Communists vs Anarchists on Direct Action

[KurtFF8]

As the St. Paul protests turn violent and proliferate, the media is portraying all protesters as Anarchists. But for example SDS is one of the main groups involved, and from what I understand it's more of a half and half makeup of the national sds membership as of now (half anarchists half communists). Although I've also heard that there are more anarchists.

But if media portrayals are correct and the makeup is mostly anarchist, does this show that anarchists are more willing to engage in direct protest than communists in a sense? It seems that communists in America today generally focus on organizational matters and gaining membership (as most organizations until recently from the 90s had dropped, although that seems to be changing).

This is at least the conception that the media (not just corporate) seems to be putting out there, but I have seen quite a few fully red flags at the DNC and RNC. So do you all think that this is a misconception? Do communists engage in direct active protest as much as anarchists in the US in your opinion?

[Sendo]

I support direct action and identify with both Anarchists and Communists. Both are friends and allies. I think that "anarchists" sounds scarier than "socialists" in the post-Cold War days, because I've seen many of both at demos I've been to. There is some truth to what you're saying, but the anarchists definitely put on more of a show. Plus a lot of them are a little....flaky and good camera fodder.

[Plagueround]

The media portrays communists as the ones that want to take away all your freedom and give it to the state, and the anarchists as mindless hooligans who want to break everything, so they're likely just playing into those stereotypes. I think you would be hard pressed to gain any accurate information based on media portrayal.

[KurtFF8]

The media portrays communists as the ones that want to take away all your freedom and give it to the state, and the anarchists as mindless hooligans who want to break everything, so they're likely just playing into those stereotypes. I think you would be hard pressed to gain any accurate information based on media portrayal.

This is what I was thinking. It seems that the media is emphasizing anarchist because of the conception of "anarchy = chaos" deal. But the fact is, in almost every shot of a red and black flag or a blag flag that I've seen, I've also seen pictures of red flags.

Protesting and getting tear gassed doesn't fit the media stereotype of a communist for them it seems.

[Dystisis]

My experiences with the US media is that they avoid mentioning the existence of communists at all cost.

I know that in Europe, or at least in Norway, you rarely if ever hear about anarchist groups or individuals as opposed to communists who are prominent. I am not sure why it is so, probably has something to do with the extreme history against communism (ala Soviet) in the US and the capitalist class "profiting" from it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchists have always been more willing to engage in direct action. Direct action and confrontation with the state is arguable a method developed by anarchists. Communists have traditionally relied on reformist methods and forms of protest to appeal to a wider audience. Popular fronts, entryism and bourgeois electoral politics have often been associated with Marxist practice, whereas a total rejection of bourgeois politics in favour of direct community organising and resistance have been indicative of the anarchist movement. Albeit rather small.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think that is always true TAT. I think a lot of anarchists in the US and the plataformist crowd are also entryiusts. They may not call themselves like that, but they insert themselves in every bourgeois movement in order to be "active" and be "doing something". Maybe the anarchist crowd is a little more rowdy than their other entryst comrades, but thats it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Communists have traditionally relied on reformist methods and forms of protest to appeal to a wider audience.

The experiences in Russia, Germany, China, Cuba, Viet Nam, Korea, Peru, the Philippines, Laos, Mozambique, Angola, Yemen, Nepal, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Yugoslavia, etc., say otherwise.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't think that is always true TAT. I think a lot of anarchists in the US and the plataformist crowd are also entryiusts. They may not call themselves like that, but they insert themselves in every bourgeois movement in order to be "active" and be "doing something". Maybe the anarchist crowd is a little more rowdy than their other entryst comrades, but thats it.


I would contend that anarcho-leftism isn't necessarily anarchism in the same way anarcho-primitivism or lifestyle anarchism isn't.

[Red October]

I think it's fairly important that the major news outlets are even mentioning anarchists. Even if there are large anarchist or communist presences at demonstrations, they try to avoid any specific reference to it. Here in America if channels like CNN even mention anarchists, you know something big has happened.

[The Feral Underclass]

The experiences in Russia, Germany, China, Cuba, Viet Nam, Korea, Peru, the Philippines, Laos, Mozambique, Angola, Yemen, Nepal, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Yugoslavia, etc., say otherwise.

Those situations were very different to contemporary western "revolutionary" politics. Many of those situations were the consequence of colonial domination or the profound change in material conditions. But in any case, many of the communist parties leading those conflicts did rely on reformist politics to begin with.

[Organic Revolution]

Communists historically have the interest of the state in mind in there actions. Look at Russia during the revolution, the years of lead in Italy, Etc.

[Saorsa]

Communists historically have the interest of the state in mind in there actions. Look at Russia during the revolution, the years of lead in Italy, Etc.

So you're saying that by smashing and overthrowing the state in the Russian revolution, the Bolsheviks had the interests of said state in mind? :confused: Right...

[Saorsa]

Those situations were very different to contemporary western "revolutionary" politics.

Just because it's not violent doesnt mean it's not revolutionary. It's ridiculous to say that communists do less grassroots organising in the workingclass than anarchists do... if anything, we do more! The difference is that we do other things as well, such as using bourgeois elections (and bourgeois parliaments when elected) as a platform to put forward revolutionary ideas and campaign for change.

Anarchists may do more grassroots organising as a percentage of their work, but the total amount of it carried out is at best equal to that of communists, and if you take the whole world into account would be smaller, probably by a significant margin.


Many of those situations were the consequence of colonial domination or the profound change in material conditions. But in any case, many of the communist parties leading those conflicts did rely on reformist politics to begin with.

Different situations require different tactics.

Anyway, breaking windows and spitting at pigs on a protest is just self gratifying bullshit, it accomplishes nothing.

[icepick]

This is what I was thinking. It seems that the media is emphasizing anarchist because of the conception of "anarchy = chaos" deal. But the fact is, in almost every shot of a red and black flag or a blag flag that I've seen, I've also seen pictures of red flags.

You do know anarchists have been known to fly the red flag? It was the flag of the labour movement before being co-opted by the state-capitalist managerial counter-revolution in Russia.

[KurtFF8]

You do know anarchists have been known to fly the red flag? It was the flag of the labour movement before being co-opted by the state-capitalist managerial counter-revolution in Russia.

Good point, but I raised that point as I know that SDS was involved in the protests, and I know that there are a decent amount of communists in SDS (at least from what I've been told)

[bayano]

i know very very few anarchists who raise the red flag. and i tend to always see leninists and other sorts of nonanarchist marxists in direct actions.

of course, this whole topic is bandying about terms (direct action; communist; anarchist) that are always better when defined, but we'll assume we mean leninist communists. and what do we mean by direct action?

its frustrating. anarchists (just like leninists) tend to get caught up in a mythology of their labels, so that direct action, by the mouths of the news media and some anarchists alike, is an anarchist monopoly. but it never was nor is.

the Black Panthers, Young Lords, Brown Berets, FLQ, and similar groups engage in all sorts of direct action, from self defense and feeding the hungry to seizing and occupying buildings and building barricades. a pittance of them at the time considered themselves anarchist, while all three and many related movements were openly marxist and largely leninist. similarly, much of SDS and lots of similar groups were more (or openly) leninist than anarchist, and they also engaged in such actions.

the CPUSA, SWP and other groups engaged in lots of direct action in the 1930s, including organized looting of 'big box' stores by the poor.

the Wobs were far from all anarchists, and lots of direct action is carried out by people who arent leninist or anarchist at all. and all of these examples are just North American...

not to take away from the history of anarchist-led direct action, but however one defines that slogan/phrase/category, it isnt the monopoly of one label or another