Anarchists against Socialism

[Black Cross]

I'd just like to know, in some fair amount of detail, if you would, what some anarchists use as arguments against the necessity of socialism as a transitional stage into communism?

EDIT: Feel free to site some books as well, i'm interested in reading up on this topic

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Your wording is slightly confusing.

Anarchists are socialists, albeit not of the Marxist variation. The only exceptions I can think of are primitivists and capitalists, but each have fatal flaws in their rulings that pertain to material actuality. You can read the capitalist variation of bread and butter straight from the source at anti-state.com. I don't know if I could find you a reliable primitivist websource - it would seem to me anything of the sort is a contradiction.


I'd just like to know, in some fair amount of detail, if you would, what some anarchists use as arguments against the necessity of socialism as a transitional stage into communism?

The main difference between Marxists and anarchists pertains to their view of the state and practicality. Anarchists argue that the state is inherently exploitative and so thus it cannot "whither" away - only be destroyed. Marxists argue that it would be impractical to abolish the state when populations have grown so accustomed to its existence.

[Black Cross]

Anarchists are socialists, albeit not of the Marxist variation.

So you mean the title is confusing? Ya, i know they are socialists, but they don't support a socialist transition period between capitalism and communism (anarchism, whatever you wanna call it).


Marxists argue that it would be impractical to abolish the state when populations have grown so accustomed to its existence.

That's what i'm looking for; arguments against this^^. I know they think the state cannot wither away. I wanna know why they think a move from capitalism straight to anarchism is efficient and/or practicle.

[BobKKKindle$]

Marxists argue that it would be impractical to abolish the state when populations have grown so accustomed to its existence.This is not why Marxists accept the need for a transitional state. Marxists recognize that the state can assume different forms, but it=s always an instrument for class suppression, so that the power of the ruling class can be maintained, and as such, as long as classes exist, a state will be required. In the immediate post-revolutionary period, classes hostile to the working class will exist, in the form of the dispossessed bourgeoisie, which will use force and economic sabotage to try and restore capitalism. A workers state, based on a system of workplace militias, will suppress these hostile remnants and so protect the working class. In the absence of a state, it is possible that the bourgeoisie may be able to seize power or otherwise undermine the strength of the working class.

Once these classes have been defeated, such that class antagonisms have ceased to exist, the state will no longer serve a purpose, and so will begin to whither away.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Is this a question about the anarchist opposition to the "transitional" state?

Because all anarchists are, by definition, socialists.

Anyway, I'll comment on this subject a bit later, as the TS is clearly what the OP is referring to.

[Black Cross]

^^ Ya, that's right, and thanks.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'd just like to know, in some fair amount of detail, if you would, what some anarchists use as arguments against the necessity of socialism as a transitional stage into communism?

I'm confused by your question. On the one hand it seems as if you want to know why we don't think the state is necessary but on the other hand I think you want to know more about what we would consider a transitional phase between capitalism and a gift economy.

I think the first point is that it's not simply a question of saying we think the state is unnecessary. Although it is, the question is more about whether a state can create the material conditions for a transition into communism. We argue that it cannot.

In terms of there being a transitional phase between capitalism and anarchism we would say that collectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism) is the best away to achieve this but in a politically decentralised structure. Some could say that collectivism does not differ greatly to socialism, but what you have to remember is that the key difference here is political centralisation. It is the centralisation of political authority that is dangerous in a revolution and it is our view that collectivism deals with that problem.

[lombas]

I am not "a" socialist though I have nothing against social anarchism.

These kind of discussions have been made over and over again, I'm just waiting now how long it takes for someone to call me a capitalist, a fascist, or "certainly not an anarchist." To be honest, such discussion are boring, and tiresome.

[Comrade Krell]

All Marxists would remember the anarchists from the Russian Civil War, they were far-right hooligans, rapists, and counter-revolutionary social-retardants. I see them as no different than the private thugs of the bourgeois.

[The Feral Underclass]

All Marxists would remember the anarchists from the Russian Civil War, they were far-right hooligans, rapists, and counter-revolutionary social-retardants. I see them as no different than the private thugs of the bourgeois.

You have failed.

[#FF0000]

All Marxists would remember the anarchists from the Russian Civil War, they were far-right hooligans, rapists, and counter-revolutionary social-retardants. I see them as no different than the private thugs of the bourgeois.

Oh. That's cool. Don't bother backing that up or anything.

[Black Cross]

I'm confused by your question. On the one hand it seems as if you want to know why we don't think the state is necessary but on the other hand I think you want to know more about what we would consider a transitional phase between capitalism and a gift economy.

Ya that's pretty much what i was gettin at. I was conflicted over how to word it since i was, at the time, anarchism illiterate. Since then i've been tryin to read up on anarchist literature, so it's becoming a little more clear.


I think the first point is that it's not simply a question of saying we think the state is unnecessary. Although it is, the question is more about whether a state can create the material conditions for a transition into communism. We argue that it cannot.

In terms of there being a transitional phase between capitalism and anarchism we would say that collectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism) is the best away to achieve this but in a politically decentralised structure. Some could say that collectivism does not differ greatly to socialism, but what you have to remember is that the key difference here is political centralisation. It is the centralisation of political authority that is dangerous in a revolution and it is our view that collectivism deals with that problem.

Ya, that really helps. I guess the reason i was confused before was because i was always told by other commies that anarchists didn't have a transition, which now, just seems like propaganda. Thanks for the help.


These kind of discussions have been made over and over again, I'm just waiting now how long it takes for someone to call me a capitalist, a fascist, or "certainly not an anarchist." To be honest, such discussion are boring, and tiresome.

... I don't see what you mean. I'm not trying to make an argument out of this, i just honestly wanted to learn more about anarchy, as i see myself drifting towards their theories on revolution. If i was trying to start something between anarchists and marxists, i wouldn't have put it in the learning forum... Thanks for the help.