Anarchism?

[Supernius]

Anarchism is the state of Baghdad at the moment.

[hazard]

although it shouldn't be. american irrespnsibility is to blame, which in turn can be blamed upon capitalism.

[Anarcho]

Actually, Nihilism is the state of Baghdad at the moment.

Which could also be blamed on Ba'ath party officials who fled the scene, concerned more for their own wealth and position than with the people under their care.

I sincerly hope the situation resolves itself soon, one way or the other.

[kylie]

i'd put the blame on former government members and foreign fundamentalists. for both its in their interest to see iraq as badly damaged as possible. former party members to make saddams regime seem better, and fundamentalists as its a way to get back at iraq for what it did during the war.
is any iraqi really going to go and tear up the local hospital?

[Blackberry]

Quote: from Supernius on 8:55 am on April 13, 2003
Anarchism is the state of Baghdad at the moment.


I'm not even going to bother pointing out what you said wrong.

Read and learn. (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/)

Oh, and what a pointless thread this is. Think of something more constructive.

[Invader Zim]

Anarchy sucks anyway. If your in anarchy, who reprears the roads, sweeps the shit, grows the crops etc etc.

[Pete]

AK, Read (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html)

[Dhul Fiqar]

Indeed. Anarchism is incredibly misunderstood, it seems everyone has an oppinion but no one knows the definition.

--- G.

[MAN with a RED face]

*from RTF.com*


What is anarchism?
Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society in which individuals freely co-operate together as equals without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchism essentially seeks to create a classless, stateless society, free of oppression and exploitation, that is organized and held together by the four principles; individual freedom, social and economic equality, free association, and mutual aid (i.e. cooperation and solidarity).


What isn't anarchism?
Anarchy does not mean chaos, crime, destruction or havoc. To the contrary, these have been the characteristics of political and economic hierarchies throughout history. One of the most common critiques of anarchism is that people "naturally" require hierarchal structures to govern society. However, every single hierarchal structure throughout history has burned to rubble. Not a single government nor empire has lasted more than a few hundred years. People have always rebelled against governments and hierarchal structures. Perhaps this is an obvious indication that people cannot sustain a natural equilibrium within society as long as hierarchy exists because as history has shown us, people will ALWAYS naturally rebel against them.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 2:32 pm on April 13, 2003
AK, Read (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html)


wow an education thanks pete.

[Wolfie]

that is organized and held together by the four principles

Please explain to me, im not sure i understand, how can you hold society together by "principles"

[MiNdGaMe]

Its simply prinicples, and morals. Its a very simple concept to understand, liberty and freedom. Its more how the revolution is organised which is complicated.

[Supernius]

Quote: from MAN with a RED face on 3:58 pm on April 13, 2003
*from RTF.com*


What is anarchism?
Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society in which individuals freely co-operate together as equals without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchism essentially seeks to create a classless, stateless society, free of oppression and exploitation, that is organized and held together by the four principles; individual freedom, social and economic equality, free association, and mutual aid (i.e. cooperation and solidarity).


What isn't anarchism?
Anarchy does not mean chaos, crime, destruction or havoc. To the contrary, these have been the characteristics of political and economic hierarchies throughout history. One of the most common critiques of anarchism is that people "naturally" require hierarchal structures to govern society. However, every single hierarchal structure throughout history has burned to rubble. Not a single government nor empire has lasted more than a few hundred years. People have always rebelled against governments and hierarchal structures. Perhaps this is an obvious indication that people cannot sustain a natural equilibrium within society as long as hierarchy exists because as history has shown us, people will ALWAYS naturally rebel against them.




Less practical than any utopia of which I can think.

A silly ideology.

[StalinLover]

Quote: from Supernius on 12:49 pm on April 14, 2003

Less practical than any utopia of which I can think.

A silly ideology.

Much more than that comrade!

http://www.marx2mao.org/Stalin/AS07.html

It is anathema to socialism, traitious virus the sucks the working class of the materialist tools necesary to achive victory...

As Comrade Stalin stated:

"Nor are we the kind of people who console themselves with the thought that the Anarchists "have no masses behind them and, therefore, are not so dangerous. " It is not who has a larger or smaller "mass " following today, but the essence of the doctrine that matters. If the "doctrine" of the Anarchists expresses the truth, then it goes without saying that it will certainly hew a path for itself and will rally the masses around itself. If, however, it is unsound and built up on a false foundation, it will not last long and will remain suspended in mid-air. But the unsoundness of anarchism must be proved.

Some people believe that Marxism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that, in the opinion of these people, it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two trends.

This is a great mistake.

We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the "doctrine" of the Anarchists from beginning to end and weigh it up thoroughly from all aspects. "

Che personally shot anarchists of the Breadmaker's Union who had allied themselves with imperialism. Good Riddance.

[redstar2000]

"We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism" -- Comrade Stalin

In Russia, they were...some of them, anyway.

As a "universal" statement, Stalin's thesis is dubious...unless you define "enemy of Marxism" to mean enemy of a particular self-appointed "vanguard party" and its assertions to be the only legitimate "Marxist" entity on the political scene.

The problem, StalinLover, is that there are many kinds of anarchists. Some really are enemies of Marxism; some are, in practice, our allies; and some are simply irrelevant to the class struggle.

Practice really is the test here. Those anarchists who resolutely fight for the liberation of the working class are acting as if they were Marxists even if they never read a single word of Marx. The record of the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain is clearly superior to that of both "Stalinists" and "Trotskyists".

Beyond that, a "struggle against anarchism", regardless of what kind of sense it made in Russia in 1921, hardly makes any sense in the current situation.

Today, the main enemy of the entire world is U.S. imperialism. Any political tendency that actively struggles against U.S. imperialism is objectively progressive, regardless of other considerations. Anarchists of varying opinions have been among the leading elements around the world in the struggle against U.S. imperialism...often much more vigorous than many so-called "communist" or "Marxist" parties.

This is not to say ever that the political views or long-range plans of any tendency cannot be criticized as appropriate. Class struggle takes place inside as well as outside the movement. And a critical mind-set is at the very heart of Marxism...nothing is "above" criticism.

It is certainly legitimate to develop a theoretical critique of this or that particular anarchist tendency...a blanket condemnation is just superficial and infantile.

Besides, as any good Marxist would freely admit, it's always possible that the anarchists might be right.

:cool:

PS: "Che shot anarchists..." I don't believe that!

(Edited by redstar2000 at 11:24 am on April 14, 2003)

[RedCeltic]

Very good post RedStar200!

You have pointed out alot of things that many seem to overlook. Expecially the fact that there are many different kinds of anarchists, and in fact no two collective is really alike as they all serve the specific needs of the group and community.

There are only a handfull of anarchists posting on che-lives.. such as Paris, som, and myself... they all beieve in working with Marxists in class struggle.

In fact in real live I know of Trots, Stalinists, and Maoists who work work alongside anarchists, as here in albany we have two rather large anarchist collectives, and one fairly new one just over in Troy. While the communists are in very small numbers.

However, I live in the United States, not in Russa. In Russa, anarchists may have worked against communists, but in the United States we have worked alongside our communist comrades for over 100years in class struggle.

[StalinLover]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 4:20 pm on April 14, 2003

PS: "Che shot anarchists..." I don't believe that!


Read up:
http://burn.ucsd.edu/~acf/org/issue47/che.html
A view from one type of anarchist. I agree it is somewhat biased, specially in talking of disdainfully of what Stalinists belive to be positive events, but it is generally true.

Now as to the point you two bring up... typical idealist stuff.

1) Anarchism, like marxism, is claimed by a variety of groups, sects, and 1-man-and-a-dog internationals. This is no surprise, in periods of reflux and capitalist/imperialist strategic offensive such atomization is common, specially where privelege allows for non-dangerous, but equally loud, paper activism.

2) Ideology, as theory, has no national implications or boundaries if it is a materialist, or tries to be a materialist ideology. Hence, an anarchist in Russia is the same as an anarchist in the USA, in strictly ideological terms. Practice might be altogether different, as the positive, but short-lived, experience of CNT participation in the Popular Front Government in Spain shows.

3) Instances of common work in class political organizations is not uncommon. But this cannot mean that there is ideological coincidence of any kind. It is just a practical desicion. The same has been done even with those outside the class as the Popular Fronts show.

4) None of that unqualifies my statement (and Comrade Stalin's) that "anarchism is an enemy of marxism" It even furthers the point.

Comrade Stalin's brilliant argument extends the previous work of Engels, as editiorialized in Lenin's seminal "State and Revolution", to move into the aspects of "modern" anarcho-syndicalist theory and practice. He analizes anarchism, and using the tools of Marxism both states and reaches the conclusion that anarchism is anathema to Marxism, and hence, a dead-end if it is to be followed. Like the USSR after Stalin, that abandoned marxism for the petty nationalism of the Detente, anarchism dresses itself in the mantle of working-class socialism, only to ultimately take the class to a dead end.

Now, let me extract the more relevant points, in my own words (as contrary to the slanders, you can be a Stalinist and think for yourself):

1) Lets define anarchism, using thier own words:

What is anarchism?
Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society in which individuals freely co-operate together as equals without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchism essentially seeks to create a classless, stateless society, free of oppression and exploitation, that is organized and held together by the four principles; individual freedom, social and economic equality, free association, and mutual aid (i.e. cooperation and solidarity).

That is the definition we will analize.

2) "Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society in which individuals freely co-operate together as equals without political, economic or social hierarchies.Anarchism essentially seeks to create a classless, stateless society, free of oppression and exploitation "

This is the goal of communism in general, and it has always been the goal of all socialists be them utopic, scientific, pre-modern, modern, marxist, pseudo-marxist, anarchist, christian, muslim etc etc etc.

But marxism, over 150 years ago, added to this definition of communism, the fact that it was to be the task of the working class to bring this about, and that in order to destroy "political, economic or social hierarchies" existing, emerging, and even NEW "political, economic or social hierarchies" were going to have to be used to eliminate themselves. It stated so not because that was the way Marx and Engels "felt" things were "supposed" to be done, but rather by studying the historical experience of humanity, and the reality and possibilities of the then emerging capitalist democracies. Anarchism, on the other hand, seldom speaks of class, and when it does, it is similary like the pseudo-marxists, not because of a deep understanding of how the working class has been endowed by history as the only class capable of transforming society, but rather as an "empiricist" stament (in the case of working class anarchists) or as a dogma (in the case of lifestyle anarchists and other such info-shop dreadlock freaks).

Anarchists, in stating the communist goal, are hence doing it not from the perspective of history, but from the perspective of the what-if, of the future and not in a deep understanding of the past and present. A highly idealist, hence anti-marxist, ideological foundation.

2) "that is organized and held together by the four principles; individual freedom, social and economic equality, free association, and mutual aid (i.e. cooperation and solidarity)."

Now, here is were the differences become even more clear. Anarchists advocate the same society marxists ultimately advocate, but they go as far as to PREDICT (was nostradamus an anarchist???) how this society will be built. Fact is, and marxists are aware of this, that PREDICTING is not an exact science, and as such, to base your politics on stone-written tablets of predictions is as idealist as it gets (and ironically, dogmatic). Could marx, who predicted russia would be the last place in europe to rise in revolution, had been so influential, had he based his method and politics on this prediction? NO! and those "marxists" who dogmatically clung to this prediction where swept aside by not one, but three revolutions, in a 12 year period, and two of them happening less than nine months after each other. Anarchists cling to their fantasies that their "principles" will be enough to mantain a collectivized, globalized, interdependent and specialized society together. Marxism, on the other hand, analizes that the development of the modern state, the modern modes of production, and the working-class in the expression of "the proletariat" create conditions for the destruction of capitalism, and for the creation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that supercedes the current dictatorship of the bourgeoise. Under this class dictatorship, conditions get created for the withering out of the state, OR (as experience after marx has shown) the re-installation of capitalism. The anarchists build their politics upon something anathema to marxism, the world of the ideas, as opposed to the world of the realities. Hence, they are our enemies. Of course, as is the case with the state-capitalist rulers in Cuba, sometimes the enemy of your enemy can be your friend. But lets not get all hippiy and lovely and pat ourselves in the back.

Anarchists are objectively counter-revolutionary, even if I could personally prefer some of them as barricade partners over some pseudo marxists any day. But my personal predilections are subjective trash, and not even a quanta in the universe of the class struggle...

Of course, the matter is more complicated and beyond the scope of this posts, but again, Comrade Stalin's article is a good starting point, and I hope my clarifications prove to be of use to the ongoing debate.

[Solzhenitsyn]

StalinLover,

The history, times, and motivations of mankind's greatest mass murderer, Josef Stalin, have repeatedly been dissected, on this board, from a variety of points of view ranging from paleo-conservative to radical-left anarchist.

That you choose to persist to utter the same tired insanities and lies hatched some 60 years ago by a man that slaughtered more people in his life than minutes you have lived does not reflect highly upon your intelligence or moral fibre.

I suggest you seek consul to correct this problem.

[StalinLover]

Quote: from Solzhenitsyn on 5:38 am on April 16, 2003
StalinLover,

The history, times, and motivations of mankind's greatest mass murderer, Josef Stalin, have repeatedly been dissected, on this board, from a variety of points of view ranging from paleo-conservative to radical-left anarchist.

That you choose to persist to utter the same tired insanities and lies hatched some 60 years ago by a man that slaughtered more people in his life than minutes you have lived does not reflect highly upon your intelligence or moral fibre.

I suggest you seek consul to correct this problem.


*yawn*

The goal of revolutionary violence is socialist peace.

What liberals and other objectively pro-capitalist "lefties" fail to see is that it is impossible to both challenge capitalism in revolutionary war (cold and otherwise) AND not be ruthless with your enemies (real or imagined). The revolution is not a bed of roses. Unfortunatelly, the capitalists and their much higher death record (which continues to grow exponentially as of today) seem to realize this much better than most of the so-called left. Thats why they laugh all the way to the bank, their wide-screen tvs and their playstations twos, while you lie in a hospital bed crying like a baby because some pig pepper sprayed you.

And of course, typical of the idealist, you think that by attacking me personally you will cover reality. Please quote from my previous message where have I lied? what of what I have said is insane?

But facts are stubborn things.

The fact remains that millions of counter-revolutionaries died in order for millions more to enjoy the spoils of state-capitalism as a step towards socialist construction. You talk of morals, but I have yet to see an example in history in which human progress was brought upon by the brand of individualistic morality you seem to expound.

Of all the debates I have been thru the years, I have yet to seen a convincing or rational explanation of how could have the USSR survived with out state-capitalism and iron discipline in the face of imperialist pressure.

Even Trotsky murdered 25,000 people in Kronstadt,

Inmoral? Maybe. Anti-imperialist? Definetely. Progress? HELL YEA!

History, of course, is always written by those who win. And your side (imperialism) has temporally won. Hopefully one day, this will change...

[Wolfie]

"Even Trotsky murdered 25,000 people in Kronstadt"

It was a revolt, people died, Trotsky didnt tell his men to murder civillians unlike Iosef. Stalin [and wetern propoganda] are the primary reasons thet gave Communism a bad name.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from AK47 on 12:33 pm on April 13, 2003
Anarchy sucks anyway. If your in anarchy, who reprears the roads, sweeps the shit, grows the crops etc etc.


Yes, but you can't trust someone for coming up for your rights and needs.

The balance lies not in total anarchy, but something very close too.

[RedCeltic]

This "StalinLover" person, seems to be yet another one example of how these Athoriterians are actually themselves counter-revolutionary. He(or she) seems to only be posting on this board to Divide the anti-capitalist movement and not help it. There is strength in working together against capitalism. However Stalinists on this board have consistently shown that they are intolerant of positions other than their own.

It is nonsense that someone comes on this board and, not only proceeds to repeat the same drone bullshit that was sewed out 60 years ago, but the very same crap that has been gone over many time over on this board, backwards and forwards.

We live in a different world than the time of Stalin. The world has changed quite a bit since then. It has changed quite a bit since the fall of the Berlin wall and the Soviet Union.

You look at the modern anti-capitalist movement today, it is not one that looks backwards to prop itself up on the failures of the past. It is one that has been given a new breath of life, hope and energy by groups like the Zapatista , the black bloc, etc.

So, go ahead and play your little internet game and shock people with your ohh so scary authoritarian presence with your nifty name of “StalinLover” (Which is kind of sick as the man is dead).

The rest of us, who are actually involved in the movement in the real world, and don’t just play dictator on the internet, know better than to divide the left at a time when the world’s only superpower is moving dangerously to the right in to the possible realms of fascism.

[redstar2000]

StalinLover, the link you posted does not actually claim that Che "shot anarchists". It asserts that he locked some up...always possible, of course, but no details are given.

And at least one detail is wrong. The link claims that Che outlawed and imprisoned Trotskyists in 1962; however I actually met Trotskyists in Cuba in 1964! They were not "happy campers" but they spoke to us freely and without apparent fear of imprisonment (there were some Trotskyists in our group who knew where to find them).

The site itself might fairly be considered one of the "enemy of Marxism" trends within the anarchist movement...portraying Che as more or less a Stalinist-Maoist thug/adventurer is not what I would consider "comradely criticism".

On the other hand, it is quite possible that "Stalinists" are the only "Marxists" they know...which to them means "arrogant, dogmatic, and, if given the opportunity, brutal".

I have had occasion in the past to meet a number of "Stalin wannabes"...and it was less than pleasant. It didn't alienate me from Marxism; but it certainly made me enormously skeptical of those who lay claim to his heritage.

====================

"...an anarchist in Russia is the same as an anarchist in the USA, in strictly ideological terms."

No, not really. A Russian anarchist circa 1917 would have been carrying a lot of baggage--nihilist, narodniki, Kropotkinist stuff--that an American anarchist of that period might never have even heard of. (The American would most likely have been a member of the Industrial Workers of the World...a formation that had no counterpart in Russia that I know of.)

And of course that says nothing about the present...where material conditions have changed enormously since the time when Stalin wrote. Indeed, the "heavy freight" of Stalin's reputation has quite possibly been more damaging to the relationship between Marxists and anarchists than anything that's part of anarchism itself.

There certainly is a crucial difference between most anarchists and most Marxists: the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marxists see it as a quasi-state apparatus that comes into temporary existence for the purpose of consolidating the power of the working class and surpressing its class enemies.

And the anarchists, unfortunately, lack a theory of the post-revolutionary state at all (which is why some of them ended up in the bourgeois government of the Spanish Republic...they didn't know what else to do).

The syndicalists are "closest" to having such a theory...that insofar as a "government" may be said to exist, it should consist of a national assembly of people elected from the work-place. It should be made up of and run directly by the working class.

This may fairly be criticized as "sloppy"...anarchists are not very "neat" and rely on spontanaity more than some Marxists feel comfortable with. But it's not "the end of the world" from a Marxist standpoint if things actually work out that way...as long as the old ruling class is effectively surpressed.

If you wish to criticize anarchism in general for lacking the intellectual rigor of Marxism, I have no problem with that. I just don't think that makes them now or necessarily in the future "the enemy".

The deeper one's understanding of the need for proletarian revolution, the better and more consistent one's practice will be...at least, that's how it "ought" to work. Yet we both know many historical examples of "learned Marxists" who, in practice, went over to the capitalist side in crucial situations.

I try to encourage my anarchist comrades to read and understand Marx and Engels...not because I wish to "convert" them in some theological sense, but because I want them to be even better revolutionaries and understand class society and class struggle even more than they do now.

I would agree that the element of philosophical idealism within anarchism is a serious weakness...idealism is always a treacherous guide to practice, especially in a class society (you recall the quote: "the ruling ideas of an epoch are the ideas of its ruling class." ).

But I don't think (nor do I think that you believe) that idealism is some all-powerful cancer--like original sin--that is unaffected by the changes in material conditions and class struggle. Young anarchists who become directly involved in class struggle learn that "ideals" are modified by the real world and the necessities of revolution. They learn to think in material terms; not all at once or overnight...but people do actually learn from experience.

Finally, I think it unhelpful in the present era to label anarchists "objectively counter-revolutionary" even if it could be clearly demonstrated to be true.

As Marxists, we should be extraordinarily cautious with that kind of language; our tasks are difficult enough without unnecessarily alienating people who are sympathetic to our long range goal. There's nothing to say that today's anarchist could not be tomorrow's Marxist...and that is far more likely than today's bourgeois liberal or social democrat becoming tomorrow's Marxist.

As a beginning, you might consider modifying your signature in a more "comradely" direction: perhaps it could read "Che would have shot some of you." :cheesy:

:cool: