anarchy - ?????????

[Nobody]

I have a question to all you self-styled anarchists. How do plan to do it? Set it up I mean. Organize a revolution? Wait, nope that means a heiarchy, something you don't believe in. As a communist I see you both as brothers-in-arms, and as the biggest threat to the estibilishment of a communist socity. What are your thoughts, pray do tell.


(Edited by LevTrosky at 12:00 am on June 2, 2003)

[Pete]

Examine the Paris Commune and the Spanish Civil War.

EDIT: BTW, why did you post this here when anarchists are allowed in every forum?

(Edited by CrazyPete at 6:12 pm on June 1, 2003)

[Xvall]

As a communist I see you bothasa brothers-in-arms, and as the biggest threat to the estibilishment of a communist socity.

You're obviously not a very good communist, then. As any true communist would see things like Capitalism and Fascism as the biggest threat to the establishment of a communist society. It has been proven historically; anarchists are not the biggest threat to socialist and communist societies. Look at the Paris Commune. Why did that fail? Did the anarchists screw it up for everyone? No. Look at the Spanich Civil War. The anarchist were the ones helping fight against fascism. I do not understand how you can view anarchism as a threat to communism. Who fought against Ho Chi Mihn? The anarchists? Who tried to overthrow Fidel Castro? The anarchists? You are a bizzare one.

[Pete]

Who fought against Ho Chi Mihn? The anarchists? Who tried to overthrow Fidel Castro? The anarchists?


These sentences are a bit confusing, are you saying that they did or did not fight against these figures?

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 11:48 pm on June 1, 2003
Who fought against Ho Chi Mihn? The anarchists? Who tried to overthrow Fidel Castro? The anarchists?


These sentences are a bit confusing, are you saying that they did or did not fight against these figures?

Pete he was being sarcastic, he was replacing the fascist/capitalist attacks against communism with the anarchists, to make a point.

[Som]

One of these threads, they always come off so assuming, and self-assured.

Organize a revolution? Wait, nope that means a heiarchy, something you don't believe in.

Heres your first leap of logic, you assume organization and heirarchy somehow go hand in hand. Is it heirarchy if those on top have no power over those ono the bottom? Because thats generally the bottom-up principle of anarchist organization.

How do the anarchists organize a revolution? do you think they need a disciplined party to have a revolution?
The CNT-FAI was quite a huge revolutionary anarchist organization, it had 2 million members, it was a trade union.

How do plan to do it? Set it up I mean.

What a terribly vague question. Generally speaking, they don't. They have theorical economic systems, thoeretical methods of revolution and organization, but when it comes down to it, the anarchists are going to leave the revolution to those revolting. The people involved will organize their society.

As a communist I see you both as brothers-in-arms, and as the biggest threat to the estibilishment of a communist socity.

During quite a few of the supposedly communist revolutions, the anarchists were quite helpful, and were shot for it.

[Blibblob]

Interesting. If I remember right, pure Communism is Anarchy. Somebody loosing their theories? Seen to many brainless "punk" anarchists? I see Anarchy as the only true state of freedom and equality. And I see Communism as the process to reach that state. Educated Anarchy. That is what I beleive the translation of Communism is.

[Pete]

"Anarchy: Free and Willing Communism."

That is what my anarchist friends say atleast.

[Blibblob]

That makes some sense too. But I personally like educated anarchy better ;).

[Nobody]

I concede defeat. I guess I'm just angery at those G-8 rioters in Geneva. They give us all bad names. I do know that Communism, in its pure form would lead to anarchy, but am not sure if "pure" communism would work. Never has there been a true "communist" upprising, there must always be the "leader" to guide it along, which is always its downfall. The only way for "pure" communism to work would be if all of a sudden people gained morals and an education. Wait, I guess this means I'm a socialist, sigh, I must re-teach myself to believe in humanity.

[Xvall]

These sentences are a bit confusing, are you saying that they did or did not fight against these figures.

As AK stated, I was being a little sarcastic.

I concede defeat. I guess I'm just angery at those G-8 rioters in Geneva. They give us all bad names.

It is understandable. I just don't want anyone to think that anarchists in general are our 'enemy'. They may not necesarilly always be our friend because of the major diffirence. Most anachists desire the abolition of the state immediately, while we feel that such a thing would be a slow and gradual process. As I said; not all are our friends. Many (More specifically, Anarcho-Capitalists) would fight to the death against us. As I said; it's understandable. Just pointing a few things out.

[Som]

Don't even give the so called 'anarcho-capitalists' the legitimacy of the anarchist label.

They are not anarchists, anarcho-capitalism isn't even accurate, theres nothing anarcho about private police forces (PDFs), anarchy is more then just getting rid of the state.
Just anti-state capitalists, not anarchists, though they have an odd tendency to periodically grab up all the words of the left. Libertarian for instance.

I think the anarchists might be inclined to be against Leninists, considering the history of cooperating with them leading to the anarchists being shot.

[Blibblob]

Anarcho-Capitalists... LOL!!! Those morons who think Capitalism is human nature!

"Most anachists desire the abolition of the state immediately"
Could that be bececause most "Anarchists" are not Anarchists? That most are just a bunch of wannabe punk morons who disgrace the name "punk"? Anarchist-Punks who would want to make Jello Biafra shit his pants? Don't pay attention to those ersatz morons, real Anarchists would fight to the death for our cause, because it is the same as theirs.

[YKTMX]

The reason I'm against anarchy in principle is pretty simple. Anarchistm, as I understand it, means the destruction of society, and therefore, all forms of culture. The picture most anarchists paint, is of dubious pseudo-tribal communities just living out of thei lives detached from the world. Almost, stone age.

[Blibblob]

Then you have a poor understanding of Anarchism. Anarchism is the abolition of a governing body, true equality. The point is to keep those who beleive they are better from gaining power over those of weaker minds. A state when people choose what is best for all, instead of just themselves. You can't live your life in perfection, if others are dying at your doorstep. It is communism. All work together, without classes, without strict laws and regulations, total freedom and equality. Many say it is impossible. But then again "Let's be realistic and try the impossible" -Che Guevara.

[redstar2000]

I guess I'm just angery at those G-8 rioters in Geneva. They give us all bad names.

It seems to me that your anger is...misplaced, to be polite about it. Why should you feel you have "a bad name" because people struggle openly against capitalism?

Like Marx, I am delighted to see militant resistance to capitalism and feel in complete solidarity with the anti-G8 demonstrators. I am absolutely confident that the vast bulk of the violence came from the police...it always does.

That the bourgeois media sing their usual chorus of "Anarchists! Punks! Hippies! All Out to Destroy Western Civilization!" does not bother me a bit; what else would you expect them to say? That the leaders of the G8 all deserve a fair trial and a public execution???

We should never be concerned with our "good name" in the bourgeois media...even if we were "angels" they would portray us as "devils".

We should do that which we think appropriate...and, as Marx said, "never mind what others say".

Militant resistance to capitalism is always appropriate.

:cool:

[YKTMX]

I suppose it all comes down to democratic centralism in the end. A Marxist-Leninist party believes in it, Anarchists think it leads to tyranny. Pretty naive on their part really.

[Blibblob]

It seems as though they are possibly giving a bad name amongst ourselves. People's reaction to it was not well. People do not yet understand fully the reason for the violence(although some is fruitless and un-needed). And among those people, within our own ranks, they beleive that it is all bad and gain predjudces. I know, the predjuces need to be fought and removed, but for a time being it makes people afraid of the movement and they begin to back away from it. I know this can only be removed through education, but that is what this is a call for. People aren't educated enough. Many people on this website don't like anarchists, and with very little to no reason. Shouldn't we try and stop it? Make an even more open movement to destroy those predjuces? It is going slow, I, at first, beleived Anarchy to be stupid, but learned, except, it took too much time. As soon as I had learned, another one was around with the same opinions and misjudgments. What to do...

[Nobody]

Drake, thanks for the info on the various forms of anarchy. Redatar2000, I have no problem with thr militant struggle against captialism. But it needs to MEAN something. Break some windows and doors, so what? How does that further the revolution? Answer, it does not. I agree, we need to protest, but do it peacefully, signs and whatnot. This will help raise awarness to our casue. When people see a bunch of THUGS breaking windows, they are just going to write off what we believe in. The miliant struggle must wait until we have the numbers and support, until then we must educate and inform, not scare off.

(Edited by LevTrosky at 1:36 am on June 3, 2003)

[YKTMX]

Like Redstar says, what the mainstream media says, is of little to no consequence. However frustrating it is (and it certainly is sometimes). As for it giving "us" a bad image in the eyes of the public, I think this really matters little. Most people today are happy with their lot, however shitty that may be. Changing the world is not the their highest concern to say the least.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

LevTrotsky, even though we want to appease to the working class, we may have to use some not-so-appealing tactics to show our unacceptance to the oppression of capitalism. Because if the working class is truly under oppression, they will eventualy see that our demonstrations are not agaisnt them, but instead against our common enemy: the bourgeoisie. We must show the people that is is necessary, for their freedom, to not tolerate capitalism. We must show them that we are on their side, not by co-operating with the enemys' laws, but by uniting against the enemy, in order to destroy capitalism by any means necessary.

[redstar2000]

But it needs to MEAN something. Break some windows and doors, so what? How does that further the revolution? Answer, it does not.

Perhaps not. But does it hurt to see people do that? Only in the eyes of those who take their views from the bourgeois media.

I agree, we need to protest, but do it peacefully, signs and whatnot.

Most of the time, I would tend to agree with that...but since I'm not a pacifist, I don't regard that as a "sanctified" proposition. If substantial numbers of people want to go beyond non-violent protest, I'm certainly not going to condemn that out of a misplaced sense of decorum.

When people see a bunch of THUGS breaking windows, they are just going to write off what we believe in.

Frankly, I think they would anyway. That is, I don't think people who are already anti-capitalist are going to decide that "capitalism is not so bad after all" based on the violence of an anti-capitalist demonstration. People who are pro-capitalist will say we are all nihilists anyway. And people in the middle will go one way or the other depending on a whole bunch of factors, one of which will be if they are beginning to get mad enough to want to strike an angry blow against the system. I don't think for a second that anyone was ever alienated from radical politics simply on the basis of a violent demonstration.

The miliant struggle must wait until we have the numbers and support...

But the numbers are, at least to some extent, already present. If there are one or two thousand kids sufficiently angry to hit the streets in a semi-violent way, that says something...you have to be aware that there are at least five or ten kids there or elsewhere that sympathize strongly for each activist involved; the numbers begin to become significant.

What will happen if there are 5,000 or 10,000 "anarchist" kids at the next such ritual gathering of our rulers? And even larger numbers for the one after that?

It seems to me that "the time for militant struggle" is when people are ready to do it in significant numbers.

Don't get me wrong; I would very much prefer some more overt revolutionary propaganda from the anti-globalization people...and perhaps there is some that simply goes unmentioned in the bourgeois media.

But when serious numbers of people begin to actively attack the prevailing social order, who knows where it will lead?

To rebel is justified.*

:cool:

*would you believe that Mao tse-Tung said that?

[Nobody]

I remember back whe I was a wee laddie of seven. I went to the grocery store with my mom and a bunch of commies were protesting, peacefully, outside the store, about what I can't remember. They were passing out litature about what ever they were upset about. Inside was some info on communim. I became intersted in what they believed. Evautually, that led me here. Now if instead they were breaking the stores windows and throwing rocks, would I have become informed about what later became my beliefs? NO!! Instead they sough to inform average people about communism, and at a bare minimum, "converted" me to the casue. Anarchists' and Communists' time is better spent informing the population about their beliefs then throwing rocks at windows. Redstar, you mention the five or ten supporters behind every demostrator? Is it not possible that they may try their backs on their beliefs after seeing such a childish display? I belive that the only way Communism or Anarchism can come about is through revolution, on that point I agree. Until we can start THE Revolution we must be content with merly being educators and ambassators to others aboutour beliefs and ideologies.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Lev, in some cases, violent dispalyed are unjustified, but they should not be considered 'wrong' or 'useless', just because they look destructive. Like I said, appealing to the bourgeoisie, is not what they are trying to do.

[redstar2000]

I remember back when I was a wee laddie of seven. I went to the grocery store with my mom and a bunch of commies were protesting, peacefully, outside the store, about what I can't remember. They were passing out literature about what ever they were upset about. Inside was some info on communism. I became interested in what they believed. Eventually, that led me here.

Yes, and almost all of us, I suspect, began our journey the same way. The first demonstration I went to was entirely peaceful...and many of the male demonstrators actually wore coats and ties. (!) Anything like what is happening in Evian and Geneva would have scared the hell out of me.

But it wouldn't have changed me back into a pro-capitalist.

It seems to me that what is missing so far in this discussion is an understanding of the complexity of any social movement that asserts the need (directly or indirectly) for massive change...perhaps revolutionary change.

At any given point in time, a "snapshot" of such a movement is going to reveal a wide spectrum of committment and energy...from those who are "newbies" and feel "ignorant" and "hesitant" to those who are more than ready for an all-out violent insurrection...and a huge number in between.

The question is, then, should the "extremists" hold back out of deference to those who are not yet ready to go "all the way"?

There's no "automatic answer" to this question; each movement works these kinds of things out in struggle as they go along. The "moderates" and the "extremists" argue constantly and each influences the other.

It is a complicated process that, if things go well, eventually results in massive insurrection and communist revolution. It is how people evolve in that direction.

What I condemn is the attitude of some "Marxists" who fall all over each other in their eagerness to denounce "anarchist idiocy" instead of ruling class violence.

One person on this board said he hoped the police would beat up the anarchists. Another suggested that workers should be mobilized to guard the offices of the French "Socialist" Party from anarchist attacks...the French SP being a capitalist political party, of course. And yet another refers to the anarchists as "thugs"...with what implications I leave to your imagination.

Like it or not, the "anarchists" (probably more than one kind) are the, pardon the expression, vanguard of the "anti-capitalist" coalition. They are the ones that the ruling class must mobilize 10,000 or 20,000 pigs in a "ring of steel" to protect our rulers during their ceremonial gatherings.

I'm sure there are any number of Leninist sects that deeply resent the fact that the anarchists are "out in front" at this point in time, while the self-annointed "vanguard of the proletariat" is watching it all on the dummyvision and forming their opinions accordingly.

I, of course, am an "old-fashioned" Marxist...who thinks that communists do not take the side of the rulling class ever!

Shameless, ain't I?

:cool:

[Nobody]

I hate the ruling class too. As I reflected on this topic during my chem exam, I reflected back to the only riot that hit even close to home. That was the riot two years back in Cincinnati. Now, I'm not trying to say they were fighting for the same idea or anything but there are some similarities. The main is, many of the arrested rioters were not from Cincinnati! They had CAME to Cin. to loot or have a GOOD time! Often times I find that rioters come to "hotspots" just to loot and whatnot. I fear that often times these rioters don't even know what their fighting for. Of the two dozen aranchists I know, 3 have gone to WTO or G-8 meetings, and they tend to know the least about anarchy!! Funny corralation, huh.

[redstar2000]

The main is, many of the arrested rioters were not from Cincinnati! They had COME to Cin. to loot or have a GOOD time! Often times I find that rioters come to "hotspots" just to loot and whatnot. I fear that often times these rioters don't even know what they're fighting for.

I agree. I suspect it happens often.

But there's another way to look at it. Why is "looting and whatnot" considered to be a "good time" by people who apparently don't have a coherent political thought in their brains?

Could it be that they "sense" in some incoherent fashion the difference between those who have and themselves, who will never have?

But I don't think this really applies to the committed anarchists at the G8 gathering; they are not necessarily the avid "book readers" that we Marxists tend to be, but I have the feeling that many of them are pretty sophisticated politically. They seem to have an excellent eye for the strategic weaknesses of these gatherings; no matter how many cops are brought in to "maintain order", they find a way to bust things loose.

Interesting...

:cool:

It just occurred to me: if Marxists tend to hit the books and anarchists tend to hit the streets, is there a way to combine those two approaches within a unified revolutionary movement? Sort of a "pact of mutual respect" in opposition to the ruling class?

[Kapitan Andrey]

My opinion about anarcy:

I don't like it!!!

[Nobody]

Changing the subject, why is it Anarchist seem to be "active" while communist are "bookish"?

[Dirty Commie]

Quote: from LevTrosky on 4:27 pm on June 5, 2003
Changing the subject, why is it Anarchist seem to be "active" while communist are "bookish"?

I get what you mean, but often, it is the communists at protests who are the rowdy ones...but the media loves to say "anarchists" rather than communists because when they say anarchy, people panic, think society is crumbling, teenge gangs re-take the streets and a Clockwork Orang will come into play...Which is not how an anarchistic society would work if the people were properly educated...I lost my point in saying all this.

[Pete]

Quote: from Kapitan Andrey on 9:52 pm on June 4, 2003

My opinion about anarcy:

I don't like it!!!


Why not Andrey?

[YKTMX]

I do have some sympathy for anarchists in one respect. That they're ideology is actually called anarchy. It's such a distorted and mis-used words nowadays. I've sniggered more then once at worried newsreaders describing a given situation as "pure anarchy" or "anarchic".

[ShadesOfPunk]

Changing the subject, why is it Anarchist seem to be "active" while communist are "bookish"? - Levtrotsky

I can't really speak on behalf of anarchists everywhere, but my motives for participating more actively than simply marching and shouting slogans is that I feel revolution can't be acheived by sitting around and talking about when it will happen. The revolution is possible. I act and I agitiate. Perhaps I am a hopeless idealist, but it doesn't really matter. I cannot be contained or caged. This is what led me to anarchism in the first place. When I first heard the words: no gods, no masters, no slaves, I kind of fell in love.

Another thing to consider, is if you spend your life reading books, you will perhaps be educated, but will you have lived? I read, quite a bit actually. But I recognize that life is lived out there, not in books, movies or television. You know what I mean? The balance between education and action must be reached for anything to occur on a large scale.

peace.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 10:44 pm on June 1, 2003
As a communist I see you bothasa brothers-in-arms, and as the biggest threat to the estibilishment of a communist socity.

You're obviously not a very good communist, then. As any true communist would see things like Capitalism and Fascism as the biggest threat to the establishment of a communist society. It has been proven historically; anarchists are not the biggest threat to socialist and communist societies. Look at the Paris Commune. Why did that fail? Did the anarchists screw it up for everyone? No. Look at the Spanich Civil War. The anarchist were the ones helping fight against fascism. I do not understand how you can view anarchism as a threat to communism. Who fought against Ho Chi Mihn? The anarchists? Who tried to overthrow Fidel Castro? The anarchists? You are a bizzare one.


I think there are two things to be looked at here, practicle and theoritical, practicly capitalism and facism is hardest to defeat because it has lots of support, making it communisms biggest enemy, but then also if you think that anarchism just wont work practicly then you should be most scared of it because in a world with many idealists it will game lots of support because of its pure good reasoning, unlike capitalism and facism which needs propaganda and large doses of ignorance to sustain it through its poor moral substance.