppertunity to buy guns for 2 times the price in the normal markets. And the great airplanes on which the USSR made more than 50 million dollar profit. Ok maybe the Anarchists couldn't win a war against such an opponent but the blame is merely by the fact that the CNT leadership decided to work together in a popular front forcing them to abonden all their core anarchist politics. Did you also read the part in Orwell's book about soldiers returning from the front where they had no guns and no food and found out the stalinists where all walking around in expensive clothing with new guns.

[Niemand]

Regardless of the mistakes made by historical anarchist movements, what we need to focus on right now is the deep sectarianism that has paralysed anarchism and the left in general. Anarchism, though, by its very nature, is highly prone to sectarianism, and that's good. Although not right now. What the anarchists need now is a central school of thought that they can all rally around to help build solidarity so as to make real gains against the capitalists. As of now, though, the anarchists will be unable to take advantage of the New Depression and won't make any real gains unless they end their sectarianism.

[mosfeld]

Sure. But what's been tried of it so far has been a disaster.

Somalia anyone?

[apathy maybe]

Sure. But what's been tried of it so far has been a disaster.

Somalia anyone?

Well done, you've given the example of a place that was never meant to be an anarchist system, isn't an anarchist system, and is still used as an example of an anarchist system.

Let me explain briefly, anarchism is not about "no government" (it is much more than that). Not only that, Somalia has governments (just not a single unified one).

So, not only do you fail the "what is anarchism" test, you also fail the "what's happening in Somalia (i.e. I don't watch the news) test".

Here are a couple of links, with quotes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1072592.stm

...a country divided into clan fiefdoms.

The self-proclaimed state of Somaliland and the region of Puntland run their own affairs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

De facto control of the north of the country resides in the regional authorities. Of these, Puntland, Northland State, Maakhir, Galmudug, acknowledge the authority of the TFG and maintain their declaration of autonomy within a federated Somalia, while Central, Southern Somalia, and Kismayo the third largest city in Somalia, are in the control of the Islamic Courts Union and Al-Shabab. Baidoa is currently the seat of the TFG, and Somalia's commercial centre. On the other hand, the Somaliland region in the north, with its capital in Hargeisa, has declared independence and does not recognise the TFG as governing authority.[2] Its self-declared independence is unrecognized internationally due in part to opposition from the TFG and other countries, such as neighboring Ethiopia, which fear ensuing secessionist movements.[5]

[benhur]

As to whether anarchy can work...

From the responses to the other thread of mine, I gather that anarchists do believe in government, organization and all that. But they claim it can be done without hierarchy or authority. How, no one knows! And it hasn't been done yet.

Say we have an organization of 100 people, nobody is going to have authority, which means all members must think the exact same thoughts, have the exact same ideas, and all of them must agree on each occasion! Or, governance without authority wouldn't work. But we all know that even getting two people to agree is virtually impossible.

But it's a good dream, nevertheless.

[apathy maybe]

As to whether anarchy can work...

From the responses to the other thread of mine, I gather that anarchists do believe in government, organization and all that. But they claim it can be done without hierarchy or authority. How, no one knows! And it hasn't been done yet.

Say we have an organization of 100 people, nobody is going to have authority, which means all members must think the exact same thoughts, have the exact same ideas, and all of them must agree on each occasion! Or, governance without authority wouldn't work. But we all know that even getting two people to agree is virtually impossible.

But it's a good dream, nevertheless.
I'm glad to see that you're happy to pontificate on matters you obviously know nothing about. You'll make a good politician in a Labour government one day.

Do you call yourself a communist? Do you say that communism has features such as being "class-less" and "state-less"? Do you think that those 100 people need to have someone to tell them what to do because they obviously couldn't make a decision without a leader?

Seriously, anarchism may be unrealistic, but ignorant comments like yours aren't useful or constructive.

[F9]

As to whether anarchy can work...

From the responses to the other thread of mine, I gather that anarchists do believe in government, organization and all that. But they claim it can be done without hierarchy or authority. How, no one knows! And it hasn't been done yet.

Say we have an organization of 100 people, nobody is going to have authority, which means all members must think the exact same thoughts, have the exact same ideas, and all of them must agree on each occasion! Or, governance without authority wouldn't work. But we all know that even getting two people to agree is virtually impossible.

But it's a good dream, nevertheless.

:confused::confused: either you didnt read correct, either you read from wrong "sources"!
and what are you saying goes exactly the same thing for communism and trotskyism!!Are you really serious on those "arguments" against Anarchism?You really contradict yourself!!!!!

Fuserg9:star:

[ZeroNowhere]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-anarchy-work-t75049/revleft/smilies/confused1.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/can-anarchy-work-t75049/revleft/smilies/confused1.gif either you didnt read correct, either you read from wrong "sources"!I would suspect he had asked his local Leninist Party.

[non-vio-resist]

the poll is complicated. "can anarchy work?" is in some ways a rhetorical question similar to "can Communism work?" or "can capitalism work?". it of course depends upon who you ask. as someone who is sympathetic with classical anarchist philosophy (not to be confused with some U.S. strains that, in fact, have little to do with anarchism) i would say "yes;" of course it can but it all depends on how revolution is extrapolated or even attempted.

can anarchy work depends on what you think about human beings left to their own vices. if you think human nature is "nasty, brutish, and short" (hobbes) then, for you, anarchism is an anathema. however if you're more sanguine about human beings then it's realistic. also, perhaps a better question is "how will anarchist revolution occur?" or "what happens after the revoultion?" this is crucial. anarchism, and marxism for that matter, attracts a lot of counter-productive types so many problems would come up after "we" (hard to say who this would be or is) brought about some kind of revolution. the main problem: would authoritarian strains dominate? yes. there are authoritarian elements lurking under the umbrella of anarchism. if people stuck to their principles it could work. in any kind of revolution in this manner, once some kind of vanguard association arises, whether a party or some kind of platformist association, the whole thing will come crashing down.

if the question is "can people function in a decentralized society without oppressive hierarchies?" then i would say most certainly. if those principles, ie, anti-authoritarianiasm, solidarity, and decentralization, are adhered to, then anarchy could work. otherwise it will be quite flawed and could go down a dangerous path. what do i mean? well, most of you are probably familiar with the anti-statist right. you know them: conspiracists, ron paul devotees, rothbard scholars, "anarcho capitalists," etc. i've found it astonishing how many of these people claim to be anarchists. this seems to be an american aberration, no? i don't know. i live in the states and i'm seeing more and more of this. if there is some kind of anarchist revolution and these hard-right folks contribute, then the whole thing will be in vein. a stateless society plus unregulated capitalism? this would be the the ultimate fascist tyranny. unfortunately, i suppose any kind of anti-authoritarian philosophy is in danger of attracting this element. if this fringe had a large role in the post-revolution society, then we'll be facing a tyranny like no other. i don't think people would tolerate it too long though. i guess, ultimately, it depends on who participates in the revolution, how it is planned, and if a majority of wage slaves are behind the cause (this is certainly imo the most important element).

[thinkerOFthoughts]

But they claim it can be done without hierarchy or authority. How, no one knows! And it hasn't been done yet.


Wait..... I thought the "Paris Commune" was suppose to be a pretty good example of such a society (tho it didn't last long.)

[ZeroNowhere]

Wait..... I thought the "Paris Commune" was suppose to be a pretty good example of such a society (tho it didn't last long.)

Nah, it was largely Jacobin. The Spanish communes would be better examples.

[Invincible Summer]

which means all members must think the exact same thoughts, have the exact same ideas, and all of them must agree on each occasion!


You're talking about democratic centralism, Trot! :laugh:

[proudhon10]

The state is the main backer of capitalism!

The question in not would it work, it is, are you willing to give up the power of the ruling party in order to eliminate capitalism forever? I know i am, state capitalists like leninists dont understand that 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' will never transition to a stateless society and only return to capitalism. I am an anarchist because i hate hypocritic state capitalists that claim they represent the worker. People dont need to be controlled, they are not corrupt. Capitalism and the state makes them corrupt. Every child is born pure and good!

[commyrebel]

It could work but it would take a couple hundred years after a socialist state is formed and is on a course toward that type of utopia. 1 there would be laws in till people have exceed a point were there is just a moral law(one that is not killing or harming any one everything else is fine) one that is followed out by the people. to get to that economy you must slowly make money irrelevant and would improve as production technology improves. so YES it can WORK

[ZeroNowhere]

It could work but it would take a couple hundred years after a socialist state is formed and is on a course toward that type of utopia. 1 there would be laws in till people have exceed a point were there is just a moral law(one that is not killing or harming any one everything else is fine) one that is followed out by the people. to get to that economy you must slowly make money irrelevant and would improve as production technology improves. so YES it can WORK
Oh, please. Firstly, socialism and anarchy aren't incompatible: Anarchy is necessarily socialism. Secondly, anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. Also, anarchy has no specific economy, there are the mutalists, who want a free market (note: not capitalism, which is incompatible with anarchism), there are the anarcho-communists (all anarchists are communists (aka. socialists), but 'anarcho-communism' is a specific current), who generally want an immediate free access society, the collectivists, etc.

[Voice_of_Reason]

Would inherent human greed bring it down?

You are going to get shit for asking this. In an essence human greed doesn't exist but in our society today people have this want to be better than the next person. It's not natural so its not nature but it is an outlook a lot of people have on life. "Bigger is Better!" I would say book wise and theoretically yes Anarchy would work, but in today's world without a huge death count, no, not currently.