my problem with anarchism

[trivas7]

Contrary to the beautiful notions of some people, the world isn't a powder puff, you can't change it without taking power.

[bluerev002]

You can't. It's why you distribute power to everyone equally...just thought I'd say that... but I don't really believe in it either. Best argument for it is that that it would take hundreds of years to implement and to get people used to it...but....yeah.

[Bilan]

Alas, power puff's is not a common discussion within anarchist circles.
Would'st thou care to actually elaborate on said point? Do'st thou know what taking power constitues in the eyes of anarchists? Do'st thou not consider that seizing the means of production and abolishing the bourgeois political institutions in favour of libertarian structures as seizing power?

[dirtycommiebastard]

Alas, power puff's is not a common discussion within anarchist circles.
Would'st thou care to actually elaborate on said point? Do'st thou know what taking power constitues in the eyes of anarchists? Do'st thou not consider that seizing the means of production and abolishing the bourgeois political institutions in favour of libertarian structures as seizing power?

I think it absolutely does. The issue is through which means do you accomplish this, and can it be done without a transition to a state which can enforce the abolition of private property and private ownership of the means of production at first.

I think not. But hey! Call me a statist!

[Faux Real]

Contrary to the beautiful notions of some people, the world isn't a powder puff, you can't change it without taking power.
So you're saying anarchists view the world as a large cosmetic pouch?

[trivas7]

I think it absolutely does. The issue is through which means do you accomplish this, and can it be done without a transition to a state which can enforce the abolition of private property and private ownership of the means of production at first.

I think not. But hey! Call me a statist!
Agreed. :cool:

[freakazoid]

Why can't you change it without taking power? And what exactly do you mean by "taking power"?


edit - Yay, my first post outside of the OI since being set free, :D

[Wake Up]

For anarchists to take 'control' then the proper planning would need to be in place before the revolution. That is to say that we would already have decided upon the form that our society would take.
When the revolution is successful there will be a void of power that we will not be used to and if we are not prepared then certain individuals will grab that power.

the other problem is that if we use foicism (which I advocate to a certain point) then leaders must emerge during that period who then step down after the revolution, or at least stand for elections.

Also anarchists are only opposed to power when it is not legitimate. Direct democracy gives individuals power and anarchists are not opposed to that. It's the abuse of power that is the problem.

[welshboy]

We advocate building the organisations and structures here and now that are to replace the state apparatus after the revolution. We do not wish to 'take control' as by the time we reach the revolution we should already be mostly 'in control' by then and the state will be on a backward footing trying to regain control.:)

[KC]

We advocate building the organisations and structures here and now that are to replace the state apparatus after the revolution. We do not wish to 'take control' as by the time we reach the revolution we should already be mostly 'in control' by then and the state will be on a backward footing trying to regain control.

How would you be "in control" before the revolution, and if you're already "in control" then why would there be a revolution? This doesn't make any sense.

[trivas7]

Why can't you change it without taking power? And what exactly do you mean by "taking power"?

Power is the force of compulsion. Taking power is seizing this.

Congrats for your freedom!

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Power is the force of compulsion. Taking power is seizing this.



Anarchists don't seek to take power. Nor do we seek to let power alone. We propose to obliterate it so finely that no one will have anymore coercive power than anyone else. However We hope to do so with the least violence possible. Self defense is always appropriate, but insurrectionist strategy often leads to the hangman's noose.

[trivas7]

We propose to obliterate it [power] so finely that no one will have anymore coercive power than anyone else. However We hope to do so with the least violence possible.
Ah, so with violence you will obliterate power. Then no one will have any power. Good luck with that. :confused:

[Anarch_Mesa]

you can't change it without taking power.

Right, because no revolution has EVER WORKED and only totalitarianism works...

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Ah, so with violence you will obliterate power. Then no one will have any power. Good luck with that. :confused:


Its a matter of accountability. No one person has the capability to abuse the use of violence becuase they are democratically accountable. How exactly do you intend to make the state "wither away" if one group has all the guns and little accountability?

[Kropotesta]

Contrary to the beautiful notions of some people, the world isn't a powder puff, you can't change it without taking power.
I think much the same about state socialism. It is pure idealist fantasy that once a new state is is implemented that it would then wither away.

[Kropotesta]

I think it absolutely does. The issue is through which means do you accomplish this, and can it be done without a transition to a state which can enforce the abolition of private property and private ownership of the means of production at first.

I think not. But hey! Call me a statist!
But would not the revolution entail the collectivisation of the means of production, as it would be a revolution against against class rule? Would it not make sense that to have a successful revolution, a mass section of the working class would need something to aspire to with the will of eliminating class rule? Would this not alone enpower the working class to create syndicate and co-operatives through the revolution and keep this structure post-revolution? This is why anarchist-communism is the only reasonable way of organising a true free classless society.

[KC]

Anarchists don't seek to take power. Nor do we seek to let power alone. We propose to obliterate it

Yes, and as long as class society exists there will be a power structure. In order for you to obliterate power, you have to take it.


Right, because no revolution has EVER WORKED and only totalitarianism works...

What do you think the purpose of a revolution is? To not take power?:rolleyes:


How exactly do you intend to make the state "wither away" if one group has all the guns and little accountability?

You're obviously more concerned with "anti-authoritarianism" than you are with socialist revolution.

[trivas7]

I think much the same about state socialism. It is pure idealist fantasy that once a new state is is implemented that it would then wither away.
That is why revolution must be carried out on a global scale.


But would not the revolution entail the collectivisation of the means of production, as it would be a revolution against against class rule? Would it not make sense that to have a successful revolution, a mass section of the working class would need something to aspire to with the will of eliminating class rule? Would this not alone enpower the working class to create syndicate and co-operatives through the revolution and keep this structure post-revolution? This is why anarchist-communism is the only reasonable way of organising a true free classless society.
This is fine, but anarchists will never lead the revolution.

[welshboy]

We will but we will do so with eyes in the backs of our heads as when we have in the past we've been stabbed between the shoulder blades by the Stalinists.

[Kropotesta]

That is why revolution must be carried out on a global scale.
I agree with global revolution. But how that idea contributes anything to back up the arguement of your origional statement is beyond me.



This is fineSo you're agreeing the working class in revolution will act in the way that I proposed? Then why do claim that a state is vital to act as a transitatory period to erode private property?


but anarchists will never lead the revolution.

Anarchists don't want to lead a revolution, in the Leninist sense, anyways so that isn't a problem, we merely want to influence it as libertarian ideals are more appealing and natural than that of authoritarianism. This is why state socialism needs a vanguard 'leading', because it is undesirable and contradictory to spontaneous self organisation.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Yes, and as long as class society exists there will be a power structure. In order for you to obliterate power, you have to take it.

You're obviously more concerned with "anti-authoritarianism" than you are with socialist revolution.


Define "take power." anarchist intend to overthrow the state and capitalism and then replace it with a system of federated worker's councils and community assemblies. I guess you could term this "taking power," though it differs qualitatively in that we seek to democratize said power so that no one person has anymore than anyone else. Leninists want to keep the power to coerce separate and divorced from the people, which I don't see as anything but blind authoritarianism and a recipe for a failed revolution.

I'm concerned with "anti-authoritarianism" because a true revolution must seek to eliminate all bosses, and when you have state buy up all property it has a funny habit of becoming a boss in its own right.

[Kropotesta]

The content of this thread doesn't warrant chit-chat status, so why is it in here?

[Tower of Bebel]

Leninism is not just about a bureaucratic ruling clique as a substitution for the DotP. Leninism was partially an adaptation of marxism to the conditions of Tsarist Russia at that time. It's a time and place where you had a minority of workers in a backward country not ready for a smooth trip towards communism.

The party of the vanguard is really a party of the vanguard. It is not the vanguard, it is a political, parliamentary organ of the vanguard, which is the most class conscious part of the working class (and others who want to join the ranks of the workers). If there is isolation between a revolutionary party and the working class then it might be because of the fact that it has no working class basis (like most parties today) or because it doesn't know what a vanguard is, so it assumes to be the vanguard itself and repels the workers by it's elitarian behavior and sectarian politics (which again means no real working class basis).

Of course the Bolsheviks had many who were not workers, because you couldn't expect from workers to devote most of their time to party building, agitation and politics when they had to work for more than 12 hours a day. Yet it doesn't mean that the Bolsheviks were totally separated from the working class, as they drew their strenth from that class, supported on this class and the local sections were maintained by that class (= working class basis).

Yet the party got separated from the working class (and farmers). Not because they wanted to, not because most "professional revolutionaries" were petty bourgeois intellectuals. No, it was because of the Civil War (soviets became organs of the party; and such discipline became suddenly a necessity even after the war), the backwardnes of the country (no real steps towards socialism are possible in a short future) and the isolation of the Soviet Union (again no real steps towards socialism are possible).

Kropotesta:

Anarchists don't want to lead a revolution, in the Leninist sense, anyways so that isn't a problem, we merely want to influence it as libertarian ideals are more appealing and natural than that of authoritarianism. This is why state socialism needs a vanguard 'leading', because it is undesirable and contradictory to spontaneous self organisation.What is the leninist sense anyway? And what experience or theory made you conclude that "libertarian ideals" - what with specification, context and timing? - "are more appealing" -to who and why?- "and natural" -what is human nature?- "than that of authoritarianism" -again what is leninism?- ..."?

Also you just say "to influence" which is as vague as "leading in the Leninist sense...".

JH'sG:

Leninists want to keep the power to coerce separate and divorced from the people, which I don't see as anything but blind authoritarianism and a recipe for a failed revolution.What made you conclude that?

I have a question for anarchists (who want to answer it with more than a simple yes or no): is capitalism a necessairy stage before the stage of anarchism/communism?

Kropotesta:

The content of this thread doesn't warrant chit-chat status, so why is it in here?There is a better thread in Theory.

BTW, I have a question (more than a simple yes or no please): Is capitalism a necessairy step towards anarchism?

[Kropotesta]

Kropotesta:
What is the leninist sense anyway?
Vanguardism :rolleyes: You really didn't need to ask that did you?

And what experience or theory made you conclude that "libertarian ideals" - what with specification, context and timing? - "are more appealing" -to who and why?- "and natural" -what is human nature?
I'd recommend a read of Kropotkins- Mutual Aid, if you have not already.
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html


"than that of authoritarianism" -again what is leninism?- ..."?
Is than actual question?

[Tower of Bebel]

Vanguardism :rolleyes: You really didn't need to ask that did you?

:confused: But the vanguard is part of the proletariat. The only difference between the vanguard and the proletariat is the fact that the vanguard is the most conscious part of the proletariat and other social classes.

[trivas7]

I agree with global revolution.
What revolution will anarchists lead?



So you're agreeing the working class in revolution will act in the way that I proposed? Then why do claim that a state is vital to act as a transitatory period to erode private property?
How will anarchists act in this revolution?



Anarchists don't want to lead a revolution, in the Leninist sense, anyways so that isn't a problem, we merely want to influence it as libertarian ideals are more appealing and natural than that of authoritarianism. This is why state socialism needs a vanguard 'leading', because it is undesirable and contradictory to spontaneous self organisation.What libertarian ideals? What is spontaneous organization?

[Kropotesta]

:confused: But the vanguard is part of the proletariat. The only difference between the vanguard and the proletariat is the fact that the vanguard is the most conscious part of the proletariat and other social classes.
By having a vanguard taking control isinuates that the few are more advanced than the majority, this creates hierarchy and promotes manipluation of the working class. Instead ideas can be offered and implemented by anarchists, without coercion upon fellow workers, whom aren't counter-revolutionaries. That said I believe this is that would be needed as the social revolution has already started, and will need to greater deepen before a revolution is distinctly possible in the near future. That said, as anarchists we will fight any coercion being implemented upon ourselves and the working class. A free society can't be based on an hierarchical revolution. However Bakunins speak of a 'secret vanguard' is interesting.

[Kropotesta]

What revolution will anarchists lead?
Erm...a libertarian one?


How will anarchists act in this revolution?
As they have worked in the past but hopefully with the benefit of hindsight. Setting up of co-operatives and promoting our ideas, aswell as militias and the like. The Makhnovists would be interesting for you to read up on.

What libertarian ideals? What is spontaneous organization?
Libertarian ideals are them of free thought and act. In other words opposition to the state and hierarchy, promoting voluntray asociation and the like. Spontaneous organisation is organisation which isn't planned and just, well happens, as it makes more sense logically. For example it's more logical for the workers control their work, beens they are the ones who do it, thus one would expect them to have authority over the subject of their work.

[trivas7]

Libertarian ideals are them of free thought and act. In other words opposition to the state and hierarchy, promoting voluntray asociation and the like. Spontaneous organisation is organisation which isn't planned and just, well happens, as it makes more sense logically. For example it's more logical for the workers control their work, beens they are the ones who do it, thus one would expect them to have authority over the subject of their work.
I deny that free thought means opposition to the state and hierarchy, that's just your characterization of it. Humans don't just organize spontaneously like sheep. Anyone who's done any organizing knows how much hard work it is. Show me an organization of more that two that isn't hierarchical. I'm being off the cuff, flippant, I confess, but this is chit-chat. There just strikes me as something incredibly childish and naive -- not childlike -- re anarchism.

[Kropotesta]

I deny that free thought means opposition to the state and hierarchy, that's just your characterization of it.
The state is a institution based upon the monopoly of force, so how could this do anything but hinder free thought? The state implies hierarchy which implies authority, which implies coercion to maintain its place. Thus it is a organ of class rule.

Humans don't just organize spontaneously like sheep.
Who said that they did?

Show me an organization of more that two that isn't hierarchical. I'm being off the cuff, flippant, I confess, but this is chit-chat.
I don't care whether this is chit chat or not. Maybe if you look towards co-operatives that would give a good idea. Friend groups are also not hierarchical, so why would people want to organise in a way not as equals? By hierarchy I do not mean the divison of labour, as I'm not a primivitist.

There just strikes me as something incredibly childish and naive -- not childlike -- re anarchism.
Alot of people throw accusations like this around however, rarely do any of these individuals have a proper conception of what anarchists actually propose and make their rash assumptions on what they may have heard or read as a critque of anarchism, without any knowledge of anarchist theory. But what exactly do you consider naive?

[The Feral Underclass]

What revolution will anarchists lead?

How will anarchists act in this revolution?

What libertarian ideals? What is spontaneous organization?

It seems to me that you have started this discussion without having any idea what anarchism is or means. How can you adequately attempt to refute something you know nothing about?

[The Feral Underclass]

I have a question for anarchists (who want to answer it with more than a simple yes or no): is capitalism a necessairy stage before the stage of anarchism/communism?

Class struggle cannot exist without a working class, so in that sense yes; but we already have a working class in the western world so your question is redundant.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, and as long as class society exists there will be a power structure. In order for you to obliterate power, you have to take it.

The difference being that you want a political party to take power, we anarchists want the working class to take power.


What do you think the purpose of a revolution is? To not take power?:rolleyes:

It depends on what your concept of power is? Leninist's want to take bourgeois power and start managing the economy, anarchists do not. We want to create workers power by taking control of the means of production directly while dismantling the state apparatus and decentralising political authority.


You're obviously more concerned with "anti-authoritarianism" than you are with socialist revolution.

The two come hand in hand. There's no point in having a revolution if it's not anti-authoritarian. And I mean that in the sense that political authority is decentralised.

[trivas7]

But what exactly do you consider naive?
Just what I proposed in the original post: It is naive to think that change happen unless you have the power to make change.

Psychologically, what else is anarchism but the fear and loathing of authority? Isn't this the mentality of a teenager?

[The Feral Underclass]

Psychologically, what else is anarchism but the fear and loathing of authority? Isn't this the mentality of a teenager?

I suggest you employ the Google search engine to help you educate yourself. You clearly have no idea what you're taking about. Are you not embarrassed?

[Kropotesta]

Just what I proposed in the original post: It is naive to think that change happen unless you have the power to make change.
Where's the concrete evidence for this? The USSR is a great example of the failure of vanguardism, espically with the disvolvement of the free soviets in november 1917.


Psychologically, what else is anarchism but the fear and loathing of authority? Isn't this the mentality of a teenager?
Erm....what? Is a this joke? Anarchism is a vast ideology and no in way soley a rejection of hierarchical illegitimate authority, though that is a central theme of the ideology that we as anarchists advocate.
www.infoshop.org/faq (http://www.infoshop.org/faq)

[Forward Union]

This is how I see the world
http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2007/04/12/care-bears.jpg

[Tower of Bebel]

By having a vanguard taking control isinuates that the few are more advanced than the majority, this creates hierarchy and promotes manipluation of the working class. Instead ideas can be offered and implemented by anarchists, without coercion upon fellow workers, whom aren't counter-revolutionaries. That said I believe this is that would be needed as the social revolution has already started, and will need to greater deepen before a revolution is distinctly possible in the near future. That said, as anarchists we will fight any coercion being implemented upon ourselves and the working class. A free society can't be based on an hierarchical revolution. However Bakunins speak of a 'secret vanguard' is interesting.

Hierarchy is inevitable, because, as you should know, everybody is unique and not everyone will be conscious of what happens and where the revolution or a post-bourgeois society should go to. I bet there will still be millions who would rather support a reactionary pope than the people taking power. You can't expect everyone to follow the same ideas.
This automaticly creates "hierarchy" as some have to guide or lead (both words have a different meaning) those who simply don't support the revolution or those who want to but don't have a clue of what to do. So you automaticly have a 'vanguard'.

[Kropotesta]

Hierarchy is inevitable, because, as you should know, everybody is unique and not everyone will be conscious of what happens and where the revolution or a post-bourgeois society should go to.
No hierarchy is not inevitable, hierarchy is merely created by those who wish to exert coercion. The 'vanguard' is merely a group of people from the working class who have different opinions, this is not a valid reason to advocate hierarchy.
We can operate and spread our ideas as equals, thus offering a leadership of ideas. It's extremely arrogant of you to say that such small section, which you call the vanguard, of the working class can attempt to apply it's will against the majority, and is thus a ridiculous concept of revolution.
Of course everyone is unique as you say, so by going by your own logic, what gives the vanguard the right to declare that it knows best?


I bet there will still be millions who would rather support a reactionary pope than the people taking power. You can't expect everyone to follow the same ideas.
That's why as anarchists we advocate social revolution to gain the popularity of our ideas, also to create the new society in the shell of the old. These structures and ideas are important to be laid down without coercion, before the actual act of revolution.
Revolution, the act, will need a majority of the working class to be initated successfully, so your comment on pope is somewhat redundant, unless, that is that you propose forcing revolution onto your potenial revolutionaries?



This automaticly creates "hierarchy" as some have to guide or lead (both words have a different meaning) those who simply don't support the revolution or those who want to but don't have a clue of what to do. So you automaticly have a 'vanguard'.
Guiding isn't neccessarily hierarchical. If me and a group of people came up to you and made suggestions this wouldn't be hierarchical.
The point is that the structure for a post revolutionary society needs to be laid down before the act, this is social revolution, a insurgency of anarchists ideas.

[Tower of Bebel]

We might have different opinions on hierarchy and authority here.

[Kropotesta]

We might have different opinions on hierarchy and authority here.
Doesn't that really go without saying?

[trivas7]

Anarchism is a vast ideology and no in way soley a rejection of hierarchical illegitimate authority, though that is a central theme of the ideology that we as anarchists advocate.
www.infoshop.org/faq (http://www.infoshop.org/faq)
Other than to be rid of rulers what is this "vast ideology"? What is the criteria that distinguishes illegitimate and legitimate authority? Why by said criteria is the state illegitimate?

[Kropotesta]

Other than to be rid of rulers what is this "vast ideology"? What is the criteria that distinguishes illegitimate and legitimate authority? Why by said criteria is the state illegitimate?
Jeez TAT was right, you have absolutley no idea of what you're on about! Which is somewhat humerous yet annoying. Look at the site I posted as I really can't be arsed to explain a whole ideology to you right now.
However if you purely put together the term libertarian and socialist together that should make a pretty suffice explanation for you- libertarian socialist.

What is the criteria that distinguishes illegitimate and legitimate authority? Why by said criteria is the state illegitimate?
Legitimate authority is that of someone who posseses expertise in a certain area.
"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker."- Bakunin.
Illegimate authority is something that administratives authority from above, so yes the state is illegitimate. Have you given your consent to be governed? Which is allegedly proposed by liberal demoncracy through the social contract.

[trivas7]

Have you given your consent to be governed?
Had you given your consent to be born? We find ourselves all the time in social conditions not of our choosing. The fact that I have not given consent to be governed doesn't make the state illegitimate.

[Kropotesta]

Had you given your consent to be born? We find ourselves all the time in social conditions not of our choosing. The fact that I have not given consent to be governed doesn't make the state illegitimate.
A person being born isn't essentially establishing hierarchy is it? Also in the pre-birth state, we cannot make choices. Do you oppose abortion also? So that conotation is purely preposterous. So therefore the state is illegitimate.

[trivas7]

A person being born isn't essentially establishing hierarchy is it?
What do you mean by this? A person being born is dependent for his very existence on his family. If that isn't a hierarchical power relationship I don't know what is. How does this differ from being born the citizen of a state?

[Kropotesta]

What do you mean by this? A person being born is dependent for his very existence on his family. If that isn't a hierarchical power relationship I don't know what is. How does this differ from being born the citizen of a state?
Maybe you should look at this (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ6.html).
So no we don't think a family is necersarily hierarchial, In many cases perphaps in capitalism, but that is due to economic hierarchy, patriarchy and so on.

This is getting stupidly off subject and your questioning is boarding on ridculous. If you care to learn then check out the links I've been giving or at least use sensible questions. I don't even know what we were on about anymore.

Also, incase it escaped you, I referenced to the social contract theory becasue that's what liberal democracy is based upon, and you have failed to disprove my point upon that. However, instead you have come up with a situation where it is impossible to give consent, which is also is irrelevant because no one has claimed that the relationship between parents and a unborn child could ever be based on consenus becasue prior to the birth the child is not even born, obviously

[trivas7]

Also, incase it escaped you, I referenced to the social contract theory becasue that's what liberal democracy is based upon, and you have failed to disprove my point upon that.
As a Marxist I don't believe that liberal democracy is based on a social contract. It's based on the division of labor and class rule.

[Kropotesta]

As a Marxist I don't believe that liberal democracy is based on a social contract. It's based on the division of labor and class rule.
:rolleyes:
That's not the point. I was referring to the ideological reasoning for the legitimacy of the state in a liberal democracy that advocates would give on an ideological basis. I was merely debasing the idea that a state is legitimate, which you disagreed with yet still have not offered any arguement to say the contary.

[The Feral Underclass]

What do you mean by this? A person being born is dependent for his very existence on his family. If that isn't a hierarchical power relationship I don't know what is. How does this differ from being born the citizen of a state?

What's your point? Do you actually have a point are you just going to make abstract assertions...

Whether or not a babies need to be nurtured constitutes a hierarchy, this does not negate the fact that using hierarchy as a means of social organisation is a on human dynamic. A person having the "right" or "power" to make another person do something is not truely democratic nor is it a means in which human beings should live. It doesn't empower, it disenfranchises and ultimately creates a society where there are those that lead and those that are led.

Social organisation should be based on mutual co-operation, not on the centralisation of power.

[Bilan]

Why is this in Chit Chat?
Moved back to Learning.
No need to be pricks.

[trivas7]

What's your point? Do you actually have a point are you just going to make abstract assertions...

The point is that we all find ourselves in social conditions not of our own choosing: a family, a state.

[trivas7]

:rolleyes:
That's not the point. I was referring to the ideological reasoning for the legitimacy of the state in a liberal democracy that advocates would give on an ideological basis. I was merely debasing the idea that a state is legitimate, which you disagreed with yet still have not offered any arguement to say the contary.
The burden is on the person making the statement. States are the creation of social processes. What makes them illegitimate?

[Kropotesta]

The burden is on the person making the statement.
What?

States are the creation of social processes. What makes them illegitimate?
A Marxist arguing that all states are a legitmate social process.....:crying:
States are centralised power, therefore this results in buearucracy and the controlling of the few over the many. We believe any centralisation of power is illegimate as it exerts power from above, creating inequality. However I've said my piece numerous times, aswell as linking to informative sites that you appear to not use. So, I ask you, why is the state legitimate? as you have agrued the current state is. If you see it as legitimate then what the fuck are you doing on this site?

This is really going around in circles.

[The Feral Underclass]

The point is that we all find ourselves in social conditions not of our own choosing: a family, a state.

Well obviously, but so what? That's a totally redundant point to make...

[trivas7]

What?
A Marxist arguing that all states are a legitmate social process.....:crying:

You should try reading Marx some time. He understood that states are a natural product of social evolution and that their dissolution would come about when the reasons they exist no longer obtain.

[The Feral Underclass]

The burden is on the person making the statement. States are the creation of social processes. What makes them illegitimate?

It's illegitimate because the centralisation of political power (i.e. a state) cannot create a necessary conditions for a transition into communism. In fact it creates antithetical conditions that would eventually require another revolution.

In order to create the conditions to transform society into a communist one we have to decentralise political authority otherwise the a bureaucracy forms and the state consolidates itself.

[trivas7]

Well obviously, but so what? That's a totally redundant point to make...
If you had been following the thread you would have seen that Kropotesta was arguing that the state was a hierarchical illegitimate institution and not so the family.

[The Feral Underclass]

You should try reading Marx some time. He understood that states are a natural product of social evolution and that their dissolution would come about when the reasons they exist no longer obtain.

But he was wrong.

[The Feral Underclass]

If you had been following the thread you would have seen that Kropotesta was arguing that the state was a hierarchical illegitimate institution and not so the family.

A family isn't inherently hierarchical but it can be. In terms of the relationship between an adult and a baby I can see some correlation to a hierarchy but that's an incredibly tentative link and not really a justification for inherent family hierarchy or indeed hierarchy in general.

[Kropotesta]

You should try reading Marx some time. He understood that states are a natural product of social evolution and that their dissolution would come about when the reasons they exist no longer obtain.
You should try reading up on anarchism before throwing around stupid accusations....buy hey?
Also I think that idea is naff. So are you saying that you feel that class rule is legitimate?

[trivas7]

It's illegitimate because the centralisation of political power (i.e. a state) cannot create a necessary conditions for a transition into communism. In fact it creates antithetical conditions that would eventually require another revolution.

In order to create the conditions to transform society into a communist one we have to decentralise political authority otherwise the a bureaucracy forms and the state consolidates itself.
Marx doesn't argue this way. He argues that it is just because their are tensions in society that political revolution comes about. Power is not the problem, it's who wields it. Neither does revolution stop when workers form their own government.

[trivas7]

You should try reading up on anarchism before throwing around stupid accusations....buy hey?
Also I think that idea is naff. So are you saying that you feel that class rule is legitimate?
What do you think I'm accusing you of? I'm saying that you haven't proven to me that states are illegitimate.

[Kropotesta]

What do you think I'm accusing you of? I'm saying that you haven't proven to me that states are illegitimate.
That's because you believe in coercion from above, thus you seen to think that a state is needed to control society.
What makes a state legitimate then? Go on, enlighten me.

[The Feral Underclass]

Marx doesn't argue this way. He argues that it is just because their are tensions in society that political revolution comes about.

As suprising as this may be to you, I'm fully aware of what Marx said.


Power is not the problemEvidently it is.


it's who wields it.Precisely and that should not be individuals or a small group of individuals who exercise that power through a state.


Neither does revolution stop when workers form their own government.The working class in the UK is 30 million. When you say "workers form their own government", that's a bit of a red herring, because evidently 30 million people cannot form "their own" government. This is why political parties seek the workers mandate in order to execute the management of government on their behalf.

Based on the fact Leninists cannot get over Marx's corpse they continue to reinvent the wheel by proselytizing Marx's theories even though they've been falsified and thus we continue to see bourgeois state institutions being "transformed" in style that ultimately offer the same substance: Political power to the few and the consolidation of the state.

You cannot create a stateless society by using a state. It's like trying to clean up dirt with dirt.

[trivas7]

You cannot create a stateless society by using a state. It's like trying to clean up dirt with dirt.
Neither can you create a classless society by wishing it into existence, which is all I see anarchists doing.

[Coggeh]

edit - Yay, my first post outside of the OI since being set free, :D
Hurrah :)

[Coggeh]

Based on the fact Leninists cannot get over Marx's corpse they continue to reinvent the wheel by proselytizing Marx's theories even though they've been falsified and thus we continue to see bourgeois state institutions being "transformed" in style that ultimately offer the same substance: Political power to the few and the consolidation of the state.

You cannot create a stateless society by using a state. It's like trying to clean up dirt with dirt.
How would an anarchist go about transforming society into statelessness?

[trivas7]

That's because you believe in coercion from above, thus you seen to think that a state is needed to control society.
What makes a state legitimate then? Go on, enlighten me.
Coersion is what states do, it's what gives them power over me. My wishing that it were otherwise doesn't make it so, my beliefs have nothing to do with it.

[Kropotesta]

Coersion is what states do, it's what gives them power over me.
Congrats on passing stating the obvious!

My wishing that it were otherwise doesn't make it so, my beliefs have nothing to do with it.
What? Whose beliefs portray something different of the state?

[Kropotesta]

Neither can you create a classless society by wishing it into existence, which is all I see anarchists doing.
yeah, organising community self mangement with various councils through a federalised system is really "wishing it into existence".

[Wake Up]

How would an anarchist go about transforming society into statelessness?

Education.

[Pawn Power]

Education.

To be fair, education would be the means by which we would obtain popular worker class consciousness, not the actual way in which society would transform to statelessness.

[Wake Up]

To be fair, education would be the means by which we would obtain popular worker class consciousness, not the actual way in which society would transform to statelessness.

It is if worker class consciousness is based around them realizing the state is part of the problem.

[The Feral Underclass]

Neither can you create a classless society by wishing it into existence, which is all I see anarchists doing.

That's because you're ignorant of anarchist ideas and instead rely on strawman arguments when you have nothing constructive to say. No one has suggested neither does it state in any anarchist literature that we believe that wishing for a classless society will create one.

Interestingly you haven't actually attempted to address my argument. Is that because you agree and if not perhaps you could elaborate on your reasoning?

[The Feral Underclass]

How would an anarchist go about transforming society into statelessness?

In the process of removing the ruling class from power we would build a federal system from community outwards based on collectivism. Collectivism would eventually develop into a gift economy.

It's simply decentralising political authority and bringing control of production into the hands of the producers who organise federally rather than it being managed by a central state system. The Aragon and Catalonian collectives in Spain during the civil war are prime examples of this working.

[Coggeh]

In the process of removing the ruling class from power we would build a federal system from community outwards based on collectivism. Collectivism would eventually develop into a gift economy.

It's simply decentralising political authority and bringing control of production into the hands of the producers who organise federally rather than it being managed by a central state system. The Aragon and Catalonian collectives in Spain during the civil war are prime examples of this working.
And about organizing for this ? (don't get the wrong idea these are just like questions .. I'm curious .. not challenging lol)

[trivas7]

That's because you're ignorant of anarchist ideas and instead rely on strawman arguments when you have nothing constructive to say.No one has suggested neither does it state in any anarchist literature that we believe that wishing for a classless society will create one.

The point of this thread was for someone to enlighten me otherwise. That's why I posted in Learning. It's a pretty simple question: How do anarchists theoretically expect to change things without taking state power?

Are you always this insulting to people who perhaps know less than you?



Interestingly you haven't actually attempted to address my argument. Is that because you agree and if not perhaps you could elaborate on your reasoning?
What argument is that? I don't believe Marx's theories have been falsified.


In the process of removing the ruling class from power [...]
How do you go about doing this? Power knows no vacuum.

[trivas7]

yeah, organising community self mangement with various councils through a federalised system is really "wishing it into existence".
The ruling class are shuddering in their boots over this, I'm sure.

[The Feral Underclass]

And about organizing for this ? (don't get the wrong idea these are just like questions .. I'm curious .. not challenging lol)

I don't understand the question?

[The Feral Underclass]

How do you go about doing this? Power knows no vacuum.

A revolution is a process of social upheaval where working class people react to present conditions by forcibly seizing the means of production and taking control of the system in which political power is administrated.

[manic expression]

A revolution is a process of social upheaval where working class people react to present conditions by forcibly seizing the means of production and taking control of the system in which political power is administrated.

What is that, other than authority? If you establish forcible control of production and use political power, you are essentially creating a state.

[nvm]

where working class people react to present conditions by forcibly seizing the means of production and taking control of the system in which political power is administrated.

Agreed. That is called a workers state which slowly fades away when the material conditions get better and better and classes are eliminated.
When classes are eliminated we don't need a state. Because as you will agree, a state is bodies of armed men opressing one class over the other.
So a workers state(what you described ) will oppress the bourgeoisie and create the conditions for a stateless classless society!

[trivas7]

A revolution is a process of social upheaval where working class people react to present conditions by forcibly seizing the means of production and taking control of the system in which political power is administrated.
Are you saying that anarchists will forcibly seize the means of production and take control of the system in which political power is administrated? But this means taking state power.

[gla22]

Anarchists abolish the state, communists believe in a withering of a socialist state.

[trivas7]

Anarchists abolish the state [...]
How exactly?

[The Feral Underclass]

What is that, other than authority? If you establish forcible control of production and use political power, you are essentially creating a state.

If you want to call that authoritarian, that's fine, but as far as I'm concerned a revolution is an act of self-defence.

[The Feral Underclass]

Are you saying that anarchists will forcibly seize the means of production and take control of the system in which political power is administrated? But this means taking state power.

You're all over the place with your argument. What is it you're actually trying to establish? Whether you call that or indeed whether it is in fact "taking state power", this does not alter the fact that an anarchist revolution and the subsequent re-organisation of political control and the means of production is fundamentally different to that of Leninism.

I don't understand why that's so difficult for you to grasp?

[The Feral Underclass]

How exactly?

Are you mentally ill?

The centralisation of power is abolished when it's decentralised as has been stated several times.

[The Feral Underclass]

Agreed. That is called a workers state which slowly fades away when the material conditions get better and better and classes are eliminated.

That's not what a state is called, it's what a revolution is called. Now, if you want to call the a non-institutionalised, federated and decentralised political structure a state, then that's fine with me. You can call whatever you want.


When classes are eliminated we don't need a state.

Perhaps, but you'll be left with one.


Because as you will agree, a state is bodies of armed men opressing one class over the other.

That's Marx's definition of the state, yes, but a state is clearly more than that.


So a workers state(what you described ) will oppress the bourgeoisie and create the conditions for a stateless classless society!

I didn't describe a workers state. Also, if you're talking about a state in the Leninist sense, this cannot create conditions that will lead to a stateless society as has been proved on several occasions.

[Led Zeppelin]

Perhaps, but you'll be left with one.

Could you perhaps point to one historical example of a state existing in a classless society?

Could you perhaps explain how it is even possible for a modern state to exist in such an economic context?


That's Marx's definition of the state, yes, but a state is clearly more than that.

Clearly it is, but that definition only describes that basis on which the rest is founded on.

Without an armed body of men and women and institutions of repression such as prisons, there's no foundation for a bourgeois state.


I didn't describe a workers state. Also, if you're talking about a state in the Leninist sense, this cannot create conditions that will lead to a stateless society as has been proved on several occasions.

I didn't realize that the failure of a worker's state which was created in a backward nation equalled the impossibility of worker's states in advanced countries, or the world as a whole, to lead to a stateless society.

Seems like a big leap of logic.

[The Feral Underclass]

I understand, you'd rather pick on other members because you don't like to be proven wrong.

No worries, as long as you were proven wrong, once again, you pathetic obsessive compulsive douchebag. :)

Obsessive compulsive douchebag? That's ridiculous.

Your arguments are perfectly refutable, I just think you're a monumental twat.

[apathy maybe]

Could you perhaps point to one historical example of a state existing in a classless society?
I would rather you pointed to an example of a state that whithered away, or perhaps a state that didn't create a new ruling class/strata/bloc (or whatever the fuck you want to call it).

[Kropotesta]

The ruling class are shuddering in their boots over this, I'm sure.
:laugh:
What? Your arguement has really sunk to new levels!
But of course what you advocate obviously scares the ruling class far more......lololololol

[The Feral Underclass]

I would rather you pointed to an example of a state that whithered away, or perhaps a state that didn't create a new ruling class/strata/bloc (or whatever the fuck you want to call it).

The point he makes is fallacious as Russia was an industrialised country. It had a working class and a means of production. The whole "it was a backward country" argument is a red herring.

[Led Zeppelin]

I would rather you pointed to an example of a state that whithered away, or perhaps a state that didn't create a new ruling class/strata/bloc (or whatever the fuck you want to call it).

That's impossible, there would be a communist society if I could point to an example of that.

I can however prove to examples of the bourgeois state being overthrown and replaced; Paris Commune, Russia etc.

I didn't make an assertion about states which apply to already existing ones, however.

As for Russia already having a working-class and means of production; So what? Sudan has a working-class and means of production too, that doesn't mean it isn't backward when compared to the advanced capitalist states, now does it?

When the majority of the population is proletarian and the economic conditions are higher than in the most advanced capitalist nation (which requires a revolution in at least several advanced nations), and the state continues to exist, you might have a point, but that's not the case.

Anarchists believe the Russian revolution degenerated because of the "evil statists", they never bother to research the root causes of the degeneration, which are related to the material conditions, as any Marxist knows.

To them a communist society was perfectly possible in Russia, they don't even realize that the material conditions required for it simply weren't there, and building them up to that level couldn't be done by themselves in isolation.

For all that's been said about the theory of "Socialism In One Country", it at least makes more sense than the theory of "Communism In One Country", which isn't saying much.

[The Feral Underclass]

:rolleyes:
No it doesn't.

In a manner of speaking, it does, but his point is irrelevant. Whether it is or isn't it does not alter the fact that we will and must abolish the state.

[Kropotesta]

In a manner of speaking, it does, but his point is irrelevant. Whether it is or isn't it does not alter the fact that we will and must abolish the state.
Well it is wrong in that he says it would be creating a new state, by adminstrative political power from above, because that is in no way anarchism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Fine, I'll indulge this.


As for Russia already having a working-class and means of production; So what? Sudan has a working-class and means of production too, that doesn't mean it isn't backward when compared to the advanced capitalist states, now does it?

So are you claiming that there should not have been a workers revolution in Russia? In any case the point is that a revolution requires a working class to seize the means of production. These conditions existed in Russia.


When the majority of the population is proletarian and the economic conditions are higher than in the most advanced capitalist nation (which requires a revolution in at least several advanced nations), and the state continues to exist, you might have a point, but that's not the case.The state, being the centralised political power of one class to suppress another, will consolidate its political authority regardless of the material conditions. It has to do this in order to defend its structure.

There's no evidence to suggest that simply because a nation is industrialised a state will suddenly cease to be a state.


Anarchists believe the Russian revolution degenerated because of the "evil statists"Anarchists understand that the state will invariably consolidate itself, as it did in Russia and has done in China and Cuba.


To them a communist society was perfectly possible in Russia, they don't even realize that the material conditions required for it simply weren't there, and building them up to that level couldn't be done by themselves in isolation.

You're constructing an argument to attack anarchism from a basis of ignorance. I'm not sure any anarchist has ever said that it was possible to create a communist society in Russia. In fact, I don't think I've ever been asked that question or indeed ever answered it. I don't know whether communism is possible in one country, it probably isn't, but nevertheless in order to build up conditions for this to happen political and economic organisation has to be done on a decentralised, federalist and collectivist basis.

The criticism of anarchists on Russia is that it did not do this and ultimately paved the way for degeneration, state capitalism and then a free market.

[Led Zeppelin]

So are you claiming that there should not have been a workers revolution in Russia? In any case the point is that a revolution requires a working class to seize the means of production. These conditions existed in Russia.

No, I am not claiming that there should not have been a workers' revolution in Russia, I'm just saying that it was never the objective to "build socialism in one country", it was merely meant as a prelude to world revolution, as a step towards it, in the words of Lenin.

So yes, the working-class did seize the means of production, but over 90% of the population wasn't part of that class.


The state, being the centralised political power of one class to suppress another, will consolidate its political authority regardless of the material conditions. It has to do this in order to defend its structure.

There's no evidence to suggest that simply because a nation is industrialised a state will suddenly cease to be a state.

Ascribing a supernatural character to the state doesn't prove anything, in fact it goes against history, which shows that states come and go.

And I never said that an industrialized state will suddenly cease to be a state, that doesn't even make sense because many industrialized capitalist states today are in existence. When I said "the economic conditions are higher than in the most advanced capitalist nation" I was referring to a post-capitalist society, that is, a fully matured socialist society, at the point where scarcity is eliminated and the state starts to wither away because it is no longer necessary.

The difference between a capitalist state and a socialist state is that the majority class rules over a minority class for the first time in history, this enables the institution to wither away when that minority no longer has to be suppressed, that is, when socialism has triumphed over capitalism.

Why?

Because there's no reason for the state to exist when that has been accomplished, only an administrative will be required to regulate distribution and production of goods.


Anarchists understand that the state will invariably consolidate itself, as it did in Russia and has done in China and Cuba.

Sure, but you don't understand the root causes of that consolidation, or rather, degeneration.

To you it is because the state is some mystical entity which always strengthens itself, it stands above society, above economics and politics, above the superstructure even.

This is an idealist way of looking at it. The state wasn't consolidated in Russia, China and Cuba just because "the evil statists" wanted it to be, it was related to the material conditions, to political events in other countries, to class-consciousness etc.

How exactly did you expect the state to not be consolidated in a materially backward nation which tries to "build socialism in one country"?


You're constructing an argument to attack anarchism from a basis of ignorance. I'm not sure any anarchist has ever said that it was possible to create a communist society in Russia. In fact, I don't think I've ever been asked that question or indeed ever answered it. I don't know whether communism is possible in one country, it probably isn't, but nevertheless in order to build up conditions for this to happen political and economic organisation has to be done on a decentralised, federalist and collectivist basis.

The criticism of anarchists on Russia is that it did not do this and ultimately paved the way for degeneration, state capitalism and then a free market.

Ok so let's go with this; the political and economic organization was done in a decentralized, federalist and collectivist basis. Makhno or some other anarchists were somehow victorious, but the revolution does not spread, how exactly would this loose federal society of independently acting communes continue to exist in opposition to the entire capitalist world?

How would it go about "building communism"? Is that even possible in such a backward nation?

No, it isn't, so naturally the decentralized, federalist, collectivist nature of the proto-state would have to be replaced and the centralized state would have to be consolidated, it is simply an act of survival.

If it wasn't replaced, it would simply be militarily defeated by the world bourgeoisie or break up in chunks like the Balkans, it would not have survived longer than a few months at the most.

But that's not your theory, is it? Your theory is that a spontaneous revolution must erupt throughout the world almost instantaniously, which is a utopian fantasy, as history has shown time after time.

We believe that it is essential for the revolution to spread, so in that we agree with you, but we don't believe this will happen spontaneously or instantaniously, it might take years or even decades for the revolution to spread from a backward nation to the more advanced nations, and even if it does spread, you can't just do away with centuries of capitalism in a few months or years, it requires a transition period from one into the other, not just to build up the material conditions required for a communist society, but also to cleanse the people of the filth that was imprinted in them over the centuries, and by cleansing I don't mean artificially by the state, but simply through the birth and education of new generations, who for the first time in history will be brought up in a free and equal society.

[trivas7]

Well, it's clear to me that there is indeed Anarchist tension in terms of what the hell their goals are vis-a-vis the state after the revolution.


A revolution is a process of social upheaval where working class people react to present conditions by forcibly seizing the means of production and taking control of the system in which political power is administrated.

How one reconciles this with the abolishment of the state is beyond me.

[Wake Up]

Well, it's clear to me that there is indeed Anarchist tension in terms of what the hell their goals are vis-a-vis the state after the revolution.



How one reconciles this with the abolishment of the state is beyond me.

What as compared with all the united Marxists, Lenninists, Trotsyists and Stalinists?

[Kropotesta]

How one reconciles this with the abolishment of the state is beyond me.
Judging by this thread, most things are beyond your conception. Did you actually read what TAT wrote? It's pretty much as plain as day.

[trivas7]

What as compared with all the united Marxists, Lenninists, Trotsyists and Stalinists?
All Marxists understand that social relations change when the proletariat takes and wields state power.


Judging by this thread, most things are beyond your conception. Did you actually read what TAT wrote? It's pretty much as plain as day.
You mean statements like this:



The centralisation of power is abolished when it's decentralised [...]
That's as clear as mud.

[Kropotesta]

All Marxists understand that social relations change when the proletariat takes and wields state power.
Amazingly alot of us know what Marxists propose.



You mean statements like this:


That's as clear as mud.
What? are you joking? How can you have centralised power when it is decentralised? How is that clear as mud? Jeez!

[The Feral Underclass]

Ascribing a supernatural character to the state doesn't prove anything

Of course it doesn't, but I'm not doing that. When I refer to "it", I am specifically making reference to the institutions of the state, which are specifically designed to defend the structure and power of the state.


And I never said that an industrialized state will suddenly cease to be a state, that doesn't even make sense because many industrialized capitalist states today are in existence. When I said "the economic conditions are higher than in the most advanced capitalist nation" I was referring to a post-capitalist society, that is, a fully matured socialist society, at the point where scarcity is eliminated and the state starts to wither away because it is no longer necessary.I accept that the material conditions need to be right in order to go from a collectivist economy to a gift economy but I do not accept that a state can suddenly cease to have function.

A state is the centralisation of political authority. The socialist state is not simply designed to manage an economy but to exact political control. In order to cease to exist a bureaucracy, which will inevitably be created through these institutions, would have to relinquish political control. As we've seen with Cuba and China those bureaucracy have become far too entrenched to do that.

Once a leadership has taken control of a state and consolidated political authority into its handsm it will become entrenched as it executes its role. Through its management and administration the state will take on the same form as they always do and it will require a forcible removal by the working class.


The difference between a capitalist state and a socialist state is that the majority class rules over a minority class for the first time in historyThat's a nice slogan, but in reality what this means is a political leadership take control of a state apparatus and then use it to consolidate and defend their political authority on behalf of the working class.


this enables the institution to wither away when that minority no longer has to be suppressed, that is, when socialism has triumphed over capitalism.Again, the consolidation of political authority is not going to "wither away", just because we have the right economic conditions.


Because there's no reason for the state to existExcept to defend and execute the leaderships political authority.


To you it is because the state is some mystical entity which always strengthens itself, it stands above society, above economics and politics, above the superstructure even.I'm not claiming it "stands above", I'm claiming that as it stands the state is inherently linked with these things and the idea that economic conditions will somehow render the state without function is not true.


The state wasn't consolidated in Russia, China and Cuba just because "the evil statists" wanted it to beOf course not. I was consolidated because that's what happens.


How exactly did you expect the state to not be consolidated in a materially backward nation which tries to "build socialism in one country"?I didn't nor do I expect it not to. Indeed, I fully expect it to.


Ok so let's go with this; the political and economic organization was done in a decentralized, federalist and collectivist basis. Makhno or some other anarchists were somehow victorious, but the revolution does not spread, how exactly would this loose federal society of independently acting communes continue to exist in opposition to the entire capitalist world?I have no idea how a loose federal society of independently active communes would continue to exist...

In a transitional anarchist "country", however, the means of production would be controlled by the producers themselves who would collectivise and federate in order to manage that particular productive force. Until the conditions existed to transform into a communist society, participatory economics and renumeration would probably still be necessary. The difference is that economic management derives from the producers themselves and political power derives from the community into federated systems, rather than centrally.

Of course there are nuances to organisation, but the central point is that political control exists on a community level, not on a governmental level and economic management is done by the workers and not by a political party.


How would it go about "building communism"? Is that even possible in such a backward nation?The economy would have to be socialised.


If it wasn't replaced, it would simply be militarily defeated by the world bourgeoisie or break up in chunks like the Balkans, it would not have survived longer than a few months at the most.There's no evidence to suggest that decentralised political authority and economic management organised federally is any less weak than it being centralised.


But that's not your theory, is it? Your theory is that a spontaneous revolution must erupt throughout the world almost instantaniously, which is a utopian fantasy, as history has shown time after time.Please don't speculate on what I believe as clearly you haven't got a clue.


but we don't believe this will happen spontaneously or instantaniouslyI don't believe that either.


it might take years or even decades for the revolution to spread from a backward nation to the more advanced nationsYou seem to be making the assumption that a revolution is not possible in an industrialised nation, but if it's the case that we have to wait decades and the state is employed as a means of "survival", you can kiss any chance of transition goodbye. Cuba and China are allegedly in the first stage and have been waiting decades. It would be total folly to assert that they will one day transform into a communist society.

These decades of waiting have simply consolidated the authority of the bureaucracy and it will require another revolution to get rid of them. This is precisely why it is necessary to decentralise political authority from the beginning.


and even if it does spread, you can't just do away with centuries of capitalism in a few months or years, it requires a transition period from one into the other, not just to build up the material conditions required for a communist society, but also to cleanse the people of the filth that was imprinted in them over the centuries, and by cleansing I don't mean artificially by the state, but simply through the birth and education of new generations, who for the first time in history will be brought up in a free and equal society.And the best way to achieve that is not by centralising political authority.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, it's clear to me that there is indeed Anarchist tension in terms of what the hell their goals are vis-a-vis the state after the revolution

If there is something you remain to be unclear about then please ask.


How one reconciles this with the abolishment of the state is beyond me.Of course it's beyond you, you refuse to educate yourself instead relying on your self-importance and belief that you have fully grasped the depths of anarchism.

It would require you to learn what anarchism is in order for you to understand what anarchism is.


That's as clear as mud.

What is it that's unclear?

[trivas7]

It would require you to learn what anarchism is in order for you to understand what anarchism is.

This no doubt is true.



What is it that's unclear?

"The centralisation of power is abolished when it's decentralised [...]"
This is a slogan. Do you mean anything by it, e.g., how would anarchists practically decentralize state power to the point of abolishing it altogether?

[The Feral Underclass]

This is a slogan. Do you mean anything by it, e.g., how would anarchists practically decentralize state power to the point of abolishing it altogether?

Management and administration of society would be decided, organised and executed from community level outwards and the productive needs of a society would be done federally from community level, managed by the producers themselves.

That's what we would create through the process of revolution.

[trivas7]

Management and administration of society would be decided, organised and executed from community level outwards and the productive needs of a society would be done federally from community level, managed by the producers themselves.

That's what we would create through the process of revolution.
Thanks for this. I understand the concept of workers councils and federations and I'm all for them. You have yet to elucide how you go about topplling government, however, bourgeois or socialist. Perhaps that's another thread.

[Kropotesta]

Thanks for this. I understand the concept of workers councils and federations and I'm all for them. You have yet to elucide how you go about topplling government, however, bourgeois or socialist. Perhaps that's another thread.
No, this does not need a new thread because the answer is obvious, and you have been told it repeatably. "Toppling government" is the part of the act of revolution, that would ensue from the overall socail revolution. That question is like asking you "How would you go about toppling capitalism?" Ridiculous.
By the way, if you are all for federation and worker councils, then why do you support centralised power- a state? It renders both other methods null and void.

[trivas7]

You have yet to elucide how you go about topplling government, however, bourgeois or socialist. Perhaps that's another thread.

No, this does not need a new thread because the answer is obvious, and you have been told it repeatably.
Nonsense. All I've heard repeatedly is that anarchists are against taking state power and for setting up a federation of worker's councils. How this topples capitalism is beyond me.

[trivas7]

from an anarchist FAQ webpage (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH3.html#sech31): (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/%29:)


H.3.1 Do Anarchists and Marxists want the same thing?

Ultimately, the greatest myth of Marxism is the idea that anarchists and most Marxists want the same thing. Indeed, it could be argued that it is anarchist criticism of Marxism which has made them stress the similarity of long term goals with anarchism. "Our polemics against them [the Marxists]," Bakunin argued, "have forced them to recognise that freedom, or anarchy -- that is, the voluntary organisation of the workers from below upward -- is the ultimate goal of social development." He continued by stressing that the means to this apparently similar end were different. The Marxists, he argues, "say that [a] state yoke, [a] dictatorship, is a necessary transitional device for achieving the total liberation of the people: anarchy, or freedom, is the goal, and the state, or dictatorship, is the means . . . We reply that no dictatorship can have any other objective than to perpetuate itself, and that it can engender and nurture only slavery in the people who endure it. Liberty can be created only by liberty, by an insurrection of all the people and the voluntary organisation of the workers from below upwards." [Statism and Anarchy, p. 179]
As such, it is commonly taken for granted that the ends of both Marxists and Anarchists are the same, we just disagree over the means. However, within this general agreement over the ultimate end (a classless and stateless society), the details of such a society are somewhat different. This, perhaps, is to be expected given the differences in means. As is obvious from Bakunin's argument, anarchists stress the unity of means and goals, that the means which are used affect the goal reached. This unity between means and ends is expressed well by Martin Buber's observation that "[o]ne cannot in the nature of things expect a little tree that has been turned into a club to put forth leaves." [Paths in Utopia, p. 127] In summary, we cannot expect to reach our end destination if we take a path going in the opposite direction. As such, the agreement on ends may not be as close as often imagined.
So when it is stated that anarchists and state socialists want the same thing, the following should be borne in mind. Firstly, there are key differences on the question of current tactics. Secondly, there is the question of the immediate aims of a revolution. Thirdly, there is the long term goals of such a revolution. These three aspects form a coherent whole, with each one logically following on from the last. As we will show, the anarchist and Marxist vision of each aspect are distinctly different, so suggesting that the short, medium and long term goals of each theory are, in fact, different. We will discuss each aspect in turn.
Firstly, the question of the nature of the revolutionary movement. Here anarchists and most Marxists have distinctly opposing ideas. The former argue that both the revolutionary organisation (i.e. an anarchist federation) and the wider labour movement should be organised in line with the vision of society which inspires us. This means that it should be a federation of self-managed groups based on the direct participation of its membership in the decision making process. Power, therefore, is decentralised and there is no division between those who make the decisions and those who execute them. We reject the idea of others acting on our behalf or on behalf of the people and so urge the use of direct action and solidarity, based upon working class self-organisation, self-management and autonomy. Thus, anarchists apply their ideas in the struggle against the current system, arguing what is "efficient" from a hierarchical or class position is deeply inefficient from a revolutionary perspective.
Marxists disagree. Most Marxists are also Leninists. They argue that we must form "vanguard" parties based on the principles of "democratic centralism" complete with institutionalised leaderships. They argue that how we organise today is independent of the kind of society we seek and that the party should aim to become the recognised leadership of the working class. Every thing they do is subordinated to this end, meaning that no struggle is seen as an end in itself but rather as a means to gaining membership and influence for the party until such time as it gather enough support to seize power. As this is a key point of contention between anarchists and Leninists, we discuss this in some detail in section H.5 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secH5.html) and its related sections and so not do so here.
Obviously, in the short term anarchists and Leninists cannot be said to want the same thing. While we seek a revolutionary movement based on libertarian (i.e. revolutionary) principles, the Leninists seek a party based on distinctly bourgeois principles of centralisation, delegation of power and representative over direct democracy. Both, of course, argue that only their system of organisation is effective and efficient (see section H.5.8 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secH5.html#sech58) on a discussion why anarchists argue that the Leninist model is not effective from a revolutionary perspective). The anarchist perspective is to see the revolutionary organisation as part of the working class, encouraging and helping those in struggle to clarify the ideas they draw from their own experiences and its role is to provide a lead rather than a new set of leaders to be followed (see section J.3.6 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secJ3.html#secj36) for more on this). The Leninist perspective is to see the revolutionary party as the leadership of the working class, introducing socialist consciousness into a class which cannot generate itself (see section H.5.1 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secH5.html#sech51)).
Given the Leninist preference for centralisation and a leadership role by hierarchical organisation, it will come as no surprise that their ideas on the nature of post-revolutionary society are distinctly different from anarchists. While there is a tendency for Leninists to deny that anarchists have a clear idea of what will immediately be created by a revolution (see section H.1.4 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secH1.html#sech14)), we do have concrete ideas on the kind of society a revolution will immediately create. This vision is in almost every way different from that proposed by most Marxists.
Firstly, there is the question of the state. Anarchists, unsurprisingly enough, seek to destroy it. Simply put, while anarchists want a stateless and classless society and advocate the means appropriate to those ends, most Marxists argue that in order to reach a stateless society we need a new "workers'" state, a state, moreover, in which their party will be in charge. Trotsky, writing in 1906, made this clear when he argued that "[e]very political party deserving of the name aims at seizing governmental power and thus putting the state at the service of the class whose interests it represents." [quoted by Israel Getzler, "Marxist Revolutionaries and the Dilemma of Power", pp. 88-112, Revolution and Politics in Russia, Alexander and Janet Rabinowitch and Ladis K.D. Kristof (eds,), p. 105] This fits in with Marx's 1852 comments that "Universal Suffrage is the equivalent of political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat forms the large majority of the population . . . Its inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class." [Collected Works, vol. 11, pp. 335-6] In other words, "political power" simply means the ability to nominate a government. Thus Engels:
"In every struggle of class against class, the next end fought for is political power; the ruling class defends its political supremacy, that is to say its safe majority in the Legislature; the inferior class fights for, first a share, then the whole of that power, in order to become enabled to change existing laws in conformity with their own interests and requirements. Thus the working class of Great Britain for years fought ardently and even violently for the People's Charter [which demanded universal suffrage and yearly general elections], which was to give it that political power." [Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 386] While Marxists like to portray this new government as "the dictatorship of the proletariat," anarchist argue that, in fact, it will be the dictatorship over the proletariat. This is because if the working class is the ruling class (as Marxists claim) then, anarchists argue, how can they delegate their power to a government and remain so? Either the working class directly manages its own affairs (and so society) or the government does. We discuss this issue in section H.3.7 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secH3.html#sech37) any state is simply rule by a few and so is incompatible with socialism. The obvious implication of this is that Marxism seeks party rule, not working class direct management of society (as we discuss in section H.3.8 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secH3.html#sech38), the Leninist tradition is extremely clear on this matter).
Then there is the question of the building blocks of socialism. Yet again, there is a clear difference between anarchism and Marxism. Anarchists have always argued that the basis of socialism is working class organisations, created in the struggle against capitalism and the state (see section H.1.4 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secH1.html#sech14) for details). This applies to both the social and economic structure of a post-revolutionary society. For most forms of Marxism, a radically different picture has been the dominant one. As we discuss in section H.3.10 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secH3.html#sech310), Marxists only reached a similar vision for the political structure of socialism in 1917 when Lenin supported the soviets as he framework of his workers' state. However, as we prove in section H.3.11 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secH3.html#sech311), he did so for instrumental purposes only, namely as the best means of assuring Bolshevik power. If the soviets clashed with the party, it was the latter which took precedence. Unsurprisingly, the Bolshevik mainstream moved from "All Power to the Soviets" to "dictatorship of the party" rather quickly. Thus, unlike anarchism, most forms of Marxism aim for party power, a "revolutionary" government above the organs of working class self-management.
Economically, there are also clear differences. Anarchists have consistently argued that the workers "ought to be the real managers of industries." [Peter Kropotkin, Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow, p. 157] To achieve this, we have pointed to various organisations over time, such as factory committees and labour unions as the "medium which Socialist forms of life could find . . . realisation." Thus they would "not only an instrument for the improvement of the conditions of labour, but also of [were capable of] becoming an organisation which might . . . take into its hands the management of production." [Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, pp. 22-3]
As we discuss in more detail in section H.3.12 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secH3.html#sech312), Lenin, in contrast, saw socialism as being constructed on the basis of structures and techniques (including management ones) developed under capitalism. Rather than see socialism as being built around new, working class organisations, Lenin saw it being constructed on the basis of developments in capitalist organisation. "The Leninist road to socialism," notes one expert on Lenin, "emphatically ran through the terrain of monopoly capitalism. It would, according to Lenin, abolish neither its advanced technological base nor its institutionalised means for allocating resources or structuring industry. . . The institutionalised framework of advanced capitalism could, to put it shortly, be utilised for realisation of specifically socialist goals. They were to become, indeed, the principal (almost exclusive) instruments of socialist transformation." [Neil Harding, Leninism, p.145] As Lenin explained, socialism is "nothing but the next step forward from state capitalist monopoly. In other words, Socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people; by this token it ceases to be capitalist monopoly." [The Threatening Catastrophe and how to avoid it, p. 37]
The role of workers' in this vision was basically unchanged. Rather than demand, like anarchists, workers' self-management of production in 1917, Lenin raised the demand for "universal, all-embracing workers' control over the capitalists." [Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power, p. 52] Once the Bolsheviks were in power, the workers' own organs (the factory committees) were integrated into a system of state control, losing whatever power they once held at the point of production. Lenin then modified this vision by raising "one-man management" over the workers (see section H.3.14 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secH3.html#sech314)). In other words, a form of state capitalism in which workers would still be wage slaves under bosses appointed by the state. Unsurprisingly, the "control" workers exercised over their bosses (i.e. those with real power in production) proved to be as elusive in production as it was in the state. In this, Lenin undoubtedly followed the lead of the Communist Manifesto which stressed state ownership of the means of production without a word about workers' self-management of production. As we discuss in section H.3.13 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secH3.html#sech313), state "socialism" cannot help being "state capitalism" by its very nature.
Needless to say, as far as means go, few anarchists and syndicalists are complete pacifists. As syndicalist Emile Pouget argued, "[h]istory teaches that the privileged have never surrendered their privileges without having been compelled so to do and forced into it by their rebellious victims. It is unlikely that the bourgeoisie is blessed with an exceptional greatness of soul and will abdicate voluntarily." This meant that "[r]ecourse to force . . . will be required." [The Party Of Labour] This does not mean that libertarians glorify violence or argue that all forms of violence are acceptable (quite the reverse!), it simply means that for self-defence against violent opponents violence is, unfortunately, sometimes required.
The way an anarchist revolution would defend itself also shows a key difference between anarchism and Marxism. As we discussed in section H.2.1 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secH2.html#sech21), anarchists (regardless of Marxist claims) have always argued that a revolution needs to defend itself. This would be organised in a federal, bottom-up way as the social structure of a free society. It would be based on voluntary working class militias. As Bakunin put it, "the peasants, like the industrial city workers, should unite by federating the fighting battalions, district by district, this assuring a common co-ordinated defence against internal and external enemies." This model of working class self-defence was applied successfully in both the Spanish and Ukrainian revolutions (by the CNT-FAI and the Makhnovists, respectively). In contrast, the Bolshevik method of defending a revolution was the top-down, hierarchical and centralised "Red Army" (see section 14 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append41.html#app14) of the appendix on "What happened during the Russian Revolution?" (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append41.html) for details). As the example of the Makhnovists (see the appendix on "Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?" (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append46.html)) showed, the "Red Army" was not the only way the Russian Revolution could have been defended although it was the only way Bolshevik power could be.
So while Anarchists have consistently argued that socialism must be based on working class self-management of production and society based on working class organisations, the Leninist tradition has not supported this vision (although it has appropriated some of its imagery to gain popular support). Clearly, in terms of the immediate aftermath of a revolution, anarchists and Leninists do not seek the same thing. The former want a free society organised and run from below-upwards by the working class based on workers self-management of production while the latter seek party power in a new state structure which would preside over an essentially state capitalist economy.
Lastly, there is the question of the long term goal. Even in this vision of a classless and stateless society there is very little in common between anarchist communism and Marxist communism, beyond the similar terminology used to describe it. This is blurred by the differences in terminology used by both theories. Marx and Engels had raised in the 1840s the (long term) goal of "an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" replacing "the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms," in the Communist Manifesto. Before this "vast association of the whole nation" was possible, the proletariat would be "raise[d] . . . to the position of ruling class" and "all capital" would be "centralise[d] . . . in the hands of the State, i.e. of the proletariat organised as the ruling class." As economic classes would no longer exist, "the public power would lose its political character" as political power "is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another." [Manifesto of the Communist Party, p. 53]
It was this, the means to the end, which was the focus of much debate (see section H.1.1 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secH1.html#sech11) for details). However, it cannot be assumed that the ends desired by Marxists and anarchists are identical. The argument that the "public power" could stop being "political" (i.e. a state) is a tautology, and a particularly unconvincing one at that. After all, if "political power" is defined as being an instrument of class rule it automatically follows that a classless society would have a non-political "public power" and so be without a state! This does not imply that a "public power" would no longer exist as a structure within (or, more correctly, over) society, it just implies that its role would no longer be "political" (i.e. an instrument of class rule). Given that, according to the Manifesto, the state would centralise the means of production, credit and transportation and then organise it "in accordance with a common plan" using "industrial armies, especially for agriculture" this would suggest that the state structure would remain even after its "political" aspects had, to use Engels term, "withered away." [Marx and Engels, Op. Cit., pp. 52-3]
From this perspective, the difference between anarchist communism and Marxist-communism is clear. "While both," notes John Clark, "foresee the disappearance of the state, the achievement of social management of the economy, the end of class rule, and the attainment of human equality, to mention a few common goals, significant differences in ends still remain. Marxist thought has inherited a vision which looks to high development of technology with a corresponding degree of centralisation of social institutions which will continue even after the coming of the social revolution. . . . The anarchist vision sees the human scale as essential, both in the techniques which are used for production, and for the institutions which arise from the new modes of association . . . In addition, the anarchist ideal has a strong hedonistic element which has seen Germanic socialism as ascetic and Puritanical." [The Anarchist Moment, p. 68]
Moreover, it is unlikely that such a centralised system could become stateless and classless in actuality. As Bakunin argued, in the Marxist state "there will be no privileged class. Everybody will be equal, not only from the judicial and political but also from the economic standpoint. This is the promise at any rate . . . So there will be no more class, but a government, and, please note, an extremely complicated government which, not content with governing and administering the masses politically . . . will also administer them economically, by taking over the production and [B]fair sharing of wealth, agriculture, the establishment and development of factories, the organisation and control of trade, and lastly the injection of capital into production by a single banker, the State." Such a system would be, in fact, "the reign of the scientific mind, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant and contemptuous of all regimes" base on "a new class, a new hierarchy of real or bogus learning, and the world will be divided into a dominant, science-based minority and a vast, ignorant majority." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 266]
George Barrett's words also seem appropriate:
"The modern Socialist . . . have steadily worked for centralisation, and complete and perfect organisation and control by those in authority above the people. The anarchist, on the other hand, believes in the abolition of that central power, and expects the free society to grow into existence from below, starting with those organisations and free agreements among the people themselves. It is difficult to see how, by making a central power control everything, we can be making a step towards the abolition of that power." [Objections to Anarchism] As Brain Morris notes, "Bakunin's fears that under Marx's kind of socialism the workers would continue to labour under a regimented, mechanised, hierarchical system of production, without direct control over their labour, has been more than confirmed by the realities of the Bolshevik system. Thus, Bakunin's critique of Marxism has taken on an increasing relevance in the age of bureaucratic State capitalism."
Therefore, anarchists are not convinced that a highly centralised structure (as a state is) managing the economic life of society can be part of a truly classless society. While economic class as defined in terms of property may not exist, social classes (defined in terms of inequality of power and wealth) will continue simply because the state is designed to create and protect minority rule (see section H.3.7 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secH3.html#sech37)). As Bolshevik and Stalinist Russia showed, nationalising the means of production does not end class society. As Malatesta argued:
"When F. Engels, perhaps to counter anarchist criticisms, said that once classes disappear the State as such has no [B]raison d'etre and transforms itself from a government of men into an administration of thing, he was merely playing with words. Whoever has power over things has power over men; whoever governs production also governs the producers; who determines consumption is master over the consumer. "This is the question; either things are administered on the basis of free agreement of the interested parties, and this is anarchy; or they are administered according to laws made by administrators and this is government, it is the State, and inevitably it turns out to be tyrannical.
"It is not a question of the good intentions or the good will of this or that man, but of the inevitability of the situation, and of the tendencies which man generally develops in given circumstances." [Life and Ideas, p. 145]
The anarchist vision of the future society, therefore, does not exactly match the state communist vision, as much as the latter would like to suggest it does. The difference between the two is authority, which cannot be anything but the largest difference possible. Anarchist economic and organisational theories are built around an anti-authoritarian core and this informs both our means and aims. For anarchists, the Leninist vision of socialism is unattractive. Lenin continually stressed that his conception of socialism and "state capitalism" were basically identical. Even in State and Revolution, allegedly Lenin's most libertarian work, we discover this particularly unvisionary and uninspiring vision of "socialism":
"[B]All citizens are transformed into the salaried employees of the state . . . All citizens become employees and workers of a single national state 'syndicate' . . . The whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory with equality of work and equality of pay." [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 348] To which, anarchists point to Engels and his comments on the tyrannical and authoritarian character of the modern factory (as we discuss in section H.4.4 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secH4.html#sech44)). Engels, let us not forget, had argued against the anarchists that large-scale industry (or, indeed, any form of organisation) meant that "authority" was required (organisation meant that "the will of a single individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian way."). He (like the factory owner he was) stated that factories should have "Lasciate ogni autonomia, voi che entrate" ("Leave, ye that enter in, all autonomy behind") written above their doors. This obedience, Engels argued, was necessary even under socialism, as applying the "forces of nature" meant "a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation." This meant that "[w]anting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself." [Marx-Engels Reader, p. 731] Clearly, Lenin's idea of turning the world into one big factory takes on an extremely frightening nature given Engels lovely vision of the lack of freedom in industry.
For these reasons anarchists reject the simplistic Marxist analysis of inequality being rooted simply in economic class. Such an analysis, as the comments of Lenin and Engels prove, show that social inequality can be smuggled in by the backdoor of a proposed classless and stateless society. Thus Bookchin:
"Basic to anti-authoritarian Socialism ---specifically, to Anarchist Communism -- is the notion that hierarchy and domination cannot be subsumed by class rule and economic exploitation, indeed, that they are more fundamental to an understanding of the modern revolutionary project. Before 'man' began to exploit 'man,' he began to dominate woman . . . Power of human over human long antedates the very formation of classes and economic modes of social oppression. . . . This much is clear: it will no longer do to insist that a classless society, freed from material exploitation, will necessarily be a liberated society. There is nothing in the social future to suggest that bureaucracy is incompatible with a classless society, the domination of women, the young, ethnic groups or even professional strata." [Toward an Ecological Society, pp. 208-9] Ultimately, anarchists see that "there is a realm of domination that is broader than the realm of material exploitation. The tragedy of the socialist movement is that, steeped in the past, it uses the methods of domination to try to 'liberate' us from material exploitation." Needless to say, this is doomed to failure. Socialism "will simply mire us in a world we are trying to overcome. A non-hierarchical society, self-managed and free of domination in all its forms, stands on the agenda today, not a hierarchical system draped in a red flag." [Murray Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 272 and pp. 273-4]
In summary, it cannot be said that anarchists and most Marxists want the same thing. While they often use the same terms, these terms often hide radically different concepts. Just because, say, anarchists and mainstream Marxists talk about "social revolution," "socialism," "all power to the soviets" and so on, it does not mean that we mean the same thing by them. For example, the phrase "all power to the soviets" for anarchists means exactly that (i.e. that the revolution must be directly managed by working class organs). Leninists mean "all power to a central government elected by a national soviet congress." Similarly with other similar phrases (which shows the importance of looking at the details of any political theory and its history).
We have shown that discussion over ends is as important as discussion over means as they are related. As Kropotkin once pointed out, those who downplay the importance of discussing the "order of things which . . . should emerge from the coming revolution" in favour of concentrating on "practical things" are being less than honest as "far from making light of such theories, they propagate them, and all that they do now is a logical extension of their ideas. In the end those words 'Let us not discuss theoretical questions' really mean: 'Do not subject our theory to discussion, but help us to put it into execution.'" [Words of a Rebel, p. 200]
Hence the need to critically evaluate both ends and means. This shows the weakness of the common argument that anarchists and Leftists share some common visions and so we should work with them to achieve those common things. Who knows what happens after that? As can be seen, this is not the case. Many aspects of anarchism and Marxism are in opposition and cannot be considered similar (for example, what a Leninist considers as socialism is extremely different to what an anarchist thinks it is). If you consider "socialism" as being a "workers' state" presided over by a "revolutionary" government, then how can this be reconciled with the anarchist vision of a federation of self-managed communes and workers' associations? As the Russian Revolution shows, only by the armed might of the "revolutionary" government crushing the anarchist vision.
The only thing we truly share with these groups is a mutual opposition to existing capitalism. Having a common enemy does not make someone friends. Hence anarchists, while willing to work on certain mutual struggles, are well aware there is substantial differences in both terms of means and goals. The lessons of revolution in the 20th Century is that once in power, Leninists will repress anarchists, their current allies against the capitalist system. This is does not occur by accident, it flows from the differences in vision between the two movements, both in terms of means and goals.

[Kropotesta]

from an anarchist FAQ webpage (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/): (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/%29:)
point being?