My move towards anarchism...???

[R_P_A_S]

or maybe to nowhere.

Have any of you read Orwell's "homage to catalonia"? I'm halfway through it and what a fucking great book that is! Don't you guys agree? I can relate to him so much. Because sometimes I too don't care much about the Politics. but just to fight against the oppression and fight for my common men and women. Once shit starts getting to the "isms" and the heavy theories, rules sprung up, procedures and all of the sudden an authority cloud forms around the ultimate ideal of a classless, profit free world.

To me communism seems solid, the founders, the theories and the ultimate goal... it's people like Mao, Lenin, Che and Stalin that misinterpret it. Some credit has to be given for some of these men valiant and noble efforts. Others more than others. Some really damaged it and Orwell's book I see clearly how fucked up the USSR was, how authoritative and controlling it support was for the spanish republicans and how they prevented men and women to revolt under their own merit and not the guidelines of some totalitarian "communist" elitist class that was the USSR's government.

Every where in the world that "communism" sprung up, lets face it.. it was a handful of individuals with their OWN agenda, under the flag of working class liberation, classless and equality. We all know the story. they turned them selves into a class of their own, a far more superior one.

I'll admit.. I haven't read much about anarchism. I don't know much. How come its not as "popular" than communism? I favor communism because I've seen more efforts to reach it and it seems more organized and the historical figures have been very influential.

Even on this forums there are separatist groups that can only discuss among themselves. Its like.. what the fuck are all of you really doing? getting of as to who knows more and who can sound the most intelligent?

there are people out there who don't have our luxuries to sit on the internet and talk about what's best for them only because we have a lover a fair with a personality cult or an "ism" we treat as sacred divine word.

Orwell in 1937 is talking about the SAME THING we are talking about 82 years later... all the isms and the cults.. fucking sick...

[Vendetta]

Welcome to the world of politics. -_-

[Bilan]

Have any of you read Orwell's "homage to catalonia"? I'm halfway through it and what a fucking great book that is! Don't you guys agree? I can relate to him so much. Because sometimes I too don't care much about the Politics. but just to fight against the oppression and fight for my common men and women. Once shit starts getting to the "isms" and the heavy theories, rules sprung up, procedures and all of the sudden an authority cloud forms around the ultimate ideal of a classless, profit free world.

What you have to understand is that the 'isms' in themselves don't count, it's what they mean for the revolution.
but even so, different groups from all tendencies often work together for a common aim, even when the long term ends are different: This makes up the spine of Trade Unionism, and you can see current examples in different places now (e.g. Sheffield AF working with Trotskyists [see TAT :p])



To me communism seems solid, the founders, the theories and the ultimate goal... it's people like Mao, Lenin, Che and Stalin that misinterpret it. Some credit has to be given for some of these men valiant and noble efforts. Others more than others. Some really damaged it and Orwell's book I see clearly how fucked up the USSR was, how authoritative and controlling it support was for the spanish republicans and how they prevented men and women to revolt under their own merit and not the guidelines of some totalitarian "communist" elitist class that was the USSR's government.


Werd. Couldn't agree more.



Every where in the world that "communism" sprung up, lets face it.. it was a handful of individuals with their OWN agenda, under the flag of working class liberation, classless and equality. We all know the story. they turned them selves into a class of their own, a far more superior one.

"Stolen flag" ;)
Communism, however, never sprung up; and you also have to look it from a materialist point of view, because, lets face it, communism in the 20th Century, where it "sprung up" was predominantly in countries with backward economies, and dominated by reactionary social systems which, in alot of cases, were never successfully overcome (Such as Russia, which in so many aspects was a total and utter failure, and was suffocated both by its economic deficiency's, but also by its political and economic structures)



I'll admit.. I haven't read much about anarchism. I don't know much. How come its not as "popular" than communism? I favor communism because I've seen more efforts to reach it and it seems more organized and the historical figures have been very influential.

Go to the anarchist group, we've started a thread, "Queries on Theory", which is a list of different texts for a few tendencies within anarchism: Anarchist Communism, Platformism, Syndicalism and Insurrectionary Anarchism, and hopefully some "Questions" can be answered. :)



Orwell in 1937 is talking about the SAME THING we are talking about 82 years later... all the isms and the cults.. fucking sick...

I can't really shed any light on that, because its about as lit up as the sun.

[Die Neue Zeit]

R_P_A_S, before you go any further, keep in mind that there are at least five "anarchisms" out there (utopia-making, lifestylist, hooliganist, insurrectionist, class-strugglist), and only one is truly revolutionary.

Also consider this "compromise" definition of the state, but still from a Marxist perspective: the most powerful instrument of minority-class domination.

[black magick hustla]

what the hell is hooliganist anarchism

is it the whole silly antifa thing?

[R_P_A_S]

i figured that writing "communism" with quotations it will automatically mean that it wasn't REAL communism. I know communism has NEVER "sprung up" notice my wording too. "sprung up" im pretty much just denouncing THEIR "communism" that they forced on people.

[Die Neue Zeit]

what the hell is hooliganist anarchism

is it the whole silly antifa thing?

The kind that mandates throwing Molotov cocktails during class-strugglist or popular protests...

[Decolonize The Left]

or maybe to nowhere.

Have any of you read Orwell's "homage to catalonia"? I'm halfway through it and what a fucking great book that is! Don't you guys agree? I can relate to him so much. Because sometimes I too don't care much about the Politics. but just to fight against the oppression and fight for my common men and women. Once shit starts getting to the "isms" and the heavy theories, rules sprung up, procedures and all of the sudden an authority cloud forms around the ultimate ideal of a classless, profit free world.

I have read Homage to Catalonia, it is an excellent book - one of my favorites of Orwell.


To me communism seems solid, the founders, the theories and the ultimate goal... it's people like Mao, Lenin, Che and Stalin that misinterpret it. Some credit has to be given for some of these men valiant and noble efforts. Others more than others. Some really damaged it and Orwell's book I see clearly how fucked up the USSR was, how authoritative and controlling it support was for the spanish republicans and how they prevented men and women to revolt under their own merit and not the guidelines of some totalitarian "communist" elitist class that was the USSR's government.

Yes, communists and anarchists seek the same goal, and feel the same way about the current contemporary economic and social situation. They differ on how to get from capitalism to communism.


Every where in the world that "communism" sprung up, lets face it.. it was a handful of individuals with their OWN agenda, under the flag of working class liberation, classless and equality. We all know the story. they turned them selves into a class of their own, a far more superior one.

The movement towards communism has indeed been hijacked many times in the past, and there are many theories as to why this has happened.


I'll admit.. I haven't read much about anarchism. I don't know much. How come its not as "popular" than communism? I favor communism because I've seen more efforts to reach it and it seems more organized and the historical figures have been very influential.

SACT mentioned the anarchist user group, I second this recommendation.


Even on this forums there are separatist groups that can only discuss among themselves. Its like.. what the fuck are all of you really doing? getting of as to who knows more and who can sound the most intelligent?

No, many people are here to learn and refine their ideas. I started on this forum as a left-leaning reformist and through many hours of discussion and debate have greatly changed my perspective on the world.

Granted there are individuals who use this site as a social tool, or an intellectual competition, this is a byproduct of the MySpace/Facebook era and the theoretical nature of much of the discussion.


there are people out there who don't have our luxuries to sit on the internet and talk about what's best for them only because we have a lover a fair with a personality cult or an "ism" we treat as sacred divine word.

Orwell in 1937 is talking about the SAME THING we are talking about 82 years later... all the isms and the cults.. fucking sick...

Perhaps that ought to be your goal here then, getting past the 'isms'? I try and hold this line as much as possible, but inevitably one will end up disagreeing with people and it's important to talk it through.

- August

[Holden Caulfield]

is it the whole silly antifa thing?


dont be a child

[Wake Up]

R_P_A_S, before you go any further, keep in mind that there are at least five "anarchisms" out there (utopia-making, lifestylist, hooliganist, insurrectionist, class-strugglist), and only one is truly revolutionary.



I assume you mean the class struggle one after shamelessly dismissing the rest.
Pathetic.

I class myself as an anarchist without adjective as I feel calling myself an anarcho-communist is a bit of a condradiction. Having said that my anarchist ideal includes communism, I just feel that restricting the revolution to communism goes against the very idea of anarchism - even if it is the best way.

[apathy maybe]

R_P_A_S, before you go any further, keep in mind that there are at least five "anarchisms" out there (utopia-making, lifestylist, hooliganist, insurrectionist, class-strugglist), and only one is truly revolutionary.
Anarchism is a frame-work, a super-set of ideologies. There is no such thing as a single "anarchism". It is a group, based around the idea of rejection of hierarchy and oppression, and support for freedom.

As such, of course there are going to be different ideas, as to how to get there, and what freedom actually is etc.

And "utopian" anarchism is (to my mind), just as much anarchism as class war anarchism. Even if it is (to coin a phrase) "utopian" and unlikely to work.


Also consider this "compromise" definition of the state, but still from a Marxist perspective: the most powerful instrument of minority-class domination.
I quoted you in a thread in the anarchist forum on what the state is.



@R_P_A_S:
I would strongly suggest that you browse the stickied thread in Learning (http://www.revleft.com/vb/making-sense-anarchism-t6416/index.html), and if you have questions to do a search in that forum.

Also, check out What makes an anarchist... (http://www.revleft.com/vb/makes-anarchist-anarchist-t24725/index.html) which is a very good read (if I recall correctly).

[nuisance]

Yes, communists and anarchists seek the same goal, and feel the same way about the current contemporary economic and social situation. They differ on how to get from capitalism to communism.
No, anarchists and Communists don't agree on this, as anarchists seek to abolish hierarchy, and Communists don't.


I class myself as an anarchist without adjective as I feel calling myself an anarcho-communist is a bit of a condradiction. Having said that my anarchist ideal includes communism, I just feel that restricting the revolution to communism goes against the very idea of anarchism - even if it is the best way.
How is it a contradiction?
Also, as Kropotkin argued in the Collectivists wages system chapter in The Conquest of Bread, a revolution that isn't communistic, is destined to fail at completeing the social revolution.

[Bilan]

No, anarchists and Communists don't agree on this, as anarchists seek to abolish hierarchy, and Communists don't.

The abolishment of the state and class society is, realistically, very similar. The key difference is an organizational approach prior the revolution and during.

[nuisance]

The abolishment of the state and class society is, realistically, very similar. The key difference is an organizational approach prior the revolution and during.
The Communist end is still different from that of anarchist-communists, as Communists don't reject hierarchy and centralisation, therefore this is at odds with the anarchist vision.
"While both foresee the disappearance of the state, the achievement of social management of the economy, the end of class rule, and the attainment of human equality, to mention a few common goals, significant differences in ends still remain. Marxist thought has inherited a vision which looks to high development of technology with a corresponding degree of centralisation of social institutions which will continue even after the coming of the social revolution. . . . The anarchist vision sees the human scale as essential, both in the techniques which are used for production, and for the institutions which arise from the new modes of association . . . In addition, the anarchist ideal has a strong hedonistic element which has seen Germanic socialism as ascetic and Puritanical." - John Clark

[Sam_b]

The Communist end is still different from that of anarchist-communists, as Communists don't reject hierarchy and centralisation

A classless, stateless system; which somehow still has a hierarchy? Aye, that'll be right.

[Raúl Duke]

as Communists don't reject hierarchy and centralisatThey don't reject it "out of hand" but either way the goal is approximately the same; thus they do reject both to a degree. Communism is class-less and state-less.I have no problem with "high development of tech" and many here don't either.
I think that author was talking more on how both "acted up" in practice, especially about the whole ascetic/puritanical "German socialism" and the hedonism of anarchism.
I think the asceticism/puritanism of the "Germanic socialists" (if the author used this word it seems this was an old manuscript) is decreasing anyway as evident on this board the ideas of some of the Marxist-Leninist members.


as anarchists seek to abolish hierarchy, and Communists don't.Class society is a form of hierarchy that communists of all stripes want to rid of. I think the conception of this difference comes from the fact that while communists focus on economic hierarchy; since, they think, that by changing that all other forms of inequality which arises from class society will crumble down and be gone in communism. (although part of that crumbling takes place before the change of society) Thus, they are still against other froms of hierachy. Meanwhile anarchists have declared to be against hierarchy in a more abstract or absolute way.

If the communist's "communism" does not rid of inequality then who are the losers in this new society? (Besides the bourgeoisie and it's friends)


I just feel that restricting the revolution to communism goes against the very idea of anarchism - even if it is the best way. I used to be similar to you. Of course my rationale for being an anarchist without adjectives was that I didn't know anything or little about the socio-economics of communism, mutualism, etc.
The thing is...money (and units similar to it expecially if they can be stored/accumulated.), even if they are based on labor, is problematic in anarchist/socialist societies. Some argue that such economic system will lead back to capitalism (or maybe a new form of it, especially in anarchism's case).

[nuisance]

A classless, stateless system; which somehow still has a hierarchy? Aye, that'll be right.
From my quote- "Marxist thought has inherited a vision which looks to high development of technology with a corresponding degree of centralisation of social institutions which will continue even after the coming of the social revolution".
Centralisation of social institutions implies a hierarchy of some sort, unless they are freely federated, which in the Marxist sense wouldn't be so, as they would have been put together through the States apparatus, not through free agreement.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Anarchism is a frame-work, a super-set of ideologies. There is no such thing as a single "anarchism". It is a group, based around the idea of rejection of hierarchy and oppression, and support for freedom.

I know. I never said that there was only one true anarchism; I said that only one form of anarchism is revolutionary - just like "state socialism" is a large group, which includes most Marxists as well as "social-democratic" scum. Class-strugglism is something that Marxists and class-struggle anarchists have in common.




I quoted you in a thread in the anarchist forum on what the state is.

I read a Wayne Price article on Class Struggle Anarchism. Although I'm not an anarchist, I thoroughly liked what he had to say.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/07/18477717.php

[Wake Up]

No, anarchists and Communists don't agree on this, as anarchists seek to abolish hierarchy, and Communists don't.


How is it a contradiction?
Also, as Kropotkin argued in the Collectivists wages system chapter in The Conquest of Bread, a revolution that isn't communistic, is destined to fail at completeing the social revolution.

It's a contradiction in terms of freedom.

Anarchism is about total freedom of the individual, so forcing those individuals to conform with communism goes against the principle of anarchism.
If anarchists are to be true to their ideals then we must let people choose how they want to live, whether it be communistic, capitalist or even fascist. I'm certain that they will choose communist in this regard, so it's really a moot point.


However as I said, I wholeheartedly agree with anarcho-communism as I believe it's the best way forward. It's just a minor gripe really.

[bcbm]

R_P_A_S, before you go any further, keep in mind that there are at least five "anarchisms" out there (utopia-making, lifestylist, hooliganist, insurrectionist, class-strugglist), and only one is truly revolutionary.

I'd really like to see an expansion on these "five anarchisms." You know fuck-all about anarchists.

[trivas7]

What you have to understand is that the 'isms' in themselves don't count, [I]it's what they mean for the revolution.

I don't know what you mean by this. :(

[nuisance]

It's a contradiction in terms of freedom.
Not at all, anarchism is political equality and communism is economic equality. This ensures freedom for all.

Anarchism is about total freedom of the individual, so forcing those individuals to conform with communism goes against the principle of anarchism.
Anarchist-communists don't want to force communist principles onto others, thus it is down to free agreement and voluntary association that we advocate communism. In such a system people can also be self-employed, as long as they don't employ others.


If anarchists are to be true to their ideals then we must let people choose how they want to live, whether it be communistic, capitalist or even fascist. I'm certain that they will choose communist in this regard, so it's really a moot point.
Anarchists don't want power but to destory it. Therefore we don't want to forcifully push people into the society we wish to create, but believe that the working class, with the aid of anarchists, willingly imput this type of social organisation.
Also, you say for anarchists to be to true to beliefs people can do what they like, that is not really so as we don't advocate people doing anything they like, as some of these actions could have negative effects on others- which is why fascism and capitalism will always be opposed by anarchists.

[trivas7]

Not at all, anarchism is political equality and communism is economic equality. This ensures freedom for all.

For the Marxist economic equality means that workers own the means of production. What does "political equality" mean for the anarchist?


we don't advocate people doing anything they like [...]

Who or what institution in anarchist society constrains evil behavior?

[nuisance]

For the Marxist economic equality means that workers own the means of production. What does "political equality" mean for the anarchist?
That the people involved make the decisions.

[trivas7]

That the people involved make the decisions.
What exactly do they decide? How are conflicts decided and decisions enforced?

[trivas7]

To me communism seems solid, the founders, the theories and the ultimate goal... it's people like Mao, Lenin, Che and Stalin that misinterpret it.
Who in your judgment interpreted communism correctly, if anyone?

[nuisance]

What exactly do they decide? How are conflicts decided and how are decisions enforced?
What do they decide? Things that affect the community.
What do you mean by conflicts? Disagreements? Decisions would be made by votes, where a certain percentage of the votes, say 2/3 has to side with a motion for it to pass. If there are people whom conciously act in ways against rules voted by the communities, that has a negative effect on others, then the communities would take action against them in a way that they deem fit, whether that would be with militias or exclusion.

[R_P_A_S]

Who in your judgment interpreted communism correctly, if anyone?

I don't really think anyone did. I mean is supposed to be about all oppress people freeing themselves from oppression. Not about the party or about a leader.

[trivas7]

I don't really think anyone did. I mean is supposed to be about all oppress people freeing themselves from oppression. Not about the party or about a leader.
So you presume that people act spontaneously for their own benefit, without leaders or as a political body? How do you justify that POV historically?

[trivas7]

Decisions would be made by votes, where a certain percentage of the votes, say 2/3 has to side with a motion for it to pass. If there are people whom conciously act in ways against rules voted by the communities, that has a negative effect on others, then the communities would take action against them in a way that they deem fit, whether that would be with militias or exclusion.
So you're saying that there will exist a communal authority that enforces its decisions upon individuals.

[nuisance]

So you're saying that there will exist a communal authority that enforces its decisions upon individuals.
Yes, I'm not an individualist. That said, I don't like the term 'enforce' but yes, if someone actively attempts to limit peoples freedom, measures will be taken. After all anarchism is all about self-management of economic and political aspects of society.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'd really like to see an expansion on these "five anarchisms." You know fuck-all about anarchists.

1) Utopia-making: Let's go and establish some commune somewhere, a la Owen.
2) Lifestylist: Bah! Instead of that, let's make individual improvements to our personal lives in terms of living the anarchist ideal.
3) Hooliganist: Why not the status quo of throwing Molotov cocktails at protests?
4) Insurrectionist: Bah! Bomb attacks and other "propaganda of the deed" are better. THIS is real anarchism.


From p. 87 of Lars Lih's Lenin Rediscovered:


Thus, the merger narrative laid the foundation for a two-front polemical war aimed against all who defend the continued isolation of either socialism or the worker movement. The technical term within Social-Democratic discourse for the effort to keep the worker-class struggle free from socialism was Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei, "trade-unions-only-ism."

Quoting Lenin:


For the spontaneist working-class movement is tred iunionizm [yellow-trade-union reductionism], is Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei, and tred iunionizm means the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisie

Back to Lih:


A similar "Nur" term could have been coined for bomb-throwing revolutionaries who continued to think that it was a waste of time to try to propagandise and educate the worker class as a whole prior to the revolution.

5) Class-Strugglist: You four know crap about Der Arbeiterklassenkampf ("the worker class struggle"). Let's connect our positions with individual workers and workers in unions and other organizations, thereby building a revolutionary mass movement.

[Bilan]

The first three are a variation of the same thing.
Establishing a commune is hardly much different from establishing a squat ( I mean, realistically, in terms of its effects on the capitalist system, and also its practicality).
And 'chaos anarchists' tend to be lifestylists anyway, and are also, just simply not anarchists.

[freakazoid]

Yeah, because 4 doesn't believe in 5, :rolleyes:

And what is the difference between 3 and 4?

[Bilan]

Yeah, because 4 doesn't believe in 5, :rolleyes:

They do sometimes. It's not paramount to insurrectionary politics.



And what is the difference between 3 and 4?

Three would be more like punk "anarchists".

[Bilan]

I don't know what you mean by this. :(

That what those 'Isms' mean for the revolution, and for the working class, is what counts, not the name in itself.


For the Marxist economic equality means that workers own the means of production. What does "political equality" mean for the anarchist?

For the anarchist, economic equality means the ownership and self-management of production.


So you presume that people act spontaneously for their own benefit, without leaders or as a political body? How do you justify that POV historically?

In the same way you can justify the theft of the ideas of communism by Leninists and social-democrats (the latter, more socialism). Leninism has no real correct methodological approach to communism (as much they rant on about how it is), and their practical organizing negates the practical necessities of communism (not to mention the identity cult style Leninism seems to flourish ever so well in) being achieved.

[R_P_A_S]

So you presume that people act spontaneously for their own benefit, without leaders or as a political body? How do you justify that POV historically?

I'm sorry. but what's the POV?

and Second I do believe that leadership and some sort of organized body needs to lead people towards self liberation. I just don't think this "organized body" should be a political party or an individual above the revolution, or just above the working class in general.

[Lenin's Law]

Orwell's Homage to Catalonia is a good book for displaying the betrayal of Stalinism and the degeneration of the Soviet Union. Also recall however that many of the anarchist leaders betrayed the workers of Spain as well. There is no 'pure' ideology devoid of betrayal; the communist betrayal is more famous historically simply because the communist parties have been more successful.

The abhorrence of "isms" aka theories sounds good to say I suppose but when it comes to radically altering society from capitalist to socialist, and of defeating the capitalist class and preserving the gains of socialism...one does need a plan. It is a bit idealistic to go around saying "no plan, no theory! just take over man!" The reality is much different.

As has been stated previously, welcome to revolutionary left politics!