What is Anarchism?

[Drace]

I always thought it to be a society with no government and no authority...

[#FF0000]

You're mostly right, but some things need to be made a little clearer.

Anarchism is a society with no definite hierarchy. That means getting rid of the capitalist class structure so one person can't have economic power over another. It also means getting rid of political hierarchy, so no one has political power over another.

That means all property is owned by the public, as with socialism. It also means that decisions are made by the workers and common people, not by the politicians and elected "representatives".

Instead of "government" as we know it, an anarchist society has a federation of autonomous communes, in which the people who live in each commune make the decisions democratically.

And as for the no authority part, you're mostly right. Anarchists are against authority, except for rational authority, which is authority that one doesn't have to listen to, and authority that is backed up by experience or knowledge, rather than by status or class. For example, when talking about what material to make a good pair of shoes out of, you would refer to the authority of a shoemaker, yeah?

Hope that made some things clearer.

[F9]

I always thought it to be a society with no government and no authority...

correct.:)But thats not chaos thats FREEDOM.
ps:Its Anarchism not Anarchaism

Fuserg9:star:

[Sentinel]

Classwar anarcho-communists, which you are most likely to encounter on this board, strive for the immediate creation of a classless and stateless society -- with no central government or authority. In other words, we reject the socialist transition phase with a so called 'worker's state' which Marxist-Leninists and similar tendencies see as necessery to reach communism.

There are then different branches of us as well. Syndicalists, for instance, see the federative, revolutionary union movement as a best way to prepare the working class to rule. We see the workplace as the natural battleground on which to organise and radicalise the workers to combat the bourgeoisie, and the nature of the federative union as a good training ground for practicing the administration of a libertarian socialisat society.

Perhaps other can fill in on the nature of other forms of classwar anarchism here.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Anarchism isn't really against government per se, but against the state. The state is a body of power coercive power aka guns, prisons, money etc. that exists distinct and separate from the people at large. Governance merely means a system whereby a community makes decisions on social issues.

Under anarchism governance would probably involve some form of participatory democracy, using a system of community and workplace councils federated together to make decisions over areas larger than a single community. Under participatory democracy people are accorded democratic decision making power over issues in accordance to how much they are affected by that decision. For example, if I am gay, then my choice to have sex with another man is not up for debate. He and my partner have made a decision and no one has right a right to contravene that as they aren’t affected. But if I am dropping trash all over town, I am affecting my neighborhood, and it is an issue for the neighborhood assembly to address.

Nor are we against authority, only coercive authority. We are in favor of following the authority of certain people, so long as we can contravene that authority. For example, if I make shoes, and my friend wants to make shoes as well, she will follow my directions in shoe making.

[Drace]

Seems nice but how would the economy be run?

Would Anarchism have to be global o.O?

[F9]

as an anarchocommunist,the economy i look for is communism.Its going to be applied inside communes.Every commune will have the responsible of the "residents" and vice versa!No there isnt a global requirement to become Anarchism but is our final goal.

Fuserg9:star:

[Bright Banana Beard]

The economy will be run by "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

[apathy maybe]

The economy will be run by "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Meh, perhaps.

See, anarchism doesn't define an economic system, there is no blue print for the perfect anarchist society. And while this maxim is trotted out by all sorts of communists, it doesn't mean that a future perfect society will run according to it.

Indeed, while it could be said that a "communist" (or anarchist communist if you prefer) society would be run according to "from each, to each", it doesn't mean that all possible anarchist systems would (or, I argue, even all possible communist systems).



To the OP, basically anarchism can most easily be defined as opposition to hierarchy, oppression and so on, and as support for freedom. Anarchists oppose capitalism, not because capitalism is bad, or because capitalism is "evil", or because of any historical theory, but because capitalism establishes a hierarchy, and is inherently oppressive.

We oppose states for the same reason, and we oppose "Leninism" (of all sorts), for again, the same reason.

We desire a free society, where individuals are able to develop themselves to their potential, without interference.


Of course, one of the wonderful things about anarchism is we don't have a blue print for the future perfect society. Individuals and groups prefer one idea to another (as mentioned, most of the anarchists on this board are a variety of communist), but the point is, we don't want that idea for itself, we want that idea because we think it is most likely going to support freedom.

We don't want communism for communisms sake, we want communism for freedoms sake. (Or in my case, I want anarchism for freedoms sake.)

[Drace]

I was thinking of a society that had no government and that everyone was living without a government...but I always see chaos in it.

No military power o.O?

[BobKKKindle$]

It also means getting rid of political hierarchy, so no one has political power over another.

How would be the elimination of political hierarchy be possible after the working class has seized power? Would the remnants of the bourgeoisie be allowed to participate in elections and publish material promoting the restoration of capitalism? Would reactionary elements be allowed to organize military forces with the intention of destroying the gains of the social revolution? The abolition of political hierarchy means that everyone should have the same political rights and no-one should possess the authority to exercise political control over others - but this goal, although desirable, it simply not practical when a proletarian state is faced with the threat of counter-revolution.


in which the people who live in each commune make the decisions democratically.

If anarchists are opposed to authority (except authority based on knowledge and experience) why should someone feel obligated to obey a majority decision? How would the decisions of the majority be enforced if the people who do not support the decision refuse to cooperate?

[trivas7]

Anarchism is a society with no definite hierarchy. That means getting rid of the capitalist class structure so one person can't have economic power over another. It also means getting rid of political hierarchy, so no one has political power over another.

How do you run a power plant without a hierarchy? How do you run a social institution without leaders and followers?

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/making-sense-anarchism-t6416/index.html?t=6416

Simple intro from revleft ;)

[trivas7]

Anarchism isn't really against government per se, but against the state. The state is a body of power coercive power aka guns, prisons, money etc. that exists distinct and separate from the people at large. Governance merely means a system whereby a community makes decisions on social issues.

But under bourgeois rule societies makes decisions via coercive power -- guns, law, etc. I'd have to be shown that these are distinct and separate from the people in order to buy this argument. Perhaps I'm saying that your distinction between government and the state is a distinction without a difference.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I was thinking of a society that had no government and that everyone was living without a government...but I always see chaos in it.

No military power o.O?

There will militia formed by the local, they have the responsibility to watch for themselves. There will be plenty of organization too, which can plan many event or thing. Government will be participatory democracy or local event, the thing is, we do not have blueprint as apathy maybe said, we will simple look for anyway to reach anarchism.


How do you run a power plant without a hierarchy? How do you run a social institution without leaders and followers?
There will be a respected leaders instead of those who chose to lead, it can be demarchy type. Most likely he has the respected masses instead of the oppressed masses.

[trivas7]

There will be a respected leaders instead of those who chose to lead, it can be demarchy type. Most likely he has the respected masses instead of the oppressed masses.
But this is exactly hierarchy, no? So it's not the case that anarchy entails non-hierarchical social structures.


The economy will be run by "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
This is a slogan not a polity.

[BobKKKindle$]

There will militia formed by the local, they have the responsibility to watch for themselves.

If a militia is only responsible for the local area where the militia is based, how would a territory subject to the control of the working class be able to respond to a powerful force which invades from outside the territory? The defense of the revolution requires the coordination of military forces over a large geographical area, and this can only be achieved by creating an institution which has the legal authority to exercise violence against all forces hostile to the gains of the social revolution.


There will be a respected leaders instead of those who chose to lead, it can be demarchy type

How would a demarchy (choosing political leaders through random selection) ensure that those who are chosen to represent the people are well suited to the role? Why should an effective leader have exactly the same chance to get elected as someone who has no experience in a position of leadership and is unable to make effective decisions?

[Pogue]

You're mostly right, but some things need to be made a little clearer.

Anarchism is a society with no definite hierarchy. That means getting rid of the capitalist class structure so one person can't have economic power over another. It also means getting rid of political hierarchy, so no one has political power over another.

That means all property is owned by the public, as with socialism. It also means that decisions are made by the workers and common people, not by the politicians and elected "representatives".

Instead of "government" as we know it, an anarchist society has a federation of autonomous and democratically run communes, in which the people who live in each commune make the decisions democratically.

And as for the no authority part, you're mostly right. Anarchists are against authority, except for rational authority, which is authority that one doesn't have to listen to, and authority that is backed up by experience or knowledge, rather than by status or class. For example, when talking about what material to make a good pair of shoes out of, you would refer to the authority of a shoemaker, yeah?

Hope that made some things clearer.

Best definition I've ever heard.

[Bright Banana Beard]

But this is exactly hierarchy, no? So it's not the case that anarchy entails non-hierarchical social structures. "Anti-hierarchy" is mainly our slogan. Our main point is we don't want unpopular leader or someone forcing us do unnecessary thing. The coordinator will exist, but will be respect by workers. If he made the unpopular policy, the workers can nullify it.


If a militia is only responsible for the local area where the militia is based, how would a territory subject to the control of the working class be able to respond to a powerful force which invades from outside the territory? The defense of the revolution requires the coordination of military forces over a large geographical area, and this can only be achieved by creating an institution which has the legal authority to exercise violence against all forces hostile to the gains of the social revolution.
The militia can be formed in federation style with request & still forms the military in name only. We can exercise violence against those who opposed us, as we will can kill those capitalists or reactionary people if it is nessecary for the revolution to progress.


How would a demarchy (choosing political leaders through random selection) ensure that those who are chosen to represent the people are well suited to the role? Why should an effective leader have exactly the same chance to get elected as someone who has no experience in a position of leadership and is unable to make effective decisions?
I would replace random with (effective leader type) than anyone, but then you would have to guess who would win. If they prefer democratic style then let them, what so oppressed about it?

[dirtycommiebastard]

The militia can be formed in federation style with request & still forms the military in name only. We can exercise violence against those who opposed us, as we will can kill those capitalists or reactionary people if it is nessecary for the revolution to progress.


Well then we must examine what is the State. It consist of bodies or armed people (special forces, as described by Lenin) to be used by one class to suppress another.

You call for the creation of militias for each federation to exercise the use of violence against those who oppose you, namely the capitalists and reactionaries. Is this not a state?

Until classes are abolished, a state apparatus will remain to be used by the ruling class to crush the other. After proletarian revolution, the working class will be in control and will require bodies of armed people to crush, suppress, or kill any opposition.

Bobkindles explains this well in the next post --->

[BobKKKindle$]

The militia can be formed in federation style with request & still forms the military in name only. We can exercise violence against those who opposed us, as we will can kill those capitalists or reactionary people if it is nessecary for the revolution to progress.A system of militias which can defend the revolution against reactionary elements would be categorized as a state, because Marxists define the state simply as an apparatus of class oppression which exists to secure the power of the ruling class. The structure of the state apparatus depends on the class which controls the state; the power of the bourgeois state is exercised by armed groups of men which are separate from the rest of the population and are given the authority to command armed force against the working class when the property rights of the bourgeoisie are threatened. This structure is derived from the weak numerical strength of the bourgeoisie, such that, because the proletariat is far numerous than the bourgeoisie, the proletarian state exhibits a different structure, as explained by Lenin in State and Revolution:


In other words, under capitalism we have the state in the proper sense of the word, that is, a special machine for the suppression of one class by another, and, what is more, of the majority by the minority. Naturally, to be successful, such an undertaking as the systematic suppression of the exploited majority by the exploiting minority calls for the utmost ferocity and savagery in the matter of suppressing, it calls for seas of blood, through which mankind is actually wading its way in slavery, serfdom and wage labor.

Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism suppression is still necessary, but it is now the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority. A special apparatus, a special machine for suppression, the “state”, is still necessary, but this is now a transitional state. It is no longer a state in the proper sense of the word; for the suppression of the minority of exploiters by the majority of the wage slaves of yesterday is comparatively so easy, simple and natural a task that it will entail far less bloodshed than the suppression of the risings of slaves, serfs or wage-laborers, and it will cost mankind far less. And it is compatible with the extension of democracy to such an overwhelming majority of the population that the need for a special machine of suppression will begin to disappear. Naturally, the exploiters are unable to suppress the people without a highly complex machine for performing this task, but the people can suppress the exploiters even with a very simple “machine”, almost without a “machine”, without a special apparatus, by the simple organization of the armed people (such as the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, we would remark, running ahead).
The Transition from Captialism to Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s2)

[Bright Banana Beard]

Well then we must examine what is the State. It consist of bodies or armed people to be used by one class to suppress another.

You call for the creation of militias for each federation to exercise the use of violence against those who oppose you, namely the capitalists and reactionaries. Is this not a state? Where I draw the line is that if they are forming opposing force and threaten the revolution, if they only blatantly talking on the street, then we move on to more serious issue. Anyone can be capitalist and reactionary, they be a proletariat, bourgeoisie, or etc. (lump, petit)

[dirtycommiebastard]

Where I draw the line is that if they are forming opposing force and threaten the revolution, if they only blatantly talking on the street, then we move on to more serious issue. Anyone can be capitalist and reactionary, they be a proletariat, bourgeoisie, or etc. (lump, petit)


Thats fine. At what point you exercise force is a different question altogether. Though you still say bodies of armed people will exist to crush an opposing force if it poses a threat. You have at his point created a State.

For your benefit, I suggest you read The State and Revolution by Lenin.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

How do you run a power plant without a hierarchy? How do you run a social institution without leaders and followers?

Well I think it’s rather simple. Run it as before, but without bosses. Workers know how to do the day to day operations rather well. Managers rely on the ingenuity of working people to save their ass all the time. Now of course there would be a team of workers, probably on some sort of rotation, who would coordinate operations, making sure that all departments were working effectively during the day. But most of the rules and guidelines of the power plant could be decided democratically at plant assemblies, department committees etc.



But under bourgeois rule societies makes decisions via coercive power -- guns, law, etc. I'd have to be shown that these are distinct and separate from the people in order to buy this argument. Perhaps I'm saying that your distinction between government and the state is a distinction without a difference.


The state is distinct from the people. It is directed by a small group of politicians, judges and top bureaucrats. They make all of the decisions and have all of the legitimate coercive power. When you’re organizing a leftist group along directly democratic lines, you aren’t really using coercion, unless someone starts fight. But you are making a decision to use some form of decision making. That decision is a form of governance.

[#FF0000]

But this is exactly hierarchy, no? So it's not the case that anarchy entails non-hierarchical social structures.

I don't think you really read what I posted. Hierarchy of some kind will always exist. The point is that it is based in rational authority, which I defined in my first post, and that this hierarchy is ever-changing so that no one can take and hold on to power. For example, in the Spanish civil war, the anarchist militias still had officers and people who gave orders. They were, however, democratically elected by the soldiers, and the officers were instantly recallable if the militia members felt there was a better person for the job.


If anarchists are opposed to authority (except authority based on knowledge and experience) why should someone feel obligated to obey a majority decision? How would the decisions of the majority be enforced if the people who do not support the decision refuse to cooperate?

They wouldn't. If an individual did not want to follow the majority decision, they simply don't have to, though it'd be foolish to just dismiss whatever the commune has to say without at least trying to compromise. That's really all there is to say on this, so I'll end with a quote on this subject by Malatesta that sums it up.


We do not recognize the right of the majority to impose the law on the minority, even if the will of the majority in somewhat complicated issues could really be ascertained.

[BobKKKindle$]

They wouldn't. If an individual did not want to follow the majority decision, they simply don't have to, though it'd be foolish to just dismiss whatever the commune has to say without at least trying to compromise. If there is no mechanism by which individuals can be forced to obey the will of the majority, and if those who choose to violate this will cannot be punished, how would an anarchist territory ever be able to survive when faced with the danger of counter-revolution? A coherent strategy is an absolute necessity in any military situation, especially when a proletarian state is confronted by forces of greater military strength, and so a system of organization which allows anyone to do what they like without any binding conditions is clearly not suitable for the task of overthrowing capitalism and building a new society.


The state is distinct from the people. It is directed by a small group of politicians, judges and top bureaucratsYou have chosen to define the state in a way which makes it seem as if anyone who supports the state after the seizure of power is opposed to democracy, and by doing so you have failed to recognize that the structure of the state depends on the class which controls the state apparatus - the proletarian state is not organised in the same way as the bourgeois state.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

You have chosen to define the state in a way which makes it seem as if anyone who supports the state after the seizure of power is opposed to democracy, and by doing so you have failed to recognize that the structure of the state depends on the class which controls the state apparatus - the proletarian state is not organised in the same way as the bourgeois state.

No bob. You are using the marxist definition, ie a system of class rule. Anarchists see the state as a body of coercive power outside of the people. When the revolution comes, it will be necessary for workers to defend what is rightfully theirs. However they will not do so by placing power in the hands of a few "correct" thinkers.

[trivas7]

No bob. You are using the marxist definition, ie a system of class rule. Anarchists see the state as a body of coercive power outside of the people. When the revolution comes, it will be necessary for workers to defend what is rightfully theirs. However they will not do so by placing power in the hands of a few "correct" thinkers.
But the state is not some disembodied force separate from flesh-and-blood people; indeed just because they hold power they are often beloved. And how they differ from the government is beyond me.

[Rawthentic]

Joe Hill's Ghost:

your (and anarchist's) conception of the state is definitely different than the Marxist conception, and we should take that into account when debating you.

The real issue here is that the anarchist conception is wrong, simply for the reasons that trivas and Bobkindles outlined. The state is a mechanism to maintain class power, whether that be in the hands of the proletariat to further revolution or the bourgeoisie to crush it. It is not separated from the people, it can only end when there are no more classes and consequently no class power to uphold and defend.

That is the Marxist conception is the materialist conception.

[comrade stalin guevara]

yes i cant understand how communist and anarchist can win a revolution together

communist=central planning
anarchy=no goverment

can any one explain the union and how it would work post revolution?

[trivas7]

yes i cant understand how communist and anarchist can win a revolution together

communist=central planning
anarchy=no goverment

No, there is nothing in Marx that says that socialism -- let alone communism (which is the abolition of the state) -- is centrally planned. Democratically planned it must be, other than that how is up to the collective creativity of the proletariat.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

But the state is not some disembodied force separate from flesh-and-blood people; indeed just because they hold power they are often beloved. And how they differ from the government is beyond me.

But it is. The state is comprised of people. But its functions and the people involved in said function are distinct from the populace at large. They are adored precisely because they are so separate and alienated. They have taken on a super human awe about them. They have an almost heroic or literary significance. Without that distinct character they could not lead and dictate orders. If they were seen as just “another one of the guys” their legitimacy would be forfeit. This is why teachers are told to avoid their students outside of class, why military officers fraternize only with other officers, and why parents are told not to “treat their kids like their friend.”

I’ve already explained the difference rather clearly. Using a form of decision making is governance; it does not require a police force to function. A state, where a small minority administrate and influence power, requires large reserves of coercive force, because otherwise it would be overthrown as soon as its illegitimacy became obvious.


your (and anarchist's) conception of the state is definitely different than the Marxist conception, and we should take that into account when debating you.

The real issue here is that the anarchist conception is wrong, simply for the reasons that trivas and Bobkindles outlined. The state is a mechanism to maintain class power, whether that be in the hands of the proletariat to further revolution or the bourgeoisie to crush it. It is not separated from the people, it can only end when there are no more classes and consequently no class power to uphold and defend.

That is the Marxist conception is the materialist conception.

Well then let me outline this in Marxist terms so your mind can understand. Anarchists believe that any state is liable to create some form of a ruling class. You cannot appoint a section of workers to head a workers government. Give them near absolute say over “the revolution,” and expect them to remain working class. They are not working class, they are something different. Some say coordinator class, others say state capitalist, others say all hail Stalin. Personally I favor coordinator class. But anyway, if we are only going to look at this through a class lens, it’s pretty clear that the bureaucrats making the decisions will become a class onto their own, with distinct class interests.


So there you go nice “materialist” interpretation of anarchist state analysis, in Marxist terms.

[trivas7]

I’ve already explained the difference rather clearly. Using a form of decision making is governance; it does not require a police force to function. A state, where a small minority administrate and influence power, requires large reserves of coercive force, because otherwise it would be overthrown as soon as its illegitimacy became obvious.

I deny that decision-making alone is the art of governance; it takes more than agreeing to coin-tossing as a form of decision-making to coordinate people's activities to a common purpose.


Well then let me outline this in Marxist terms so your mind can understand. Anarchists believe that any state is liable to create some form of a ruling class. You cannot appoint a section of workers to head a workers government. Give them near absolute say over “the revolution,” and expect them to remain working class. They are not working class, they are something different. Some say coordinator class, others say state capitalist, others say all hail Stalin. Personally I favor coordinator class. But anyway, if we are only going to look at this through a class lens, it’s pretty clear that the bureaucrats making the decisions will become a class onto their own, with distinct class interests.
But all you're suggesting here is that absolute power constitutes a state. No historical revolution has ever been made by one class alone so your point escapes me.

[Unicorn]

Anarchism, a petty-bourgeois sociopolitical trend, its main principle being rejection of the state, of all political power in general, which is regarded exclusively as an organ of coercion (see Violence). Characteristic features of modern A. are rejection of political struggle within the framework of bourgeois democracy (q. v.) and denial of the need for dictatorship of the proletariat (q. v.). "Anarchism,” wrote Lenin, "denies the need for a state and state power in the period of transition from the rule of the bourgeoisie to the rule of the proletariat...” (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 49).

A. emerged as a peculiar reflection— from the viewpoint of petty-bourgeois strata and like-minded intelligentsia (q.v.)— of the rise, especially after the 17th-18th century bourgeois revolutions, of the role of the state in the life of society, the rise in the various means of political, judicial, moral and other kinds of oppression of the working people by the economically dominating and ruling bourgeois class, and as a protest against this strengthening of the
machinery of political coercion. By exposing the formal character of equality (q.v.) under capitalism, by criticising bourgeois democracy and the bourgeois state mainly for its tendency towards authoritarianism, which led to subjugation of the individual, A. came close to Utopian socialism (q.v.). Being a form of social utopianism, however, it took the idea of a stateless way of life to absurd extremes by denying any transitional stages from the society of bourgeois oppression to a society of genuine human freedom.

The difference in principle between Marxists and anarchists was seen by Lenin first of all in that "the former, while aiming at the complete abolition of the state, recognise that this aim can only be achieved after classes have been abolished by the socialist revolution, as the result of the establishment of socialism, which leads to the withering away of the state. The latter want to abolish the state completely overnight, not understanding the conditions under which the state can be abolished" (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 489). While insisting on the destruction of the state machinery, therefore, anarchists have no clear idea of what the proletariat will replace it with and how the latter will use its revolutionary power; they even deny that the revolutionary proletariat should exercise state power and the necessity of preparing the proletariat for revolution through use of the bourgeois state (see ibid.).

In terms of theory, A. is eclectic. Its various proponents have tried to rest their theoretical constructions on certain Hegel’s ideas, on diverse positivist theories and even on Marxism. Some ideologists of A. have been disrespectful or even nihilistic towards theory.

A quite outright exposition of A. is presented in the book Der Einziger und sein Eigentum by Max Stirner, a German petty-bourgeois radical of the 1840s. He held that a social order of freedom could only be achieved as an order of free individuals, for society and the individual are locked in an irreconcilable contradiction. Proceeding from individualism, Stirner denied both the state and the struggle for a socialist transformation of society.

At about the same time, the ideas of A. were being propounded by Pierre J. Proudhon, a French petty-bourgeois socialist who was responsible for the very term A. being introduced. (What Is Property?, The General Idea of the 19th Century Revolution, and others). Like Stirner, Proudhon came out against not only any state as an instrument of class oppression, but also against those socialist teachings that recognised the importance of centralism for building a new society. At the same time, and in contrast to Stirner, Proudhon viewed the future society as being based on an exchange of services, on agreement between small proprietors. Hence, a peculiar form of Proudhon’s petty-bourgeois utopianism—“mutualism”, i. e. a system of mutual benefits. This "synthesis of community and property" was nothing but an idealised petty-bourgeois conception of equal property and fair exchange of products produced by private owners.

In the 1860s, the ideas of A. were further elaborated by M. A. Bakunin, a Russian revolutionary who was active mostly in West-European politics. Marx and Engels were strongly critical of Bakuninism and A. in general. "Bakunin,” wrote Engels, "has a peculiar theory of his own, a medley of Proudhonism and communism. The chief point concerning the former is that it does not regard capital, i. e., the class antagonism between capitalists and wage workers which has arisen through social development, but the state as the main evil to be abolished" (Marx, Engels, Selected Correspondence, p. 257). The activities of Bakunin and his followers showed clearly the inconsistency of A. as an ideology for a social movement. In a word, they preached full anarchy, insisted on the free play of popular spontaneity, and denied the need for revolutionaries to organise a political party; but in fact, they set up a party of their own directed from a certain centre, and veered towards dictatorship. Thus, A. was turning into anti-democratic authoritarianism and even into "a beautiful model of barrack-room communism" (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Anarchism and AnarchoSyndicalism, p. 119).

At the beginning of the 20th century, Western Europe was swept by anarchosyndicalism, which denies the guiding role of a political party in the working-class movement and regards not political struggle, but trade-union activity as sufficient in itself for organising and emancipating the proletariat.

In the Russian liberation movement, the ideas of A. did not gain much ground, though they did cause it some harm; on the whole, Narodism (see Populist Socialism), as Lenin said, could never dissociate itself from A. There was some revival of A. during the October Revolution in 1917 and the Civil War in 1918–20, in the course of which A. in Russia degenerated into a counter-revolutionary trend.

The struggle against A. remains a necessary aspect of the Communist and Workers’ Parties’ activities at the present time, as well. The experience of the modern class struggle shows that the activities of anarchist groups, relying on neo-Trotskyite adventurist precepts (see Trotskyism), can cause much damage to the organised working-class and democratic movement. Leftist demands and actions by modern anarchists, who are not averse to slandering Communist Parties, objectively play a provocative role, for they allow the ruling regimes to charge the whole mass movement for social progress with extremism and to use repressive means against it.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I deny that decision-making alone is the art of governance; it takes more than agreeing to coin-tossing as a form of decision-making to coordinate people's activities to a common purpose.

Well then we’re just quibbling over semantics now. I see governance as decision making coordination. What do you define governance as?


But all you're suggesting here is that absolute power constitutes a state. No historical revolution has ever been made by one class alone so your point escapes me. I’m suggesting that a monopoly on legitimate coercive power constitutes a state and those who control that monopoly constitute the ruling class of any society. How does this point escape you?

[trivas7]

I’m suggesting that a monopoly on legitimate coercive power constitutes a state and those who control that monopoly constitute the ruling class of any society.
The ruling class is that coercive power, the state is not some disembodied force that a group of people monopolize.

[Kropotesta]

The ruling class is that coercive power, the state is not some disembodied force that a group of people monopolize.
A new class can take the state- "monopolize", alike the USSR. Thus becoming the ruling class themselves. So yes a state can become monopolized by others.

[trivas7]

A new class can take the state- "monopolize", alike the USSR. Thus becoming the ruling class themselves. So yes a state can become monopolized by others.
No, the Bolveshiks that took state power during the October Revolution did not constitute a new class. Neither did they inhabit -- as if some kind of ghostly garment -- what you call 'the state'. Soviet councils were already active and functioning.

[Kropotesta]

No, the Bolveshiks that took state power during the October Revolution did not constitute a new class. Neither did they inhabit -- as if some kind of ghostly garment -- what you call 'the state'. Soviet councils were already active and functioning.
In taking the power of the state above the masses, whether it's in the working populations name or not, this produces a new class system, for anarchists atleast.
We, anarchists see the state as consisting of these three things:
1) A monopoly of violence in a given territorial area;
2) This violence having a "professional," institutional nature; and
3) A hierarchical nature, centralisation of power and initiative into the hands of a few.

[trivas7]

In taking the power of the state above the masses, whether it's in the working populations name or not, this produces a new class system, for anarchists atleast.

I don't know what you mean by a "class system". In the Marxist sense the state doesn't constitute a class.

[Kropotesta]

I don't know what you mean by a "class system". In the Marxist sense the state doesn't constitute a class.
But this is about the anarchist idea of the state. The people make up the state with the 3 points that I stated, thus they 'rule'- making them the ruling class. Not a very indepth explanation but alas.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I don't know what you mean by a "class system". In the Marxist sense the state doesn't constitute a class.

The people inhabiting the state and those that influence and control the state are a class. That's how we see it.

[trivas7]

The people inhabiting the state and those that influence and control the state are a class. That's how we see it.
This definition of class blurs the distinction between class and superstructure. The real basis for class is in relation to economic production and not in those functions that guard and protect wealth juridically and by force.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

This definition of class blurs the distinction between class and superstructure. The real basis for class is in relation to economic production and not in those functions that guard and protect wealth juridically and by force.

Coercive power often prefigures economic power. Without guns you're not able to bring about private property in the first place. Economic and political power are tied together.

If you had been reading it closely you also would have noticed


the people inhabiting the state and those that influence and control the state are a class

Those in the driver's seat of the state are those with wealth. The politicians, police, judges, bureacrats, etc. inhabit the state.


Also stop using all these nonsensical marxist terms, this is the learning forum, let's be laymen here alright? Besides, I don't use superstructure, its a silly term.

[trivas7]

Coercive power often prefigures economic power. Without guns you're not able to bring about private property in the first place. Economic and political power are tied together.

I don't know what you mean by "prefigures" here. The reason those guns exist in the first place is that there is a surplus wealth some group wants to keep for itself. It's not the case, as you say, that guns create private property.

It's just these kinds of distinctions you ignore by calling the state a class. It's just those Marxist terms that illuminate why those distinctions are important.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I don't know what you mean by "prefigures" here. The reason those guns exist in the first place is that there is a surplus wealth some group wants to keep for itself. It's not the case, as you say, that guns create private property.

It's just these kinds of distinctions you ignore by calling the state a class. It's just those Marxist terms that illuminate why those distinctions are important.


Wealth and its acquisition is a byproduct of force. It enables you to exploit and extract in the first place. Slave production is established by force, and perpetuated by force. Without coercion you cannot have social classes. Force and economic power are one in the same. If I hold a monopoly in a community on the legitimate use of force, I am the ruling class of that community. Now after I have beaten the money out of enough people, I can always hire some other folk to fight for me. But I must always ensure that they do not take my things and establish a new order. I must make sure they are divided, and blind them with ideas to convince them that I am their rightful ruler. Otherwise all of my surplus value is without use. No matter how much I could pay them, they could always take it and go direct to the source of power.

No Marxist terminology can change this relationship. Force equals wealth, and wealth equals force.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The discussion in this thread thus far is great. It's good to see Marxists and Anarchists try to discuss their differences over in a civil manner.

There are a few things that have stuck out in this thread for me so far but I will only respons to this one right now.


Those in the driver's seat of the state are those with wealth. The politicians, police, judges, bureacrats, etc. inhabit the state.

Here's another interesting difference between Marxists and Anarchists.

Anarchists see the state as independent of the economic basis of society and see the ruling class' economic control and wealth as a result of their holding state power.

The Marxist sees the state as a direct outgrowth of the social economic basis and see the ruling class' state power as a result of their economic dominance.

[trivas7]

Wealth and its acquisition is a byproduct of force.
This is nonsense. No coercive force in the world creates a damn thing. That takes human labor.

[Comrade Vasilev]

A new class can take the state- "monopolize", alike the USSR. Thus becoming the ruling class themselves. So yes a state can become monopolized by others.
'new class' = bankrupt theory, sounds like yet more ultra-leftist pseudo Trotskyism.

[Comrade Vasilev]

Wealth and its acquisition is a byproduct of force.
That's BS and you know it, wealth is a product of human labor, and it's acquisition is the result of the ownership of the means of production, so go take your libertarian anti-statist garbage to libertyzone or something, because it aint welcome here.

[Niccolò Rossi]

'new class' = bankrupt theory, sounds like yet more ultra-leftist pseudo Trotskyism.

Buddy please, save it. If you're eager there are some older threads on this matter (ie. What were the countries of the communist bloc? - here I argued the theory of state-capitalism)

An interesting series of articles you may wish to read is: What was the USSR? published in Aufheben.

What was the USSR (Part I)? (http://libcom.org/library/WhatwastheUSSRAufheben1)
What was the USSR (Part II)? (http://libcom.org/library/WhatwastheUSSRAufheben2)
What was the USSR (Part III)? (http://libcom.org/library/WhatwastheUSSRAufheben3)
What was the USSR (Part IV)? (http://libcom.org/library/WhatwastheUSSRAufheben4)

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

This is nonsense. No coercive force in the world creates a damn thing. That takes human labor.

All social relations require human labor. Friendship requires labor. However my arguments remain. Without force wealth is useless. I can pay you as much as I want to protect my means of production. But without a complex system of guards, guarding guards, guarding guards and a sophisticated system of social indoctrination, there is nothing stopping my protectors from taking the means of production, and culling its benefits directly from the source.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

That's BS and you know it, wealth is a product of human labor, and it's acquisition is the result of the ownership of the means of production, so go take your libertarian anti-statist garbage to libertyzone or something, because it aint welcome here.

1. Be nice

2. Labor may produce wealth, but control of labor leads to accumulation of wealth. Workers produce wealth everyday, but that wealth is taken from them by force. The owners of the foundries of factories of this planet are like a gang of violent muggers. Parasitically taking what is not theirs.

[Comrade Vasilev]

1. Be nice

2. Labor may produce wealth, but control of labor leads to accumulation of wealth. Workers produce wealth everyday, but that wealth is taken from them by force. The owners of the foundries of factories of this planet are like a gang of violent muggers. Parasitically taking what is not theirs.
Your thinking of feudalism, when the produce of the peasant was actually taken from the peasant and given directly to his feudal lord. That however is a simplistic way of looking at capitalist relations, in which much of the time the worker is not conscious of his produce even being appropriated by the bourgeois, the process of production is thereby designed and 'automated' so that the worker will develop as little as possible a 'relationship' of ownership in what he produced, but he simply produces said good and gives it on and thinks nothing more of it.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Your thinking of feudalism, when the produce of the peasant was actually taken from the peasant and given directly to his feudal lord. That however is a simplistic way of looking at capitalist relations, in which much of the time the worker is not conscious of his produce even being appropriated by the bourgeois, the process of production is thereby designed and 'automated' so that the worker will develop as little as possible a 'relationship' of ownership in what he produced, but he simply produces said good and gives it on and thinks nothing more of it.

Fuedalims, Slave production , capitalism, its all the same general economic arangement. The loser makes all the wealth, the owners steal the wealth. All you have proven is that over time this theft has become more complex and deceptive. Slavery ain't so sophisticated. Feudalism is a bit more sophisticated, and capitalism is very sophisticated.

[trivas7]

All social relations require human labor. Friendship requires labor. However my arguments remain. Without force wealth is useless. I can pay you as much as I want to protect my means of production. But without a complex system of guards, guarding guards, guarding guards and a sophisticated system of social indoctrination, there is nothing stopping my protectors from taking the means of production, and culling its benefits directly from the source.
I agree that all human relationships are work, it doesn't follow that they all result in the creation of something materially useful.

If you're arguing that coercive force is somehow antecedent to wealth I just ain't buying it. Not historically, not logically. The state didn't just pop up one day from the head of Zeus to ensure that the rulers enjoyed their wealth and to keep the hoi polloi in the slums. Is this what you're argunig?

Neither are you saying that I can't enjoy my meager possessions without packing heat, are you? So clearly I can use my wealth without force. I'm sorry, Joe, but I fear I've lost your argument somewhere.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I agree that all human relationships are work, it doesn't follow that they all result in the creation of something materially useful.

If you're arguing that coercive force is somehow antecedent to wealth I just ain't buying it. Not historically, not logically. The state didn't just pop up one day from the head of Zeus to ensure that the rulers enjoyed their wealth and to keep the hoi polloi in the slums. Is this what you're argunig?

Neither are you saying that I can't enjoy my meager possessions without packing heat, are you? So clearly I can use my wealth without force. I'm sorry, Joe, but I fear I've lost your argument somewhere.

You can walk around without packing heat for the precise reason that the rich sleep at night, becuase we have organized coercive force to protect certain modes of wealth in certain ways. For various reasons, the rich extent a partial protection over the property of the working class. Without organized force, you would have to carry an M16 with you.

A state arises when a really smart thug realizes that he or she should not just steal, but create an institutional system of theft, backed by him/herself and his/her fellow thugs. It makes perfect sense. The control of wealth is utterly dependent on the control of coercion. Without coercion, your wealth never was yours in the first place.

[trivas7]

A state arises when a really smart thug realizes that he or she should not just steal, but create an institutional system of theft, backed by him/herself and his/her fellow thugs. It makes perfect sense. The control of wealth is utterly dependent on the control of coercion. Without coercion, your wealth never was yours in the first place.

You're suggesting that the state is the concoction of some single malfeasant who conspires with his buddies to set up a system -- without any historical precedent -- in a traditional communist mode of production that has no idea of theft and nothing to steal because everything is already shared. Humans lived like this for millions of years. Frankly, the idea is absurd.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

You're suggesting that the state is the concoction of some single malfeasant who conspires with his buddies to set up a system -- without any historical precedent -- in a traditional communist mode of production that has no idea of theft and nothing to steal because everything is already shared. Humans lived like this for millions of years. Frankly, the idea is absurd.

Making unsupported assertions about prehistoric humanity is a bit absurd. We know very little about social arrangements prior to agriculture. Let's not start about a magical land where everything is shared and there's nothing to steal.

Regardless your point doesn't chip at my argument. In fact it strengthens it. In your idealized land of primitive communism, nearly everyone has an equal helping of coercive force. Thus it is rather difficult to set up a state.

[trivas7]

Making unsupported assertions about prehistoric humanity is a bit absurd. We know very little about social arrangements prior to agriculture. Let's not start about a magical land where everything is shared and there's nothing to steal.

We know enough to discount your scenario out of hand.


Regardless your point doesn't chip at my argument. In fact it strengthens it. In your idealized land of primitive communism, nearly everyone has an equal helping of coercive force. Thus it is rather difficult to set up a state.It's pretty clear to me that agriculture and the division of labor had to develop before a surplus product interested someone's coercive force. Your concocted state untethered to an economic base is the real magical land.

[The Feral Underclass]

so go take your libertarian anti-statist garbage to libertyzone or something, because it aint welcome here.

Actually it is welcome here. This is a communist message board and all communists are anti-statist to some degree. I'd also like to point out that there are dozens of anarchists, including myself who are not only former admins (like me) they are also current admins and moderators. The anarchist group is also the largest of them all.

You don't even have 50 posts and have only just become a member so you're in no position to determine what is and what is not welcome on this board.

[Comrade Vasilev]

Anarchism and Communism are not even remotely related, anarchists are rich ayn rand kiddies with nothing better to do with their time.

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchism and Communism are not even remotely related, anarchists are rich ayn rand kiddies with nothing better to do with their time.

Communist is a societal theory that wishes to create a classess, stateless society and so is anarchism. They're essentially the same thing.

As for these assertions about the demographics of anarchists I think you'll find that the opposite is true. In fact, in the organisation I'm a member of I think the most "bourgeois" profession members have are being teacher. I myself am a minimum wage cinema worker...

Also, I'm not sure where this Ayn Rand link comes from. She was a capitalist and anarchism is an anti-capitalist ideology.

[#FF0000]

Anarchism and Communism are not even remotely related, anarchists are rich ayn rand kiddies with nothing better to do with their time.

Ayn Rand kiddie?

Swing and a miss, champ.

[Comrade Vasilev]

Ayn Rand kiddie?

Swing and a miss, champ.
It was actually meant as a bit of a joke, but nevermind the similarities are real enough. They way both attack 'the state' and 'coercive force' and spew all this libertarian rebellious-teen garbage, you can tell the sources are the same.

Anarchists oppose authority and the state, so therefore they would opposed the authority and state of the Ruling Working Class. For that reason alone they are class enemies.

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchists oppose authority and the state, so therefore they would opposed the authority and state of the Ruling Working Class. For that reason alone they are class enemies.

The working class do not rule with a state they are made to hand over that responsibility to functionaries who to it on their behalf. Also, there are no similarities between rational choice theory and anarchism

[Comrade Vasilev]

The working class do not rule with a state they are made to hand over that responsibility to functionaries who to it on their behalf.
Of course, that is the nature of economic organization, after all would you say the bourgeois themselves, the CEO's, the owners, actually run the political affairs of their respective countries today? To believe so is ludicrous, but because they control the means of production and economic power the political power naturally flows from that ownership as a 'front' for their interests, that is simply the nature of it.

The anti-statist libertarian line of the anarchists only has basis in that emotional demagogic appeal against 'bureaucracy' and their attacks against functional organization are semantic at best.

[The Feral Underclass]

Of course, that is the nature of economic organization, after all would you say the bourgeois themselves, the CEO's, the owners, actually run the political affairs of their respective countries today? To believe so is ludicrous, but because they control the means of production and economic power the political power naturally flows from that ownership as a 'front' for their interests, that is simply the nature of it.

The anti-statist libertarian line of the anarchists only has basis in that emotional demagogic appeal against 'bureaucracy' and their attacks against functional organization are semantic at best.

I'm sorry but that's just a load of gobble-de-gook.

Saying that certain forms of organisation are "natural" is a very unmaterialst and anti-Marxist position and founded in no objective fact. I accept that organising ourselves is a human dynamic but to contend that specific forms of it are "natural flow" makes no rational sense and rejects materialist conceptions of history. There's nothing "natural" about handing power over to individuals.

Secondly, this notion of "functional organisation" is a bit of a red herring. All organisation is functional, that's point of organisation. The issue anarchists have is finding the most effective form of organisation that will defend our gains and safeguard against deformation. There's nothing "semantic" about that. We oppose centralisation of political authority and advocate decentralised federalism.

[Comrade Vasilev]

I'm sorry but that's just a load of gobble-de-gook.

Saying that certain forms of organisation are "natural" is a very unmaterialst and anti-Marxist position and founded in no objective fact. I accept that organising ourselves is a human dynamic but to contend that specific forms of it are "natural flow" makes no rational sense and rejects materialist conceptions of history. There's nothing "natural" about handing power over to individuals.
Maybe you misunderstood me, the fact is that time is a finite resource, and running a society can only be done by those who can devote all their time to it, that's why any argument for 'direct democracy' or the like fails.


We oppose centralisation of political authority and advocate decentralised federalism.
Neoliberal garbage.

[#FF0000]

Neoliberal garbage.

Wow. I am convinced. Everything is clear now...

[The Feral Underclass]

running a society can only be done by those who can devote all their time to it,

The point of social revolution is so that we, the working class, can run society according to our needs organised through systems that defend our autonomy and equality.


that's why any argument for 'direct democracy' or the like fails.

There is an assumption in your argument that I don't fully understand. You seem to be implying that the working class don't have the time to run society and therefore mass participation by them would be unsuccessful.

Why do the working class not have the time to directly control how their communities and thus society function? What would the point of social revolution have been if this is not the case?


Neoliberal garbage.

Erm, that doesn't make any sense. Neoliberalism is an economic system that seeks to transfer control of the economy from state to the private sector. Decentralisation of political authority seeks to transfer political and economic control from the state to communities and the working class.

I'm not sure how those two things are linked?