Addressing anarchist-communists for the benefit of LZ

[Kropotesta]

So Led Zep has stated that he thinks that not all anarchist-communists believe in a transitory period to communism. Led argues that a section of anarchist-communists believe that we can go straight from capitalism to communism, basically because MIA tells him that we believe that no transitory period is needed.


I don't believe that modern anarcho-communists agree on there being some sort of transition period.

So here I have set up a poll quizing the anarchist-communists of RevLeft on whether you believe a transitory period is necessary. Thanks for your patience.

The poll is meant to read "Do you advocate a tranistory stage"
A mod could change the phrasing perphaps?

[Led Zeppelin]

Yes because all anarchists in the world are represented on Revleft.

You're such an idiot and a typical anarcho-kiddie.

And actually I don't believe that there is a trend within anarchist theory which says that we should go straight to communism just because MIA said so, only a person as clueless like yourself of anarchist history would not know this fact, which I have demonstrated with several sources:



Funny, I was just looking through the wikipedia entry on the history of anarchist-communism and it basically proves what MIA said on the subject, while also providing sources:



Anarchist communist currents appeared during the English Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War) and the French Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution) of the 1700s. Gerrard Winstanley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrard_Winstanley), who was part of the radical Diggers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers) movement in England, wrote in his 1649 pamphlet, The New Law of Righteousness, that there "shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man," and "there shall be none Lord over others, but every one shall be a Lord of himself."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism#cite_note-Graham-2005-1) During the French Revolution, Sylvain Maréchal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvain_Mar%C3%A9chal), in his Manifesto of the Equals (1796), demanded "the communal enjoyment of the fruits of the earth" and looked forward to the disappearance of "the revolting distinction of rich and poor, of great and small, of masters and valets, of governors and governed."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism#cite_note-Graham-2005-1)

An early anarchist communist was Joseph Déjacque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque), the first person to describe himself as "libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)".[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism#cite_note-Dejacque-2) Unlike Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon), he argued that, "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism#cite_note-Graham-2005-1)

The collectivist anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism) advocated remuneration for labor, but held out the possibility of a post-revolutionary transition to a communist system of distribution according to need. As Bakunin's associate, James Guillaume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Guillaume), put it in his essay, Ideas on Social Organization (1876), "When... production comes to outstrip consumption... [e]veryone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities, without fear of depletion; and the moral sentiment which will be more highly developed among free and equal workers will prevent, or greatly reduce, abuse and waste."[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism#cite_note-3)
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism)

There you go, the anarcho-kiddie was wrong, big surprise there.

So there is (or was, depending on who you ask I suppose) a difference between collectivism and anarcho-communism, the former recognizes the need for a transition period to a communist system of distribution according to need, due to the limitation of material conditions, the latter does not.


OK, I'll concede that at one point in the past there may have been a serious trend with in the anarchist-communist movement that advocated going straight to full communism (though I've never seen any evidence for it), however, right now there does not exist such as serious trend with in anarchism at all.

Apparently this was the cause of a disagreement between Proudhon, Bakunin and the "collectivists" on one side, and the "anarcho-communists" on the other, represented by Kropotkin, Malatesta and others:


Anarchist communism as a coherent, modern economic-political philosophy was first formulated in the Italian section of the First International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_International) by Carlo Cafiero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Cafiero), Errico Malatesta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errico_Malatesta), Andrea Costa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Costa) and other ex-Mazzinian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Mazzini) Republicans. Out of respect for Mikhail Bakunin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakunin), they did not make their differences with collectivist anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism) explicit until after Bakunin's death.

Emma Goldman then combined both into her own version of anarcho-communism, which I believe is now the common modern version of the theory, which does not exclude a transition period, depending on who you ask.

I don't believe that all modern anarcho-communists agree on there being some sort of transition period though.

[...]

The quote is about a difference in the economic sphere.

Anarchist-communists believed that society should go straight to the communist system of distribution: "It is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature."

This was opposed to the collectivists who believed that a transition period was needed, due to a lack of material conditions : "The collectivist anarchists (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism) advocated remuneration for labor, but held out the possibility of a post-revolutionary transition to a communist system of distribution according to need. As Bakunin's associate, James Guillaume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Guillaume), put it in his essay, Ideas on Social Organization (1876), "When... production comes to outstrip consumption... [e]veryone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities, without fear of depletion; and the moral sentiment which will be more highly developed among free and equal workers will prevent, or greatly reduce, abuse and waste."

So the issue is about the communist system of distribution according to need versus a transition period of a system of distribution according to ability until "production comes to outsrip consumption".

To summarize: straight to communism versus transition period.

If you say that this issue has been resolved in anarchist theory and that the trend which represented "straight to communism" is no longer pre-dominant, I'll believe you, but I don't believe that this trend is non-existant.

[...]

Yes, "dude", I can provide a quote from an anarchist theoretician saying that such a trend exists or existed:



Guillaume saw no difference in principle between collectivism and anti-State communism. The collectivists understood that full communism would not be immediately realizable. They were convinced that the workers themselves would gradually introduce communism as they overcame the obstacles, both psychological and economic.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1869/policy-iwma.htm)

And I am moving this out of the anarchy forum, don't make threads directed at members without giving them the opportunity to reply like a spineless coward.

[Kropotesta]

Yes because all anarchists in the world are represented on Revleft.

You're such an idiot and a typical anarcho-kiddie.
Why are you posting in here? Surely that violates some rules?
Also from votes here we can see a general leaning, who is claiming it shall represent the whole anarchist population?
Anarcho Kiddie? Evidence?
Anyways, shame on you for being shown up by someone you consider a 'kiddie'.
Now fuck off you tosser.

[victim77]

I think there has to be a transitory stage or eventually the revolution would evolve into chaos.


BTW tosser is such a funny insult haha. What does it mean?

[Led Zeppelin]

Why are you posting in here? Surely that violates some rules?

No, anarcho-kiddie, you can't make threads filled with bullshit slander and lies directed towards a member without giving him or her the opportunity to reply.

I know you are a spineless coward and are afraid of debate because you don't like to be humiliated when your glaring ignorance is exposed, but that kind of thing doesn't fly here.

[Kropotesta]

And I am moving this out of the anarchy forum, don't make threads directed at members without giving them the opportunity to reply like a spineless coward.
Sorry but did you not make a thread attacking anarchists, well anarchism, in the Trotskyist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-anarchism-sucks-t82647/index.html) forum?
The thread was posted in the anarchist forum because it is logical to post the thread in there thus preventing non anarchist-communists from voting and because so, distorting the polls intention.
The thread was not an attack on you.

[Led Zeppelin]

Sorry but did you not make a thread attacking anarchists, well anarchism, in the Trotskyist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-anarchism-sucks-t82647/index.html) forum?

It wasn't directed at any particular member, nor did it mention any.

The Trotskyism thread in your forum is of the same nature, hence why it's still there.


The thread was not an attack on you.

You even put my name in the title you doofus.

[Kropotesta]

No, anarcho-kiddie, you can't make threads filled with bullshit slander and lies directed towards a member without giving him or her the opportunity to reply.
Slander? When have I misrepresented your views?


I know you are a spineless coward and are afraid of debate because you don't like to be humiliated when your glaring ignorance is exposed, but that kind of thing doesn't fly here.
OK then where has my "glaring ignorance" been "exposed"? Certainly not in the thread we were debating in. Absolute folly.

[Kropotesta]

It wasn't directed at any particular member, nor did it mention any.
Anarchists in general though.


The Trotskyism thread in your forum is of the same nature, hence why it's still there.
No that is what do to stop Trots steer movements and revolution. Yours was purely slander.




You even put my name in the title you doofus.
WOW you can read. Mentioning a screen name does not constitute an attack. Victim complex?

[Led Zeppelin]

Slander? When have I misrepresented your views?

When you said this in your original post: "Led argues that a section of anarchist-communists believe that we can go straight from capitalism to communism, basically because MIA tells him that we believe that no transitory period is needed."

I have proven that this is lie in my post above (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1184674&postcount=2), I cited several sources, anarchist writers even, yet you still claim that I only based it "on what MIA says".

Hell, even Apathy Maybe conceded this point:


OK, I'll concede that at one point in the past there may have been a serious trend with in the anarchist-communist movement that advocated going straight to full communism
Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1184527&postcount=160)


Mentioning a screen name does not constitute an attack.

The fact that you made a thread referring to a member and falsely attributed shit to him makes it an attack.

The fact that you made that thread in the anarchist forum because you wanted to prevent that member from replying makes you a typical anarcho-kiddie.

And, the fact that I ignored you in the other thread is because you're unable to reply to any of the points I have raised, instead you rely on copy-paste jobs from anarchist FAQ's, which is once again, typical of an anarcho-kiddie.

[apathy maybe]

Led, sorry to say it, but fuck off. This was posted in the Anarchist forum, and you, not being an anarchist, are not welcome there. I don't give a shit if you are a mod, you are exceeding your mandate by interfering in groups.

This thread wasn't directed at you, it was a comment on your claim, and it makes no sense to be in the theory forum, precisely because it is directed at anarchist communists, not everyone.

Not only that, you are participating in continued flaming, this thread is a great example of that. You have in the past claimed that you only flame if other people flame you first, however, that isn't an excuse, and you should be taking the high ground by not retaliating.

And no, your quotes didn't "prove" anything. They imply something, but you haven't actually got any quotes from actual anarchist communists saying that they don't believe in a transition period. (Not to mention my distinction made in the thread in Theory regarding you comments on anarchism, between communism and anarchism.)

[Led Zeppelin]

Led, sorry to say it, but fuck off. This was posted in the Anarchist forum, and you, not being an anarchist, are not welcome there. I don't give a shit if you are a mod, you are exceeding your mandate by interfering in groups.

This thread wasn't directed at you, it was a comment on your claim, and it makes no sense to be in the theory forum, precisely because it is directed at anarchist communists, not everyone.

How about you fuck off instead?

It was clearly directed at me, it even fucking said so in the title you idiot.

Not only that, it falsely attributed a notion to me.


Not only that, you are participating in continued flaming, this thread is a great example of that. You have in the past claimed that you only flame if other people flame you first, however, that isn't an excuse, and you should be taking the high ground by not retaliating.

That's rich coming from the person who just told me to "fuck off".

Don't be hypocritical douchebag, AM, it's unbecoming of you.

[Kropotesta]

The fact that you made a thread referring to a member and falsely attributed shit to him makes it an attack.
Nothing I said was false. I used a quote and you did claim that MIA was correct.
Also that Sam Dolgoff quote doesn't say that there should be no transition stage.


The fact that you made that thread in the anarchist forum because you wanted to prevent that member from replying makes you a typical anarcho-kiddie.
False. I didn't put it in there for that reason. Why would I when we have already talked on the subject? I have posted the reasoning for it being posted in the anarchist forum, and it should be self evident, "Addressing anarchist-communists".


And, the fact that I ignored you in the other thread is because you're unable to reply to any of the points I have raised, instead you rely on copy-paste jobs from anarchist FAQ's, which is once again, typical of an anarcho-kiddie.
No I answered and only pasted a piece once, why write it out when it is already wrote? However I shall re-read your post to see if I have missed anything out.

[Andy Bowden]

If someones going to make a thread with a members name on it, with the purpose of challenging their politics they should at least let them argue against it - otherwise whats the point of having a debate forum?

Whether or not anarchists advocate a transitory stage is a totally different debate though and should be kept in the anarchism forum.

[Led Zeppelin]

Nothing I said was false. I used a quote and you did claim that MIA was correct.

This is what you said: "Led argues that a section of anarchist-communists believe that we can go straight from capitalism to communism, basically because MIA tells him that we believe that no transitory period is needed."

I have provided a list of sources, ranging from an anarchist theoretician to several sources on wikipedia, see for yourself in the very first post I made in this thread: Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1184674&postcount=2)

You are now saying that you did not say anything which was false, while the evidence says something else.

You are a liar, clear and simple.


False. I didn't put it in there for that reason. Why would I when we have already talked on the subject? I have posted the reasoning for it being posted in the anarchist forum, and it should be self evident, "Addressing anarchist-communists".

Oh really? Which is why you said, after I replied to the thread when it was still in the anarchist group and had not yet moved it: "Why are you posting in here? Surely that violates some rules?"

You wanted to prevent me from replying to your lying bullshit, that's not gonna happen.


No I answered and only pasted a piece once, why write it out when it is already wrote? However I shall re-read your post to see if I have missed anything out.

You didn't respond to the list of sources I quoted, you only said "Beens anarchist-communism wasn't a philosophical ideology during the english revolution", totally ignoring the fact that the quote which I had posted and to which that reply was directed mentioned several sources and quotes; Joseph Déjacque (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque), Sylvain Maréchal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvain_Mar%C3%A9chal), James Guillaume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Guillaume) and a quote by the latter.

Put on top of that the quote by anarchist theoretician Sam Dolgoff and you have irrefutable proof that such a tendency existed within anarchism.

But no, no, I only based what I had said on MIA!

You are nothing but a common liar.

[Kropotesta]

If someones going to make a thread with a members name on it, with the purpose of challenging their politics they should at least let them argue against it - otherwise whats the point of having a debate forum?
The idea was already being argued in a seperat thread. This was merely to get anarchist-communists to vote, thus avoiding others from voting, which would distort the poll.[/quote]

[Led Zeppelin]

The idea was already being argued in a seperat thread. This was merely to get anarchist-communists to vote, thus avoiding others from voting, which would distort the poll.

Go ahead then, make another poll in that group based on that question without making up shit about my position and without referencing me.

I don't care about the fact that you think you can prove a point about trends in anarchist theory based on a poll on Revleft, just don't think you can make up lies about the positions of other members while preventing them from replying.

[Kropotesta]

This is what you said: "Led argues that a section of anarchist-communists believe that we can go straight from capitalism to communism, basically because MIA tells him that we believe that no transitory period is needed."

I have provided a list of sources, ranging from an anarchist theoretician to several sources on wikipedia, see for yourself in the very first post I made in this thread: Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1184674&postcount=2)

You are now saying that you did not say anything which was false, while the evidence says something else.

You are a liar, clear and simple.
You did say that MIA is right, therefore I have not lied.




Oh really? Which is why you said, after I replied to the thread when it was still in the anarchist group and had not yet moved it: "Why are you posting in here? Surely that violates some rules?"

You wanted to prevent me from replying to your lying bullshit, that's not gonna happen.
No. I said that because you are not a member of the anarchist forum and thus should not be posting the forum. Simple as.




You didn't respond to the list of sources I quoted, you only said "Beens anarchist-communism wasn't a philosophical ideology during the english revolution", totally ignoring the fact that the quote which I had posted and to which that reply was directed mentioned several sources and quotes; Joseph Déjacque (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque), Sylvain Maréchal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvain_Mar%C3%A9chal), James Guillaume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Guillaume) and a quote by the latter.


Put on top of that the quote by anarchist theoretician Sam Dolgoff and you have irrefutable proof that such a tendency existed within anarchism.
That's because none of those actually state what you are claiming.




You are nothing but a common liar.
And you complain of slander.

[Kropotesta]

Go ahead then, make another poll in that group based on that question without making up shit about my position and without referencing me.
I didn't state anything that you didn't say yourself
"Appartently you're wrong, not MIA"
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1184525&postcount=158

[apathy maybe]

How about you fuck off instead?

It was clearly directed at me, it even fucking said so in the title you idiot.
No, it wasn't directed at you. It even says so in the title, "for the benefit of LZ" my bold.



That's rich coming from the person who just told me to "fuck off".

Don't be hypocritical douchebag, AM, it's unbecoming of you.
Notice, "fuck off" isn't a flame. I didn't insult you. Unlike what you just did there. Twice in the post.

Perhaps you should just calm down?

Now can an impartial mod please split all the crap out of this thread, move it back to the anarchist forum and then warn LZ and the other flamers in this thread?

[Led Zeppelin]

You did say that MIA is right, therefore I have not lied.

Yes you have, because you said that I argued that a section of anarchist-communists believe that we can go straight from capitalism to communism, which up until this point was correct and truthful, but then you said, and I'll bold it again for you just so you don't miss it; "basically because MIA tells him that we believe that no transitory period is needed."

And there you have your lie.

I did not only base my argument on what MIA said, as you claimed when you were purposefully making shit up about my position, I had based my argument on a variety of sources.

Look, the vast majority of members on this forum aren't idiots, and they know how to read, so you can't worm your way out of this.

Just admit that you lied, make a poll in your little anarchist group to try and prove your little point, and move on.


No. I said that because you are not a member of the anarchist forum and thus should not be posting the forum. Simple as.

Which is wanting to prevent me to reply.

Can you even read and comprehend at the same time, seriously?


That's because none of those actually state what you are claiming.


Anarchist-communists believed that society should go straight to the communist system of distribution: "It is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature."

This was opposed to the collectivists who believed that a transition period was needed, due to a lack of material conditions : "The collectivist anarchists (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism) advocated remuneration for labor, but held out the possibility of a post-revolutionary transition to a communist system of distribution according to need. As Bakunin's associate, James Guillaume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Guillaume), put it in his essay, Ideas on Social Organization (1876), "When... production comes to outstrip consumption... [e]veryone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities, without fear of depletion; and the moral sentiment which will be more highly developed among free and equal workers will prevent, or greatly reduce, abuse and waste."

I am not going to repost what I have posted already, either you learn to read and comprehend at the same time or you continue to remain ignorant of the facts.


No, it wasn't directed at you.



So Led Zep has stated that he thinks that not all anarchist-communists believe in a transitory period to communism. Led argues that a section of anarchist-communists believe that we can go straight from capitalism to communism, basically because MIA tells him that we believe that no transitory period is needed.


I don't believe that modern anarcho-communists agree on there being some sort of transition period.

So here I have set up a poll quizing the anarchist-communists of RevLeft on whether you believe a transitory period is necessary. Thanks for your patience.

And in the title it says: "for the benefit of LZ."

Yes, it's clearly not directed at me.

Your sectarianism makes you a joke.


Notice, "fuck off" isn't a flame. I didn't insult you.

How's the weather on your planet?


Now can an impartial mod please split all the crap out of this thread, move it back to the anarchist forum and then warn LZ and the other flamers in this thread?

Not going to happen.

Either he starts a thread in the anarchism forum without making up shit about other members to slander them, or he doesn't make one at all.

Groups don't exist to slander and attack other members while preventing them from replying.

[Kropotesta]

Yes you have, because you said that I argued that a section of anarchist-communists believe that we can go straight from capitalism to communism, which up until this point was correct and truthful, but then you said, and I'll bold it again for you just so you don't miss it; "basically because MIA tells him that we believe that no transitory period is needed."

And there you have your lie.

I did not only base my argument on what MIA said, as you claimed when you were purposefully making shit up about my position, I had based my argument on a variety of sources.

How? I have posted evidence that shows you agree with MIA, it was also part of your reasoning, aswell as being one of your sources.. Therefore no lie.





Look, the vast majority of members on this forum aren't idiots, and they know how to read, so you can't worm your way out of this.
No, but you can believe that if you like. :rolleyes:

Just admit that you lied, make a poll in your little anarchist group to try and prove your little point, and move on.
You appear to be getting a little over excited for a "little point".




Can you even read and comprehend at the same time, seriously?
Yes. You however can't seem to beable to see past your own arrogance.
A wiki quote? Hardly credible for anarchist theory. Post a quote by an anarchist that spefically calls for no transtion period?



I am not going to repost what I have posted already, either you learn to read and comprehend at the same time or you continue to remain ignorant of the facts.
What facts are these? Beens you obviously haven't followed up on the facts I posted to you.

[Led Zeppelin]

How? I have posted evidence that shows you agree with MIA, it was also part of your reasoning, aswell as being one of your sources.. Therefore no lie.

Hahaha, you're hilarious. Still trying to worm himself out of that lie.

You did not say that MIA was "one of my sources", you said that "I argued my case basically because MIA said it", which is a lie, because I based my argument on a host of sources, which I have posted here: Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1184674&postcount=2)

You do realize that anyone who can read and comprehend at the same time and is not a petty sectarian knows that you lied, right?

[Kropotesta]

Hahaha, you're hilarious. Still trying to worm himself out of that lie.

You did not say that MIA was "one of my sources", you said that "I argued my case basically because MIA said it", which is a lie, because I based my argument on a host of sources, which I have posted here: Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1184674&postcount=2)

You do realize that anyone who can read and comprehend at the same time and is not a petty sectarian knows that you lied, right?
Was the MIA one of your sources?
Did you you say that you agreed with MIA?
Wasn't your decision influenced intially by MIA, by it being your first point of reference?

Sectarian? So what?

[hekmatista]

Sorry, I didn't realize this thread was anarchists only, which of course, I am not in terms of ideological tradition I come from.

[Led Zeppelin]

Was the MIA one of your sources?

Yes, it was ONE of my sources.

You know what, I'm tired of this shit with you and Apathy Maybe who are both clueless about anarchist theory and history, prepare to be proven wrong, both of you:


Today’s proposals for Parecon (“participatory economics”), in which workers are rewarded for the intensity and duration of their labor in a cooperative economy, would fit into Bakunin’s or Marx’s concept of a transitory, beginning, phase, of a free society. But unlike the Pareconists, Marx and Bakunin recognized that this was still limited. For both Marx and Bakunin, then, full communism requires a very high level of productivity and potential prosperity, a post-scarcity economy, when there is plenty of leisure time for people to participate in decision-making, at work and in the community, ending the distinction between order-givers and order-takers. However, neither Marx nor Bakunin described a social mechanism for moving from one phase to the other.

Kropotkin rejected the two-phase approach of the Marxists and the anarchist-collectivists. Instead he proposed that a revolutionary society should “transform itself immediately into a communist society,” (1975; p. 98), that is, should go immediately into what Marx had regarded as the “more advanced,” completed, phase of communism. Kropotkin and those who agreed with him called themselves “anarchist-communists” (or “communist anarchists”), although they continued to regard themselves as a part of the broader socialist movement.

It was not possible, Kropotkin argued, to organize an economy partially on capitalist principles and partly on communist principles. To award producers differentially by how much training they have had, or even by how hard they work, would recreate class divisions and the need for a state to oversee everything. Nor is it really possible to decide how much individuals have contributed to a complex, cooperative, system of production, in order to reward them according to their labor.

Instead, Kropotkin proposed that a large city, during a revolution, “could organize itself on the lines of free communism; the city guaranteeing to every inhabitant dwelling, food, and clothing…in exchange for…five hour’s work; and…all those things which would be considered as luxuries might be obtained by everyone if he joins for the other half of the day all sorts of free associations….” (p.p. 118-119) This would require the integration of agricultural with industrial work, and physical with mental labor. There remained an element of coercion in Kropotkin’s proposal. Presumably able-bodied adults who would not contribute five hours of work would not get the “guaranteed” minimum.

Anarchist-communism came to predominate among anarchists, so that it became rare to find an anarchist (except for the individualist anarchists) who did not accept communism, whatever other disagreements they may have had among themselves. Meanwhile the Marxists had long been calling themselves social-democrats. When World War I broke out, the main social democratic parties endorsed their capitalists’ war. Lenin called on the revolutionary wing of international social democracy to split from the traitors to socialism. As part of this, he advocated that his Bolshevik Party and similar parties call themselves Communist Parties, going back to Marx. Some of his followers complained that this would confuse the workers, making the Bolsheviks sound like the anarchist-communists. Lenin declared that it was more important to not be confused with the reformist social democrats. Lenin got his way (as he usually did in his party). The term “communist” had been taken back by the Marxists. With the example of the Russian revolution, most revolutionary-minded people turned to the Leninists; the anarchists became increasingly marginalized. The term “communist” became mostly the label for Leninists.
Link (http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=6960&print_page=true)


Besides rejecting Cabet's utopia, because it maintained the division of labor - in particular that between town and country - and sought to organize it rigidly in the name of economic 'efficiency,' D'zamy also refused to insert between the capitalist mode of production and communist society a transitional period of democracy which would have pushed communism into the background. By seeking to establish a direct link between the revolutionary process and the content of communism, so that the dominant class within capitalism would be economically and socially expropriated through the immediate abolition of monetary circulation, D'zamy anticipated what was to be the source of the basic originality of anarchist-communism, in particular in its Kropotkinist form. This feature was the rejection of any 'transition period' that did not encompass the essence of communism: the end of the basic act of buying and selling.

[...]

Immediate expropriation defined the whole logic of the revolutionary process for Kropotkin. Basically, it is here that the essence of his work lies. The real answer to the objection that can be made against him (regarding his optimistic assumptions about human nature, the abundance of products, and so on) lies in the alternatives which he posed: either the immediate communization of social relations or the wages system in one form or another.
Link (http://www.nefac.net/node/157)

There you go:

Proof that a trend within anarchism existed and still exists which believes that there should be no transition period.

Proof that anarchists accept communism and that therefore it is not "separate from anarchism" as AM implied.

Proof that you are both ignorant of anarchist theory and history.

It is done.

[Rawthentic]

It is clear here that LZ is correct here, kropotesta.

Sometimes its better to admit you are wrong, and move on.

[Kropotesta]

Yes, it was ONE of my sources.
Exactly, therefore I haven't lied.



You know what, I'm tired of this shit with you and Apathy Maybe who are both clueless about anarchist theory and history, prepare to be proven wrong, both of you:


Link (http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=6960)


There you go:

Proof that a trend within anarchism existed and still exists which believes that there should be no transition period.


Are you trying to claim that anarchist-communism doesn't have a transitory stage by referencing to a theorist who is most documented for writing about the transition stage? All that shows is that anarchists reject the Marxist conception of the transition stage.


The anarchist-communist transition is "socialising of production, consumption and exchange."- Kropotkin. Yes, the state and capitalism would be abolished and "federated communes" established. "expropriation" of "everything that enables any man -- be he financier, mill-owner, or landlord - - to appropriate the product of others' toil." Goods distributed by "no stint or limit to what the community possesses in abundance, but equal sharing and dividing of those commodities which are scare or apt to run short."
Obviously this isn't full communism, but it is the grounds to bring about a full communist society.
Also Max Nettlau- "[n]othing but a superficial interpretation of some of Kropotkin's observations could lead one to conclude that anarchist communism could spring into life through an act of sweeping improvisation, with the waving of a magic wand."- A Short History of Anarchism, p. 80.



NEFAC: This feature was the rejection of any 'transition period' that did not encompass the essence of communism: the end of the basic act of buying and selling.
So therefore he opposed anything in the transition period that didn't "encompass" communism.
Your own quote contradicts you.

[Kropotesta]

It is clear here that LZ is correct here, kropotesta.

Sometimes its better to admit you are wrong, and move on.
I disagree, however I am willing to move on as neither of us are going to agree.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

It is clear here that LZ is correct here, kropotesta.

Sometimes its better to admit you are wrong, and move on.

The 9 to zero poll results suggest otherwise. Such a surprise that anarchists know their theory better than Marxists. While we may have issues with your ideas we don't sit there and act like we know the details of leninism better than the leninists.

[Led Zeppelin]

The anarchist-communist transition is "socialising of production, consumption and exchange."- Kropotkin. Yes, the state and capitalism would be abolished and "federated communes" established. "expropriation" of "everything that enables any man -- be he financier, mill-owner, or landlord - - to appropriate the product of others' toil." Goods distributed by "no stint or limit to what the community possesses in abundance, but equal sharing and dividing of those commodities which are scare or apt to run short."
Obviously this isn't full communism, but it is the grounds to bring about a full communist society.
Also Max Nettlau- "[n]othing but a superficial interpretation of some of Kropotkin's observations could lead one to conclude that anarchist communism could spring into life through an act of sweeping improvisation, with the waving of a magic wand."- A Short History of Anarchism, p. 80.

I'm quite willing to accept that Kropotkin contradicted himself on occasion, or that his ideas evolved over time, but that has nothing to do with the fact, yes, the fact, that there was a trend within anarchist theory which believed that an immediate transition towards full communism was possible, I have proven this by providing quotes by anarchists saying it themselves.

This means that you were wrong, and I was right...


Such a surprise that anarchists know their theory better than Marxists. While we may have issues with your ideas we don't sit there and act like we know the details of leninism better than the leninists.

So you know the history of anarchism better than NEFAC and the author who wrote that piece on Anarkismo.net?

I doubt that, but you can go ahead and try to refute your fellow anarchists if you want, that has no bearing at all on my claim which was that such a trend existed within the anarchist movement.

There are anarchists who are much more knowledgable and serious than you who agree with me on that, which by itself disproves the notion that no such trend ever existed within anarchism and that it was merely invented by me, the "eeeeevil Leninist".

[Kropotesta]

I'm quite willing to accept that Kropotkin contradicted himself on occasion, or that his ideas evolved over time, but that has nothing to do with the fact, yes, the fact, that there was a trend within anarchist theory which believed that an immediate transition towards full communism was possible, I have proven this by providing quotes by anarchists saying it themselves.

This means that you were wrong, and I was right...
No.

So you know the history of anarchism better than NEFAC and the author who wrote that piece on Anarkismo.net?
You are aware that the NEFAC quote you used contradicts you-

NEFAC: "This feature was the rejection of any 'transition period' that did not encompass the essence of communism: the end of the basic act of buying and selling."
So therefore he opposed anything in the transition period that didn't "encompassthe essence of communism".
Your own quote contradicts you.


Anarkismo: "Instead, Kropotkin proposed that a large city, during a revolution, “could organize itself on the lines of free communism; the city guaranteeing to every inhabitant dwelling, food, and clothing…in exchange for…five hour’s work; and…all those things which would be considered as luxuries might be obtained by everyone if he joins for the other half of the day all sorts of free associations….” .
Transition, no?

[apathy maybe]

Yes, it was ONE of my sources.

You know what, I'm tired of this shit with you and Apathy Maybe who are both clueless about anarchist theory and history, prepare to be proven wrong, both of you:


Link (http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=6960&print_page=true)


Link (http://www.nefac.net/node/157)
To quote from your second quote "This feature was the rejection of any 'transition period' that did not encompass the essence of communism: the end of the basic act of buying and selling." So there is a transition period, but one without buying and selling (which would occur in a collectivist system). (Actually, this was already pointed out, but whatever.)
As for the first quote, as also already pointed out, Kropotkin did advocate (and TAT has linked to his work in another thread) where he explicitly talked about, transition.


There you go:

Proof that a trend within anarchism existed and still exists which believes that there should be no transition period.

Proof that anarchists accept communism and that therefore it is not "separate from anarchism" as AM implied.

Proof that you are both ignorant of anarchist theory and history.

It is done.
And actually, communism is separate from anarchism. For two reasons as I explain already, the first is that not all anarchists are communists (not even all anarchists on this website are communists, I myself am an "adjective free" anarchist, basically meaning that I advocate anarchism, and not a particular economic system), and the second is that you can have communism without anarchism (because communism is in the economic sphere, and anarchism is more then just economics).

So, no I'm not ignorant of anarchist theory, and I stand by another of my statements, that I've read far more anarchist theory then you (not to mention other political philosophy). (Yes I have written university level essays on anarchist theory that have achieved very high marks. 89 out of 100 for example.)

Anyway, again, this is a stupid thread to have in the general theory section, when it was originally directed at anarchists in the anarchist forum, for anarchists to discuss without the involvement of folks like you (i.e. non-anarchists).

What's the point of having a poll directed at anarchists when anyone can answer it?


I doubt that, but you can go ahead and try to refute your fellow anarchists if you want, that has no bearing at all on my claim which was that such a trend existed within the anarchist movement.

There are anarchists who are much more knowledgable and serious than you who agree with me on that, which by itself disproves the notion that no such trend ever existed within anarchism and that it was merely invented by me, the "eeeeevil Leninist".
Oh yeah, you said that all anarchists don't believe in a transitional period, at least originally.

Anarchists believe that no transition period is necessary,

[Led Zeppelin]

So therefore he opposed anything in the transition period that didn't "encompass the essence of communism".

I think it's hilarious how you ignore every other quote which proves you wrong and you only reply to the quote which has a nuance in it.

The point is that there is no transition period which can; "encompasses the essence of communism: the end of the basic act of buying and selling", that would require a post-scarcity economic system.

That is why NEFAC goes on to criticize that trend in that article, but I guess they shouldn't have bothered to do that, because there was nothing wrong with it in the first place. :lol:


And actually, communism is separate from anarchism.

Strange that Makhno did not know this:



The idea of the transition period, according to which the social revolution should lead not to a communist society, but to a system X retaining elements of the old system, is anti-social in essence. It threatens to result in the reinforcement and development of these elements to their previous dimensions, and to run events backwards.

A flagrant example of this is the regime of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' established by the bolsheviks in Russia.

According to them, the regime should be but a transitory step towards total communism. In reality, this step has resulted in the restoration of class society, at the bottom of which are, as before, the workers and peasants.

The centre of gravity of the construction of a communist society does [not?] consist in the possibility of assuring each individual unlimited liberty to satisfy his needs from the first day of the revolution; but consists in the conquest of the social base of this society, and establishes the principles of egalitarian relationships between individuals: As for the question of the the abundance, greater or lesser, this is not posed at the level of principle, but is a technical problem.

[...]

Whereas communism, that is to say a society of free workers, is the goal of the anarchist struggle.
Link (http://eprints.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1926/platform/ch02.htm)


Oh yeah, you said that all anarchists don't believe in a transitional period, at least originally.

I was referring to a transitional period with a state, because we Marxists don't believe that you can abolish a state when the material conditions rendering it worthless do not yet exist.

[Kropotesta]

I think it's hilarious how you ignore every other quote which proves you wrong and you only reply to the quote which has a nuance in it.
I replied to both of your quotes.:rolleyes:
I find it "hilarious" that you haven't replied to all of my post.


The point is that there is no transition period which can; "encompasses the essence of communism: the end of the basic act of buying and selling", that would require a post-scarcity economic system.
Well there is, as advocated by Kropotkin.
Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Scarcity_Anarchism


That is why NEFAC goes on to criticize that trend in that article, but I guess they shouldn't have bothered to do that, because there was nothing wrong with it in the first place. :lol:
Of course anarchist ideas on the transition period differ. And by the way, the NEFAC are anarchist-communists, that according to you, don't advocate a tranistion period

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

So you know the history of anarchism better than NEFAC and the author who wrote that piece on Anarkismo.net?

I doubt that, but you can go ahead and try to refute your fellow anarchists if you want, that has no bearing at all on my claim which was that such a trend existed within the anarchist movement.

There are anarchists who are much more knowledgable and serious than you who agree with me on that, which by itself disproves the notion that no such trend ever existed within anarchism and that it was merely invented by me, the "eeeeevil Leninist".

I'm sorta kinda in NEFAC. Those "far more knowledgeable" older comrades are friends of mine.

The articles in question do not prove you correct. They document the dispute between the collectivists and the communists. The principle difference being that collectivists wanted to utilize wages via labornotes, in a possible transition to a gift economy, while anarcho communists wanted to push forward as fast as possible into some form of gift economy. But Kropotesta has shown with quotes from Kropotkin and Malatesta,the founders of A-C, there's still a transition. A shorter, less pronounced transition, but a transition nonetheless.

And again, I'm not insulting your character, I would appreciate it if you did not insult mine.

[Led Zeppelin]

I replied to both of your quotes.:rolleyes:

I missed your reply to this one:


Kropotkin rejected the two-phase approach of the Marxists and the anarchist-collectivists. Instead he proposed that a revolutionary society should “transform itself immediately into a communist society,” (1975; p. 98), that is, should go immediately into what Marx had regarded as the “more advanced,” completed, phase of communism. Kropotkin and those who agreed with him called themselves “anarchist-communists” (or “communist anarchists”), although they continued to regard themselves as a part of the broader socialist movement.


Well there is, as advocated by Kropotkin.

Read the NEFAC article I linked to, Kropotkin changed his mind on this several times.


Of course anarchists idea of the transition period differ. And by the way, the NEFAC are anarchist-communists.

I know, so is that author from Anarkismo.net, which is why I loved the fact that both of them acknowledged that there was a trend within anarchist theory which advocated an immediate transition to a fully communist society, or as Marx described it "the higher phase of communism".


The articles in question do not prove you correct. They document the dispute between the collectivists and the communists. The principle difference being that collectivists wanted to utilize wages via labornotes, in a possible transition to a gift economy, while anarcho communists wanted to push forward as fast as possible into some form of gift economy. But Kropotesta has shown with quotes from Kropotkin and Malatesta,the founders of A-C, there's still a transition. A shorter, less pronounced transition, but a transition nonetheless.

So the guy from Anarkismo.net made up that quote by Kropotkin?

And the author from NEFAC lied when he said about Kropotkin:


Immediate expropriation defined the whole logic of the revolutionary process for Kropotkin. Basically, it is here that the essence of his work lies. The real answer to the objection that can be made against him (regarding his optimistic assumptions about human nature, the abundance of products, and so on) lies in the alternatives which he posed: either the immediate communization of social relations or the wages system in one form or another.

?


And again, I'm not insulting your character, I would appreciate it if you did not insult mine.

No problem, if you won't insult me I won't insult you.

[Kropotesta]

I missed your reply to this one:

Kropotkin rejected the two-phase approach of the Marxists and the anarchist-collectivists. Instead he proposed that a revolutionary society should “transform itself immediately into a communist society,” (1975; p. 98), that is, should go immediately into what Marx had regarded as the “more advanced,” completed, phase of communism. Kropotkin and those who agreed with him called themselves “anarchist-communists” (or “communist anarchists”), although they continued to regard themselves as a part of the broader socialist movement.
I did, if perphaps you used those reading skills you prize yourself on, you would be able to see that I quoted a part of the article the piece from the above is from.


Read the NEFAC article I linked to, Kropotkin changed his mind on this several times.
NEFAC- "lies in the alternatives which he posed: either the immediate communization of social relations or the wages system in one form or another."



I know, so is that author from Anarkismo.net, which is why I loved the fact that both of them acknowledged that there was a trend within anarchist theory which advocated an immediate transition to a fully communist society, or as Marx described it "the higher phase of communism".

Anarkismo.net- should go immediately into what Marx had regarded as the “more advanced,” completed, phase of communism.
A phase of communism, implying that it is not full communism. Thus it is a tranistion towards full communism.

[apathy maybe]

Led, if you can't accept that individualist anarchism is a type of anarchism, and yet is not communism at all..., then there is no hope for you.

I don't give two shits if Maknho said that communism was the only thing that anarchist believed in. He was wrong. And yes I do know better then him.
I'm an anarchist, I'm not a communist. There, I've not only disproved the Ukrainian Platformist (which many anarchists don't even accept as being a real anarchist), but you as well.

Meh, this is boring, I'm not going to continue this.

[Led Zeppelin]

A phase of communism, implying that it is not full communism. Thus it is a tranistion.

You are such a good falsifier, did you used to be a Stalin-kiddie before you switched to anarchism?

The word "phase" was used because Marx used to refer to the two distinct phases of communism, its lower and its higher phase, the quote explains this earlier on in the part which you cut off.

That's what happens when you quote something out of context and bold words that vaguely seem to reinforce your point while ignoring the words that don't:


Kropotkin rejected the two-phase approach of the Marxists and the anarchist-collectivists. Instead he proposed that a revolutionary society should “transform itself immediately into a communist society,” (1975; p. 98), that is, should go immediately into what Marx had regarded as the “more advanced,” completed, phase of communism. Kropotkin and those who agreed with him called themselves “anarchist-communists” (or “communist anarchists”), although they continued to regard themselves as a part of the broader socialist movement.

What is this, the anarchist school of falsification?

You ask for proof, I provide it, then you go on to nitpick the proof by taking quotes out of context and trying to find contradictions where there are none.

Must I say, typical of a....


I don't give two shits if Maknho said that communism was the only thing that anarchist believed in. He was wrong. And yes I do know better then him.

Good, that's all you had to say.

I'm not saying that you are right or wrong, I'm just saying that there is disagreement on this issue even within anarchist circles.

[Kropotesta]

You are such a good falsifier, did you used to be a Stalin-kiddie before you switched to anarchism?
Surprisingly not and do not appreciate you pettiness.


The word "phase" was used because Marx used to refer to the two distinct phases of communism, its lower and its higher phase, the quote explains this earlier on in the part which you cut off.
So? OK then "lower communism" is the transition to "full communism". Still a tranistion whether you like it or not.

That's what happens when you quote something out of context and bold words that vaguely seem to reinforce your point while ignoring the words that don't:




What is this, the anarchist school of falsification?

You ask for proof, I provide it, then you go on to nitpick the proof by taking quotes out of context and trying to find contradictions where there are none.

Anarkismo.net -
"Kropotkin rejected the two-phase approach of the Marxists and the anarchist-collectivists. Instead he proposed that a revolutionary society should “transform itself immediately into a communist society,” (1975; p. 98), that is, should go immediately into what Marx had regarded as the “more advanced,” completed, phase of communism. Kropotkin and those who agreed with him called themselves “anarchist-communists” (or “communist anarchists”), although they continued to regard themselves as a part of the broader socialist movement."
Just because Kropotkin advocated missing out a phrase of a Marxist approach does not imply that he didn't advocate a transition period, which his works clearly states that he did.

Must I say, typical of a....
And you accused me of sectarianism.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

So the guy from Anarkismo.net made up that quote by Kropotkin?

And the author from NEFAC lied when he said about Kropotkin:



Again we are caught in a game of semantics. Pushing for a gift economy as fast as possible isn't arguing for the creation of full blown utopian communism without a transition period. Its a gift economy, often heavily augmented with other distribution mechanisms. Anarcho-communists never claimed there would be no transition.


As Murray Bookchin pointed out, "Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta were not so naive as to believe that anarchism could be established overnight. In imputing this notion to Bakunin, Marx and Engels wilfully distorted the Russian anarchist's views." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 213]

Indeed, Kropotkin stressed that anarchists "do not believe that in any country the Revolution will be accomplished at a stroke, in the twinkling of a eye, as some socialists dream." Moreover, "[n]o fallacy more harmful has ever been spread than the fallacy of a 'One-day Revolution.'" [The Conquest of Bread, p. 81]

As Alexander Berkman put it, "you must not confuse the social revolution with anarchy. Revolution, in some of its stages, is a violent upheaval; anarchy is a social condition of freedom and peace. The revolution is the means of bringing anarchy about but it is not anarchy itself. It is to pave the road for anarchy, to establish condition which will make a life of liberty possible." However, the "end shapes the means" and so "to achieve its purpose the revolution must be imbued with and directed by the anarchist spirit and ideas . . . the social revolution must be anarchist in method as in aim." [ABC of Anarchism, p. 81]

"A political revolution can be accomplished without shaking the foundations of industry, but a revolution where the people lay hands upon property will inevitably paralyse exchange and production . . . This point cannot be too much insisted upon; the reorganisation of industry on a new basis . . . cannot be accomplished in a few days; nor, on the other hand, will people submit to be half starved for years in order to oblige the theorists who uphold the wage system. To tide over the period of stress they will demand what they have always demanded in such cases -- communisation of supplies -- the giving of rations." [The Conquest of Bread, pp. 72-3]


These passages illustrate it pretty well. The creation of full blown communism requires a transition no matter what. But the transition should be as quick and egalitarian as possible.

[Led Zeppelin]

Surprisingly not and do not appreciate you pettiness.

And I don't appreciate yours.

If you want me to stop insulting you have the decency to do the same.


So? OK then "lower communism" is the transition to "full communism". Still a tranistion whether you like it or not.

Are you actually being serious now?

The "lower phase of communism" is now commonly reffered to as socialism by Marxists, so yes, I know it's a transition, that quote said that Kropotkin rejected it...


Just because Kropotkin advocated missing out a phrase of a Marxist approach does not imply that he didn't advocate a transition period, which his works clearly states that he did.

You don't get it; The Marxist definition of "the higher phase of communism" is full communism, and Kropotkin advocated going to that stage of development immediately.

Now, did he change his mind on this? Yes, apparently he did, the NEFAC article I read explained this as well.

But to say that such a trend never existed within the anarchist movement, like you are doing now, is a blatant falsification of history.


Again we are caught in a game of semantics. Pushing for a gift economy as fast as possible isn't arguing for the creation of full blown utopian communism without a transition period. Its a gift economy, often heavily augmented with other distribution mechanisms. Anarcho-communists never claimed there would be no transition.

Both NEFAC and the Anarkismo.net article say that Kropotkin held the belief that there would be no transition, and the former quoted Kropotkin to this effect, while also explaining how the theory of the "transition period" developed.

I am not disputing that he changed his mind on this, but are you seriously suggesting that such a trend has never existed within anarchist theory when your own organization says it did?

[The Feral Underclass]

Led argues that a section of anarchist-communists believe that we can go straight from capitalism to communism

Who are these people and in what have they articulated this position? Where in the world do they exist and operate?

[The Feral Underclass]

What a totally redundant thing to be arguing about. You're essentially trying to argue or prove that there are some anarchists who don't advocate a transitional phase. I mean, what a pointless thing to argue or try so hard to verify.

[Kropotesta]

And I don't appreciate yours.

If you want me to stop insulting you have the decency to do the same.
Have I insulted you recently? Also it is you that started the hurling of insults.




Are you actually being serious now?

The "lower phase of communism" is now commonly reffered to as socialism by Marxists, so yes, I know it's a transition, that quote said that Kropotkin rejected it...
Anarchists are socialists. Yes, Kropotkin rejected the centralisation and need for a wage system to usher in communism and wanted to get the wage system abolished soon as:
Kropotkin- the reorganisation of industry on a new basis . . . cannot be accomplished in a few days; nor, on the other hand, will people submit to be half starved for years in order to oblige the theorists who uphold the wage system. To tide over the period of stress they will demand what they have always demanded in such cases -- communisation of supplies -- the giving of rations."- The Conquest of Bread




You don't get it; The Marxist definition of "the higher phase of communism" is full communism, and Kropotkin advocated going to that stage of development immediatly.
Show me some text by Kropotkin that states this. Not taking out of context either, which constitutes more that a fragment of a sentence.

[Led Zeppelin]

What a totally redundant thing to be arguing about. You're essentially trying to argue or prove that there are some anarchists who don't advocate a transitional phase. I mean, what a pointless thing to argue or try so hard to verify.

I know it's totally redundant, which is why I find it amazing that there are anarchists who are trying to dispute the fact that such a trend ever existed within anarchist theory.

And no, I don't necessarily care about the existence of modern anarchists who don't advocate a transitional phase, but the fact is that such a trend existed in the anarchist movement. I have read two lengthy articles on the history of anarchism which both have said this, it's quite annoying that there are still anarchists trying to prove this not to be the case.

You told me to go read some anarchist works right? Ok, I did, now I'm not supposed to believe what they say either?


Also it is you that started the hurling of insults.

Actually, if you go back you will see that it was you who started it by calling me ignorant.


Anarchists are socialists.

What on earth are you talking about?

Socialism refers to the transitional phase between capitalism and communism; a society ruled by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Anarchists reject socialism as the transition phase...


Show me some text by Kropotkin that states this. Not taking out of context either, which constitutes more that a fragment of a sentence.

I have already shown you one, you nitpicked it and are now asking me to show another, probably so you can go ahead and nitpick that as well.

No, you asked me to cite evidence by anarchists proving this, so I did, I read two articles about the history of anarchism and I found verification for my claims, there is nothing more that needs to be proven.

[Kropotesta]

What a totally redundant thing to be arguing about. You're essentially trying to argue or prove that there are some anarchists who don't advocate a transitional phase. I mean, what a pointless thing to argue or try so hard to verify.
This is true. However when LZ tries come over as all superior it is a tad annoying. As has been shown by taking this out of the anarchist forum to have this very arguement and constantly insulting and patronising those who disagree with him.

[The Feral Underclass]

LZ, I don't give a shit what you believe for a start. Secondly, it makes absolutely no difference to anything whether you have proved that some anarchists don't accept a transitional phase.

The fact of the matter is that the relevant anarchists do and have done so since the inception of their ideas and there really is nothing more to say on the matter.

[Led Zeppelin]

I don't give a shit what you believe for a start. Secondly, it makes absolutely no difference to anything whether you have proved that some anarchists don't accept a transitional phase.

It also makes no difference if I know how anarchist economic theory developed into its current form, does that mean that I should not read about the history of its development?


The fact of the matter is that the relevant anarchists do and have done so since the inception of their ideas and there really is nothing more to say on the matter, surely?

Not in terms of practice, though there are probably still some anarchists out there who disagree with you, I don't believe that they are a significant tendency, at least not anymore.

But, just out of a purely historical interest, do you believe that such a trend has ever existed within anarchist theory? Do you believe that the article written by NEFAC and Anarkismo.net on the history of anarchism are correct and therefore worth reading?

[Kropotesta]

You told me to go read some anarchist works right? Ok, I did, now I'm not supposed to believe what they say either?
Perphaps read stuff by the people criticised?




What on earth are you talking about?

Socialism refers to the transitional phase between capitalism and communism; a society ruled by the dictatorship of the proletariat.
"SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods."

Have you ever heard of anarchists being referred to as Libertarian Socialists?


I have already shown you one, you nitpicked it and are now asking me to show another, probably so you can go ahead and nitpick that as well.

Fine. But it would be alot more credible if the text you picked was straight from the text of an anarchist advocating no transition, which thus be "nitpicked".

[Led Zeppelin]

Perphaps read stuff by the people criticised?

Perhaps you should too?

As I said in the other thread, I'm more than willing to read those books TAT cited when I can find the time for it.

Actually I'm interested in reading Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.


"SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods."

Have you ever heard of anarchists being referred to as Libertarian Socialists?

I have, but I've never heard of them being referred to as socialists...

I like that definition of socialism you gave, not sure where you got it from, but here are better ones:


Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production – the factories, machines, land, etc. – and make them private property.... Marx shows the course of development of communist society....which [firstly] consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not [yet] according to needs)."

But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by marx the "first", or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word "communism" is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Both NEFAC and the Anarkismo.net article say that Kropotkin held the belief that there would be no transition, and the former quoted Kropotkin to this effect, while also explaining how the theory of the "transition period" developed.

I am not disputing that he changed his mind on this, but are you seriously suggesting that such a trend has never existed within anarchist theory when your own organization says it did?


"A political revolution can be accomplished without shaking the foundations of industry, but a revolution where the people lay hands upon property will inevitably paralyse exchange and production . . . This point cannot be too much insisted upon; the reorganisation of industry on a new basis . . . cannot be accomplished in a few days; nor, on the other hand, will people submit to be half starved for years in order to oblige the theorists who uphold the wage system. To tide over the period of stress they will demand what they have always demanded in such cases -- communisation of supplies -- the giving of rations." The Conquest of Bread, pp. 72-3]

This quote is particularly demonstrative here as Conquest is his seminal work of A-C theory. Note that Kropotkin has no issue with the idea of a transition. He understands that a communal gift ecnomy is something that will take awhile, but should remain a desperately desired target. His beef with transition is that others argue that it requires the use of wages in some form or another. Kropotkin believes that the best means to get out of transition is to communalize the means of production and to communalize supplies. Thus he thinks the rationing is the proper means out of transition and not labornote wages.

There has never been a trend that argues for a period of zero transition towards a gift economy of free communism. There is a trend that argues for a short period of transition predicated on rationing vs. socialized wages. That's what the article argues.

And for future reference NEFAC articles do not represent the view of NEFAC, but of individuals in NEFAC. Only position papers represent the collective position of NEFAC.

[Kropotesta]

Perhaps you should too?

As I said in the other thread, I'm more than willing to read those books TAT cited when I can find the time for it.

Actually I'm interested in reading Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.
Surprisingly I have.
Here's Kropotkins Mutual Aid (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html).

Also, interesting descriptions of socialism.

[Led Zeppelin]

This quote is particularly demonstrative here as Conquest is his seminal work of A-C theory. Note that Kropotkin has no issue with the idea of a transition. He understands that a communal gift ecnomy is something that will take awhile, but should remain a desperately desired target. His beef with transition is that others argue that it requires the use of wages in some form or another. Kropotkin believes that the best means to get out of transition is to communalize the means of production and to communalize supplies. Thus he thinks the rationing is the proper means out of transition and not labornote wages.

Why do you keep proving something which is already established?

I said that I have no problem in accepting the fact that Kropotkin changed his mind on this.


There has never been a trend that argues for a period of zero transition towards a gift economy of free communism. There is a trend that argues for a short period of transition predicated on rationing vs. socialized wages. That's what the article argues.

But the same article also said this:


The real answer to the objection that can be made against him [Kropotkin] (regarding his optimistic assumptions about human nature, the abundance of products, and so on) lies in the alternatives which he posed: either the immediate communization of social relations or the wages system in one form or another.

What does "immediate communization of social relations" mean in this context if not...the immediate communization of social relations?

And the other article even quoted Kropotkin to the same effect. Are both those parts wrong? Did Kropotkin never say that the revolutionary society should; "transform itself immediately into a communist society"?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Why do you keep proving something which is already established?

I said that I have no problem in accepting the fact that Kropotkin changed his mind on this.

You keep asserting this, but so far I have yet to encounter Kropotkin claiming that he wanted immediate transition to communism. I see rephrasing of his position that while transition is necessary, a radically less distinctive transition than the collectivists and Marxists argued for is required. This is what he argues in Conquest and the rest of his major works.

All you have provided is a phrase from a Wayne Price article. Wayne Price is a great guy, but he often posts things that are rather controversial in the anarchist movement. He's not a definitive representative of A-C.

However, if you read the rest of of his essay, Price states my point.


It was not possible, Kropotkin argued, to organize an economy partially on capitalist principles and partly on communist principles. To award producers differentially by how much training they have had, or even by how hard they work, would recreate class divisions and the need for a state to oversee everything. Nor is it really possible to decide how much individuals have contributed to a complex, cooperative, system of production, in order to reward them according to their labor.

In other words, wages of any kind are fundamentally wrong, and should never exist in a revolutionary society. When possible we must practice something approximating a gift economy This is often not possible during the transition, in which case we start rationing.



What does "immediate communization of social relations" mean in this context if not...the immediate communization of social relations?

And the other article even quoted Kropotkin to the same effect. Are both those parts wrong? Did Kropotkin never say that the revolutionary society should; "transform itself immediately into a communist society"?

It means what I have already stated. Kropotkin believed that we had to communalize production and skip any sort of socialist wage system. However this is not the only aspect of communism, rather it is limited transitional communism, often marked by rationing. The "transform itself immediately" refers to this as far as I can see. I don't own "The Essential Kropotkin" so I can't find the quote in its context, which is hard to ascertain from such a tiny passage.

[Led Zeppelin]

All you have provided is a phrase from a Wayne Price article. Wayne Price is a great guy, but he often posts things that are rather controversial in the anarchist movement. He's not a definitive representative of A-C.

Well I had no idea who Wayne Price was nor what his reputation was, but he did claim that Kropotkin held the view that a social revolution would have to transform itself immediatly into communism, and he provided quotes proving it.

Now, if you can find that those quotes mean something else in context and thereby prove him wrong, I'm more than happy to concede that Wayne Price was wrong in claiming what he did about Kropotkin.


It means what I have already stated. Kropotkin believed that we had to communalize production and skip any sort of socialist wage system. However this is not the only aspect of communism, rather it is limited transitional communism, often marked by rationing. The "transform itself immediately" refers to this as far as I can see. I don't own "The Essential Kropotkin" so I can't find the quote in its context, which is hard to ascertain from such a tiny passage.

I know, which is why that Wayne Price person added an elaboration to that quote: "Kropotkin rejected the two-phase approach of the Marxists and the anarchist-collectivists. Instead he proposed that a revolutionary society should “transform itself immediately into a communist society,” (1975; p. 98), that is, should go immediately into what Marx had regarded as the “more advanced,” completed, phase of communism."

Was Wayne Price wrong and does the article from NEFAC refer to something else when it wrote "communization of social relations"? I guess both those questions are based on that quote which Wayne Price cites in support of his claim.

Again, if you can find that quote in context and thereby prove Price wrong I am more than happy to accept it.

Disregarding Kropotkin though, are you also claiming that no other anarchist has ascribed to that trend either?

[Comrade Rage]

Voted yes.

You're such an idiot and a typical anarcho-kiddie.Quoted for truth.

[Chapter 24]

Just a question, what does the transitory stage in an anarchist revolution entail?

[dirtycommiebastard]

Just a question, what does the transitory stage in an anarchist revolution entail?

This.

If there is no State, but it is not full communism, then what is it? Do capitalist relations still exist? If not, do the proletariat own all the means of production with no State? If so, that is communism, and that is a leap from capitalism to communism.

Can you please describe this 'transitional stage' then?

[Bilan]

I do. :)
I think both that which Pannekoek (excuse my bad spelling) and the Friends of Durruti advocate make sense.
It just is dependant on the situation what will work best.

[apathy maybe]

This.

If there is no State, but it is not full communism, then what is it? Do capitalist relations still exist? If not, do the proletariat own all the means of production with no State? If so, that is communism, and that is a leap from capitalism to communism.

Can you please describe this 'transitional stage' then?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/transition-anarchism-t73602/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchist-paradigm-transition-t30602/index.html

A search for anarchism and transition in both the learning forum, and the theory forum will turn up a number of threads and posts that are relevant. Both of the two I linked to above are relevant.

[Incendiarism]

No, I do not advocate a transitory stage.

I think once the means of production have been taken and are in the worker's hands, we can immediately turn to anarchism. This doesn't mean that I'm excluding the inevitable revolution.

[The Feral Underclass]

No, I do not advocate a transitory stage.

I think once the means of production have been taken and are in the worker's hands, we can immediately turn to anarchism. This doesn't mean that I'm excluding the inevitable revolution.

That's an unfounded assertion. How do you expect the social and economic links to capitalism to suddenly disappear over night?

Do you think you could qualify this assertion?

[Incendiarism]

I believe that agitation and education prior to the shift in direction would prove sufficient. Once the people understand the importance of anarchism and the importance of immediately abolishing all coercive and hierarchical forms of organization they will be compelled to turn immediately towards anarchism.

Once the people are conscious to this fact I think it's sufficient to say that returning to old forms would be found undesirable and quickly discarded. Why would you feel the need to work for wages, see the usefulness of remaining subservient to an official who barks orders, or still maintain a hierarchical sense of organization when anarchism is immediately realizable?

As kropotkin said, we should not concern ourselves with provisional committees to oversee production and what not, but immediately provide the people with what is needed. After all, is not the right to well-being one of the conditions and cornerstones of anarchist thought?

[mykittyhasaboner]

i do. simply because not all goods will be abundant enough to entire directly into communism right after the revolution. there would have to be rationing of products that are scarce, according to who needs them and how much they need.


I believe that agitation and education prior to the shift in direction would prove sufficient. Once the people understand the importance of anarchism and the importance of immediately abolishing all coercive and hierarchical forms of organization they will be compelled to turn immediately towards anarchism.
i see what your saying, but education and agitation wont solve scarcity. a transitory phase doesnt necessarily mean a hierarchy, or coercion. rather it means that we must organize labor and production so that goods that are scarce would become abundant.

[OI OI OI]

I believe that agitation and education prior to the shift in direction would prove sufficient. Once the people understand the importance of anarchism and the importance of immediately abolishing all coercive and hierarchical forms of organization they will be compelled to turn immediately towards anarchism.

Once the people are conscious to this fact I think it's sufficient to say that returning to old forms would be found undesirable and quickly discarded. Why would you feel the need to work for wages, see the usefulness of remaining subservient to an official who barks orders, or still maintain a hierarchical sense of organization when anarchism is immediately realizable?

As kropotkin said, we should not concern ourselves with provisional committees to oversee production and what not, but immediately provide the people with what is needed. After all, is not the right to well-being one of the conditions and cornerstones of anarchist thought?


This is the opinion I hear from everyday anarchists and I am very happy to se it again.
Is this kind of a paranoia with the overwhelming majority of anarchists advocating a transitional period?
I am serious from all those books I ve read on anarchism and from talking to anarchists of all sorts of organizations such as Common Cause, Nefac, RAME etc it is the first time I hear about anarchists wanting a transitional period .
Although having a transitional period seems natural to me I would like to know the differences between our transitional period and yours. I guess I ll have to open a thread now.

[The Feral Underclass]

I believe that agitation and education prior to the shift in direction would prove sufficient

Why do you believe that when every social revolution witnessed in history has shown how the decades of capitalist exploitation and alienation is not sufficient?

The notion that you can simply explain and educate people is actually founded on no real basis. It also displays a distinct lack of understanding of a revolutionary situation. While I accept that agitation and education are beneficial and good objectives in and of themselves, social revolutions are not something you can plan for. You can't just say we will agitate and educate and by the end of it we will have a revolution. They will occur as a spontaneous reaction to social and economic upheavel.


Why would you feel the need to work for wages, see the usefulness of remaining subservient to an official who barks orders, or still maintain a hierarchical sense of organization when anarchism is immediately realizable?

But it isn't immediately realisable, no matter how much we "think" it is. The social and economic relations of capitalism will prevail at the immediate time that the workers seize the means of production. While I accept that political authority must be decentralised and production controlled directly by the workers of that industry themselves, we have to recognise that there will be massive political and economic administrative issues that have to be dealt with and provisions have to be made for that so we can develop the right conditions to get what we want. That is, by defintion a transition.


As kropotkin said, we should not concern ourselves with provisional committees to oversee production and what not, but immediately provide the people with what is needed.

We want to have people working according to their ability and distributing goods according to peoples needs. This cannot be realised immediately after a social revolution. We will be faced with many problems both economically and militarily and our focus has to be on defending the revolution. We cannot just say "ok, we've had a revolution - now let's just do it the way we want".

First of all people won't have reached that level of understanding. Many people will have different levels of understanding. Seconodly, we will be faced with an economic system that is imbedded in everything we do and reorganising that is going to take time. Scarcity will exist, there old structures will exist and we will be faced with shortages and military assult.

Whether you like it or not there will require a form of transition. Not because we want one but simply because of the nature of the productive relations and the contradictions of capitalism plus our need to reorganise and defend.


After all, is not the right to well-being one of the conditions and cornerstones of anarchist thought?

I think most revolutioanry ideas have "the right to well-being" as one of its cornerstones. Anarchists don't have a monopoly on being nice.

[Kropotesta]

Quoted for truth.
:(
Was that really neccessary?
Also, reasoning?

[apathy maybe]

Incidentally, on the original topic, no I don't advocate a transitional stage between capitalism and anarchism.

I advocate anarchism.

However, I'm not delusional, and I believe that there will have to be a transitional stage of some sort or another. But I sure as fuck don't advocate for it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Incidentally, on the original topic, no I don't advocate a transitional stage between capitalism and anarchism.

I advocate anarchism.

However, I'm not delusional, and I believe that there will have to be a transitional stage of some sort or another. But I sure as fuck don't advocate for it.

That makes very little sense. Why would you not advocate something you know is necessary?

[Kropotesta]

Incidentally, on the original topic, no I don't advocate a transitional stage between capitalism and anarchism.

I advocate anarchism.

However, I'm not delusional, and I believe that there will have to be a transitional stage of some sort or another. But I sure as fuck don't advocate for it.
Surely through the advocation of anarchism you would thus be arguing for a transitional stage to achieve it, as it appears as an integral part of anarchist theory?
I don't mean to appear ignorant but do you see the tranistion stage of anarchism, the laying out the struture, as completely seperate to anarchism? If that makes sense.....

[apathy maybe]

That makes very little sense. Why would you not advocate something you know is necessary?

Why would I advocate something that is going to happen anyway?

Assuming we have a revolution, and people want to move towards anarchism, it isn't going to happen overnight, there will be a transition, and it will happen whether I advocate it or not.

I was going to chuck an analogy in here, but I can't think of one. Maybe something about the pointlessness of advocating eating, rather then discussing what sort of food to eat. The eating is going to happen regardless.


Surely through the advocation of anarchism you would thus be arguing for a transitional stage to achieve it, as it appears as an integral part of anarchist theory?
I don't mean to appear ignorant but do you see the tranistion stage of anarchism, the laying out the struture, as completely seperate to anarchism? If that makes sense.....
Yes, the transition stage is part of anarchist theory. But it makes no point to advocate for it. And no, it isn't apart from anarchist theory, but it also certainly isn't the point. The point of anarchism is anarchism! And yes, we should use liberating methods to achieve this (rather then centralising power and all the bullshit we hear from other people). But again, we don't need to advocate for transition. We advocate for anarchism, and anarchism asap. And in the mean time, we organise using anarchistic methods and so.

[F9]

yes i do,its not going to change from capitalism to Anarcism-Communism by magic, a transition needs to take place, simple as that!

Fuserg9:star:

[Dicktator]

...So here I have set up a poll quizing the anarchist-communists of RevLeft on whether you believe a transitory period is necessary. Thanks for your patience.

The poll is meant to read "Do you advocate a tranistory stage"
A mod could change the phrasing perphaps?

As an American lemming-minded voter I just wanna click-click-click on something---anything---so that I can continue sipping my expensive cup of coffee at the coffee bar, and not be too involved with reality.

But, even I don't get this poll. Maybe I just need a few more shots of expresso.

Abstain.

[trivas7]

I think once the means of production have been taken and are in the worker's hands [...]
I dare say this will take more than an afternoon to accomplish. You're talking about running high tech production and distribution systems and coordinating millions of people on a vast scale without a functioning government in place.

[Morpheus]

I'm an anarcho-communist and I don't advocate a "transitional stage" unless you consider the revolution a transitional stage (and keep in mind that revolutions can last up to 10 years). I don't see why we'd need one. Anarchists who advocate transitional stages are called anarcho-collectivists.

[MarxSchmarx]

As far as I'm concerned the "transition stage" has been going on since c.1848 and it's about time to wrap it up.


You're talking about running high tech production and distribution systems and coordinating millions of people on a vast scale without a functioning government in place.Government isn't key to doing this, though. For instance private enterprise does this kind of thing without government nudging and (sometimes) without much state intervention. Why can't soviets do this?


While I accept that agitation and education are beneficial and good objectives in and of themselves, social revolutions are not something you can plan for. You can't just say we will agitate and educate and by the end of it we will have a revolution. They will occur as a spontaneous reaction to social and economic upheavel.Ah, but with planning they are more likely to be won.

[F9]

I'm an anarcho-communist and I don't advocate a "transitional stage" unless you consider the revolution a transitional stage (and keep in mind that revolutions can last up to 10 years). I don't see why we'd need one. Anarchists who advocate transitional stages are called anarcho-collectivists.

no, we are anarchocommunists!!:confused:
can you get from capitalism to communism with no transition?there is transition from capitalism straight to anarchism.But this is a transitional stage,revolution will be our "transitional stage".if you think it correct you will understand that transition is totally necessary.(except if we were magicians and change it magically:lol:!)

Fuserg9:star:

[Le Drapeau Noir]

So Led Zep has stated that he thinks that not all anarchist-communists believe in a transitory period to communism. Led argues that a section of anarchist-communists believe that we can go straight from capitalism to communism, basically because MIA tells him that we believe that no transitory period is needed.



So here I have set up a poll quizing the anarchist-communists of RevLeft on whether you believe a transitory period is necessary. Thanks for your patience.

The poll is meant to read "Do you advocate a tranistory stage"
A mod could change the phrasing perphaps?

I'd hazard that a tranistory period would be the normal state of affairs. The system is not going to "poof" into anarchism in 24 hours. You'd have to build public support - if you are an anarchist, you can't force that type of society on anyone. People would have to voluntarily form associations, and those associations would have to voluntarily associate with one another in order for society to function. That requires time - a transitory period.

Did you think you could just "force" anarchism on the masses?

Edit: Clarification

[ashaman1324]

i think a transitory period is needed.
for an entire population to suddenly switch from capitalism to its complete opposite is impossible, when the USSR switched from socialism to capitalism under shock therapy didnt work out to the best, theory isnt as convincing to me when real life example is show and proven to be a bad idea
besides as le drepoir said, u cant force an anarchist society onto a non-anarchist public without being a complete hippocrite

[Mala Tha Testa]

when the USSR switched from socialism to capitalism under shock therapy didnt work out to the best

what are you going on about? and what does the USSR have to do with it?
i voted Yes, reffering, more or less, to the revolution as the transition.

[Post-Something]

Ahh, sorry, I voted because I thought it was open to everyone, I'm not an Anarcho-communist, so disregard my "yes" vote.

[professorchaos]

I'm an anarchist but also a Marxist, so I would advocate a transition period involving a very small, decentralized, fully democratic government to manage it.

[ashaman1324]

what are you going on about? and what does the USSR have to do with it?
the ussr was simply an example. i dont think an abrupt shift to a complete opposite type of economy will be very effective, as seen when yeltsin switched the ussr to capitalism, which could have worked better.


i voted Yes, reffering, more or less, to the revolution as the transition.
i also voted yes, so we at least have some common ground on this matter
the revolution could be the transitory period, but to convince the entire working class to switch to our belief will take time, especially when the entire class should be in favor of it.

[Le Drapeau Noir]

I'm an anarchist but also a Marxist, so I would advocate a transition period involving a very small, decentralized, fully democratic government to manage it.


Waaaaaaaa? How can you be an anarchist and be a Marxist? You are familiar with Marx and Bakunin, are you not?

[Le Drapeau Noir]

the ussr was simply an example. i dont think an abrupt shift to a complete opposite type of economy will be very effective, as seen when yeltsin switched the ussr to capitalism, which could have worked better.


i also voted yes, so we at least have some common ground on this matter
the revolution could be the transitory period, but to convince the entire working class to switch to our belief will take time, especially when the entire class should be in favor of it.

In Yeltsin's and Gorbachev's case, it was a ton more complicated than that. It wasn't just about switching economic models ... the Soviet Union wasn't socialist/communist enterprise. It went from switching from state capitalist/monopolist to free markets - with the backing of an authoritarian state. The rulers simply switched uniforms and continued to swing the hammer and yell different commands - the hammer continued to swing unabated.

[Bilan]

Waaaaaaaa? How can you be an anarchist and be a Marxist? You are familiar with Marx and Bakunin, are you not?

Many anarchists, particularly class struggle anarchists, are at least (even if only minutely) influenced by Marx (myself included).
The ideology of Libertarian Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_marxism)is probably the biggest combination of Anarchism and Marxism, and groups such as RAAN and the Situationist Internationle, and in its early days, socialism ou barbarism would've too.

Further, you have to contextualise that conflict, and more importantly, need to understand the politics of the two.

Though I am an anarchist, I would agree with Marx more than I would Bakunin, especially of Bakunins ideas of "secret dictatorship".

That said, I'm not a Marxist, and I especially don't agree with how Marx's ideas have been used - or as argued by them, furthered, or extended - to support centralist political ideologies such as Leninism.

The quote from Marx, the liberation of the working class must be an act of the working class embodies anarchist politics, and is indeed, epitomised by the class struggle anarchist approach to revolution.

[F9]

i think this thread has gone a lot away from the reason it has originally started,and i think we did adress to LZ what we think,i think it should be locked,or at least the poll is closed because now everyone votes!:)

Fuserg9:star:

[Led Zeppelin]

Yes, this thread has run its course.

I'm closing it.