Contradictions in Anarchism?

[benhur]

Dear Anarchist Comrades:)

Hope the title doesn't offend you, but I couldn't think of anything else.

I am finding it hard to reconcile certain things within anarchism. If anarchist don't believe in the state/authority/hierarchy, how do they plan to destroy it? I mean, to destroy it, the anarchists would have to be a large group on their own, and wouldn't that also create the same problem of authority, hierarchy:(, all the rest?

Second, why would the state surrender its authority at all, especially when they have the law, police, military, media, money, and pretty much everything at their disposal to wipe out the anarchists? What powerful force would actually make them renounce power? Surely, strikes and such can't convince them.:confused: At least in communism, this isn't a problem, because they believe in grabbing state power through a revolution. But since anarchists don't believe in authority, how will they replace the existing authority?

I hope someone can give some specific answers on this.:)

[F9]

We too believe that we "grab the power" through revolution.The difference is that we wont substitute one state with another, we will destroy in our way to Anarchism.
No one is going to surrender, thats why the revolution will take place!

Fuserg9:star:

[revolution inaction]

Dear Anarchist Comrades:)

Hope the title doesn't offend you, but I couldn't think of anything else.

I am finding it hard to reconcile certain things within anarchism. If anarchist don't believe in the state/authority/hierarchy, how do they plan to destroy it? I mean, to destroy it, the anarchists would have to be a large group on their own, and wouldn't that also create the same problem of authority, hierarchy:(, all the rest?

Why would it? organisation doesn't require hierarchy



Second, why would the state surrender its authority at all, especially when they have the law, police, military, media, money, and pretty much everything at their disposal to wipe out the anarchists? What powerful force would actually make them renounce power? Surely, strikes and such can't convince them.:confused: At least in communism, this isn't a problem, because they believe in grabbing state power through a revolution. But since anarchists don't believe in authority, how will they replace the existing authority?

I hope someone can give some specific answers on this.:)
What do you mean by revolution? To me it means the workers take control of the means of production. Of cause we will need to defend our control with violence, which we may begin before the state actually attacks us if it is necessary. But to take control through violence isn't in its self revolutionary.
We don't expect the state to simple give up, we intend to take control.

You sound like you think anarchist are pacifists?

[cop an Attitude]

exactlly. Most anarchist today follow a mixed communist, anarchist view. Most also beleive in a revolution too (unless their reformists). The defining point is that in a Revolution their will be no higher power, no generals or no headquarters. Every person would act independently. The major communist / anarchist orgainizations can educate others but all in all many would be acting in small groups using guerllia warfare. Communist Leninists follow the vanguard, an anthoritarian power in a revolution which would not happen in an anarchist revolution. Now this is all speculation but still interesting to talk about.

[apathy maybe]

If anarchist don't believe in the state/authority/hierarchy, how do they plan to destroy it? I mean, to destroy it, the anarchists would have to be a large group on their own, and wouldn't that also create the same problem of authority, hierarchy, all the rest?
As said above, organisation does not imply hierarchy. More to the point, destroying the government wouldn't require a large organisation, merely many small organisations.

What gives governments power is partly the fact that people obey them. If people stop obeying, then governments loose most of their power. "Freedom - I won't! (http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.htm)"


Second, why would the state surrender its authority at all, especially when they have the law, police, military, media, money, and pretty much everything at their disposal to wipe out the anarchists? What powerful force would actually make them renounce power? Surely, strikes and such can't convince them. At least in communism, this isn't a problem, because they believe in grabbing state power through a revolution. But since anarchists don't believe in authority, how will they replace the existing authority?
Anarchists don't believe in replacing authority at all. This is one of the anarchist critiques against statist Marxist types. If you require, to get rid of authority, to replace it with another, how do you ever end up in a situation without any authority? They answer "it whithers away", anarchists answer to that is "bullshit". The anarchist method is to attack authority, to decentralise and to plan for the anarchist future, from day one. (Also, they don't "grab state power", but theoretically, create a new state. Make of that what you will.)

Anyway, so how do you attack authority? You stop obeying them for a start. Then you take control of the media, you take control of the factories and farms, and distribution outlets. The army and police will be reduced due to desertions, and many of these people will bring weapons and skills, and join the attack on the institutions.

With worker control over the "means of production" (media etc. being included in this), the government and bosses have nothing left.

We don't then build a new state, because we don't need it! Having successfully had a decentralised worker lead, worker controlled revolution, why do we need to setup a new bureaucracy to govern us? Why do we even need government at that stage?

The answer of cause is that we will be well on the way to a totally free society (though it may take another generation or two to finally get rid of some issues such as racism and sexism, with the institutions that perpetuate these problems gone, the problems themselves will disappear that much quicker).

[JimmyJazz]

I mean, to destroy it, the anarchists would have to be a large group on their own, and wouldn't that also create the same problem of authority, hierarchy:(, all the rest?

Yes:

http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

(see especially the part "If it walks like a duck…")

[Bilan]

As said above, organisation does not imply hierarchy. More to the point, destroying the government wouldn't require a large organisation, merely many small organisations.

The time of bandits over throwing governments is long since passed. The conscious action of the working class against capitalism, and class itself, can only bring this about.




What gives governments power is partly the fact that people obey them. If people stop obeying, then governments loose most of their power. "Freedom - I won't! (http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.htm)"


That's not true. They just arrest/shoot/harm you/family/friends.



Anarchists don't believe in replacing authority at all. This is one of the anarchist critiques against statist Marxist types. If you require, to get rid of authority, to replace it with another, how do you ever end up in a situation without any authority? They answer "it whithers away", anarchists answer to that is "bullshit". The anarchist method is to attack authority, to decentralise and to plan for the anarchist future, from day one. (Also, they don't "grab state power", but theoretically, create a new state. Make of that what you will.)

Marxists don't say that authority whithers way, they say the state whithers away with the whithering of class structures.
Authority is another question all together.



Anyway, so how do you attack authority? You stop obeying them for a start. Then you take control of the media, you take control of the factories and farms, and distribution outlets. The army and police will be reduced due to desertions, and many of these people will bring weapons and skills, and join the attack on the institutions.

With worker control over the "means of production" (media etc. being included in this), the government and bosses have nothing left.

All of which fall broadly into class power, interestingly, synonymous with the marxist state as an organ of class rule.



We don't then build a new state, because we don't need it! Having successfully had a decentralised worker lead, worker controlled revolution, why do we need to setup a new bureaucracy to govern us? Why do we even need government at that stage?

The answer of cause is that we will be well on the way to a totally free society (though it may take another generation or two to finally get rid of some issues such as racism and sexism, with the institutions that perpetuate these problems gone, the problems themselves will disappear that much quicker).


Idealist. :blushing:

[apathy maybe]

The time of bandits over throwing governments is long since passed. The conscious action of the working class against capitalism, and class itself, can only bring this about.
You think that there will be a single organisation consisting of the majority of the working class? And you call me idealistic. There will not be one organisation, there will be many organisations. They make work together, or they make work apart, some might even work in opposition, but the fact is that there will never be a single "working class" organisation.

You're in Sydney, you've been to a "Spokescouncil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spokescouncil)" haven't you? You've seen how many organisations can still work together for a common cause.

You're also an anarchist, can't you see that to have a single organisation is dangerous to anarchist ideas of anti-hierarchy?

Oh, and I didn't mention bandits at all.

That's not true. They just arrest/shoot/harm you/family/friends.
A dead person can't obey.
They can't shoot everyone.
Eventually they run out of bullets.
Eventually the people doing the shooting starting shooting the bosses instead.
What if only the bosses can do the shooting because everyone else has said fuck off to them?

All possible answers to that.


Marxists don't say that authority whithers way, they say the state whithers away with the whithering of class structures.
Authority is another question all together.
Thank you for the correction.

Anarchists don't believe in replacing the state at all. This is one of the anarchist critiques against statist Marxist types. If you require, to get rid of the state, to replace it with another, how do you ever end up in a situation without any state? They answer "it whithers away", anarchists answer to that is "bullshit". The anarchist method is to attack the state, to decentralise and to plan for the anarchist future, from day one. (Also, they don't "grab state power", but theoretically, create a new state. Make of that what you will.)

How about that then?

As for authority, what does it mean? Is not the mere act of "revolution" authoritarian? Yeah, I don't care about that semantic debate anymore... (for those interested, do a quick search for anarchism and authority, I'm sure I remember a number of threads in Learning).

All of which fall broadly into class power, interestingly, synonymous with the marxist state as an organ of class rule.
Yeah, but I think that Marxist ideas of the state as an organ of class rule are rubbish. Like hell you can get a state that is comprised of the majority of the population, and if you are talking decentralised structures, then it hardly warrants the term "class rule", because the "class" as a whole is not ruling over anyone as such, but different groups are "ruling" over different geographical areas. You can't get the majority of the population ruling over an entire area in a centralised manner, and anything else isn't worthy of either the name "state" (no matter if you are a Marxist or not), or "rule".

Idealist. :blushing:
Yeah, and like you aren't. :rolleyes::glare::closedeyes::lol::laugh::cool:

[Bilan]

You think that there will be a single organisation consisting of the majority of the working class?

I didn't say that, I was objecting to the silly idea of it being led by a series of small groups, as you said. That's tripe.



You're also an anarchist, can't you see that to have a single organisation is dangerous to anarchist ideas of anti-hierarchy? Not really, no. A single organization doesn't necessitate hierarchy.



Oh, and I didn't mention bandits at all.
I was referring to it being led by a series of small groups.



A dead person can't obey.
They can't shoot everyone.
Eventually they run out of bullets.
Eventually the people doing the shooting starting shooting the bosses instead.
What if only the bosses can do the shooting because everyone else has said fuck off to them? That sounds more like attrition. I don't want people to die needlessly because of idealistic bullshit. Dying for the revolution is stupid, we want to live for it.



All possible answers to that. none of which actually mean anything except the last one!
hell, a boss was executed in India not long ago - is the revolution imminent because of this? no. Terorrist, bandit, and stupid actions of the like don't achieve anything.



How about that then? It negates the point that the proletarian state does not resemeble any state in history, it's, as Engels said, only kind of a state, a half-state, if you will.
It is a mechanism for class rule, in the sense that, it is working class suppressing the capitalist class - taking over industry (workers councils), defense (workers militias).
It is not replacing the bourgeois political structure with red paint, it's completely different.



Yeah, but I think that Marxist ideas of the state as an organ of class rule are rubbish. Like hell you can get a state that is comprised of the majority of the population, and if you are talking decentralised structures, then it hardly warrants the term "class rule", because the "class" as a whole is not ruling over anyone as such, but different groups are "ruling" over different geographical areas. You can't get the majority of the population ruling over an entire area in a centralised manner, and anything else isn't worthy of either the name "state" (no matter if you are a Marxist or not), or "rule". No, it does make sense, in the sense that it's the working class taking over industry completely, and reorganizing it for its own ends - it is the socialization of the economy. That is the working class suppressing, economically, the rule of the capitalists.
Through the reorganization of industry in the interests of a class, which intends to abolish itself.
It is class rule, and in this sense, it is a state. It is not a state in the traditional sense because of its complete change in nature, structure, aim, and in turn, its goal.

[apathy maybe]

I didn't say that, I was objecting to the silly idea of it being led by a series of small groups, as you said. That's tripe.
I never said led. I don't believe that there will be any leader as such.


Not really, no. A single organization doesn't necessitate hierarchy.
Of course not, however, the larger the organisation, the more likely that hierarchy will form "spontaneously".


It negates the point that the proletarian state does not resemeble any state in history, it's, as Engels said, only kind of a state, a half-state, if you will.
It is a mechanism for class rule, in the sense that, it is working class suppressing the capitalist class - taking over industry (workers councils), defense (workers militias).
It is not replacing the bourgeois political structure with red paint, it's completely different.
The proletarian "state" doesn't resemble any state in history, because it isn't a state. To call it a state (and to define "state" as "organ of class rule") is fucking stupid. But I'm not interested in that discussion in this format at this time.

My point is, that the "working class suppressing the capitalist class" organised centrally is not the working class ruling but a minority. And the same decentralised is not ruling!

Anyway, discussions about the nature of the "state" are not what this thread is about. If I ever get back to Sydney, I'll drop ya'll a line and gate crash one of your SACT meetings and diss ya'll and insult your politics. :cool:


Anyway though, theoretical differences about what the "state" is, or how to describe a future possible "revolution" are silly, we basically agree with what will happen, and how, and are arguing over definitions and meanings. (Not even tactics in this thread!)

Smash the state. :thumbup1:

[Os Cangaceiros]

I didn't say that, I was objecting to the silly idea of it being led by a series of small groups, as you said. That's tripe.

Not really, no. A single organization doesn't necessitate hierarchy.

I was referring to it being led by a series of small groups.

That sounds more like attrition. I don't want people to die needlessly because of idealistic bullshit. Dying for the revolution is stupid, we want to live for it.


none of which actually mean anything except the last one!
hell, a boss was executed in India not long ago - is the revolution imminent because of this? no. Terorrist, bandit, and stupid actions of the like don't achieve anything.

It negates the point that the proletarian state does not resemeble any state in history, it's, as Engels said, only kind of a state, a half-state, if you will.
It is a mechanism for class rule, in the sense that, it is working class suppressing the capitalist class - taking over industry (workers councils), defense (workers militias).
It is not replacing the bourgeois political structure with red paint, it's completely different.

No, it does make sense, in the sense that it's the working class taking over industry completely, and reorganizing it for its own ends - it is the socialization of the economy. That is the working class suppressing, economically, the rule of the capitalists.
Through the reorganization of industry in the interests of a class, which intends to abolish itself.
It is class rule, and in this sense, it is a state. It is not a state in the traditional sense because of its complete change in nature, structure, aim, and in turn, its goal.

All of this talk about "banditry" and Engels...am I speaking to comrade Lenin right now? :lol: