A quick important question!

[Wild_Fire]

Can an Anarchist-Communist be one without being an advocate for Marxism?

[Pogue]

Yes, Anarcho-Communism is considered a non-Marxist form of communism.

[Wild_Fire]

Yes, Anarcho-Communism is considered a non-Marxist form of communism.

So I don't have to agree with what Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto exactly, to still have the Values of Communism.
That is what I have been trying to figure out in my head all day as I am new to this.

I like Anarcho-Communist theory, as it holds a very broad view of all the issues that I feel need to be addressed in shaping a new society, free from Capitalism and Market exchange etc

[ZeroNowhere]

Marx didn't agree with everything written in the Communist Manifesto, so that isn't exactly much of a necessity.
Also, what about Marxism do you reject? Though yes, of course one could be an anarcho-commie without being a Marxist.

[ernie]

Yes, Anarcho-Communism is considered a non-Marxist form of communism.
I've always thought that anarcho-communists do accept some non-Leninist Marxist theories (e.g., materialism), but they stay away from Marxist jargon. Anyway, that's the impression I've gotten from the anarcho-communists I've met.

[nuisance]

Out of interest, what parts of the manifesto do you particulary object to?

[Wild_Fire]

I think I am put off a little by Lenin's interpretations of Marx's ideas if I am honest.

I have doubts about the fundamental economics of Marx-in that any Marxist revolution has lead to state dictatorships.

How can freedom be guaranteed if a party has to lead it towards what 'people' want?

[ZeroNowhere]

I think I am put off a little by Lenin's interpretations of Marx's ideas if I am honest.
So if I summarized Lord Dunsany's 'The King of Elfland's Daughter' as 'sum guy goes 2 dreemwrld lol', then Lord Dunsany is a crappy author who writes in chatspeak?
Now, what if I then ignored Dunsany and summarized the novel with a load of shit that serves my interests? For example, 'sum guy goes 2 moon and finds god and his name is zeronowhere and he is awesome so worship him k or he will kill u!!!!'
Well, shit.


I have doubts about the fundamental economics of Marx-in that any Marxist revolution has lead to state dictatorships.
What Marxist revolutions?
Also, Marx's economics have nothing to do with what a revolution should be like, they simply explain capitalism's workings. His vision of a revolution was fundamentally libertarian, however, especially for the late Marx.


How can freedom be guaranteed if a party has to lead it towards what 'people' want?
What do you mean? 'How can freedom be guaranteed if a Party (or presumably a similar organization of socialists) has to engage in speeches, debates, handing out leaflets, etc, in order to counteract brainwashing from the bourgeois media?' Quite easily. That's probably not what you meant, however.

[Wild_Fire]

Sorry, I was quite vague in my last post.

Marx's theory of state control with the guidance of Lenin's perspective lead to a state dictatorship. Initially USSR was a socialist revolution but turned sour by October 1917 and down the path of a dictatorship state :( I think that if a communist government wishes to abuse its power, there are no checks and balances to stop them.:blink: Also no one has ever successfully implemented the Communist theory put forward by Karl Marx, so, If he was correct it would still be working right?:thumbup1:

Why do Marxist-Leninists need to revise the fundamentals of a concept that hasn't worked???:rolleyes:

I think that in my perspective, there are more classes than just the Capitalist class and the Working class.

Also I think that to advocate explicit cooperation, communication, coordination and deliberation among the masses of people(preferably in small-bodys) to help manage together all of the stuff we use/have, will be better to meet everybody's needs.

[ZeroNowhere]

Marx's theory of state control
Marx was an anarchist.


Initially USSR was a socialist revolution but turned sour by October 1917
The February revolution was certainly not socialist, the October revolution was the bourgeois revolution.


I think that if a communist government wishes to abuse its power, there are no checks and balances to stop them.
What communist government?


Also no one has ever successfully implemented the Communist theory put forward by Karl Marx, so, If he was correct it would still be working right?
Very strong argument right here. I'll file it away with the right-wing 'communism can't work, or we'd be living in it already' argument in the 'bullshit' section.


I think that in my perspective, there are more classes than just the Capitalist class and the Working class.
Since when did Marx say that those were the only two classes? The two most major classes under capitalism, though, yes.

[Wild_Fire]

Let's see... if Marx called himself a Communist, that would make Marx...a Communist.
Sure he saw his theory as a means to bring about an Anarchist Utopia but still he is a founder of Communism not Anarchism.

What was the February Revolution then if it wasn't socialist? The workers only ended up with a centralised power structure/government that lead them no where-hence the need for the second one.

The October revolution was Bourgeois, and not a workers one I agree, yes, they agreed with Lenin's Bolsheviks because he told them what they wanted to hear... Lenin touted "All power to the Soviets"- an Anarchist slogan!

He quickly set up shop, forming Communist State control through a One Party government.

Marxist theory has been tried and all it leads to is state dictatorships. So it doesn't work. If you refine it and make changes it isn't Marxism.

Marxist theory leaves out too many exceptions to be considered workable hence why the need to change fundamentals.

[ZeroNowhere]

Let's see... ummm...Marx was a Communist.
He was an anarchist and communist. So...


What was the February Revolution then if it wasn't socialist?
Anti-Tsarist. That is all.


He quickly set up shop forming state control/state government.
So it goes.


If you refine it and make changes it isn't Marxism.
Sure.


Marxist theory has been tried and all it leads to is state dictatorships.
Alright, what the hell. What does Marxist theory say about revolution?

[Wild_Fire]

When a revolution takes place under Marxist theory, it doesn't/hasn;t worked that's all.
Hence, I don't agree with Marx.

[Wild_Fire]

Look man, I don't think you need a party nor a state to control things. That's all.

NO Party and NO State!!And actually if you want to get technical, the 1917 Revolution lead to the forming of the Soviets (which is a socialist revolutionary movement).
But a provisional pro-capitalist government continued to exist-this required the second revolution.

I believe in organisation of the movement and many values you probably do, but I'm not convinced an apparatus to 'lead the workers' is necessary. If Marx captured the essence of what Capitalism truly is, wouldn't an economic theory applied to overcome it, firstly work, and not form things and values we don't want?

[ZeroNowhere]

But a provisional pro-capitalist government continued to exist-this required the second revolution.
If I remember correctly, Kerensky was part of the pro-peasant SRs. The Provisional government really didn't do much, except wait until future elections, while the October revolution greatly accelerated the move out of feudalism.


Look man, I don't think you need a party nor a state to control things. That's all.
Neither did Marx. At least, not the late Marx.
Of course, one has to understand that Marx's use of the word 'state' was different from the one used by, say, Bakunin. Marx used 'the state' to refer to the enforcement of the interests of a class. Thus, as long as the bourgeoisie still existed (that is, the revolution was not yet successful internationally), a mini-socialist (socialism is international by definition) commune, such as one of the Spanish communes, in which a revolution had already taken place would be a "workers' state".


the Soviets (which is a socialist revolutionary movement).
Not necessarily.


If Marx captured the essence of what Capitalism truly is, wouldn't an economic theory applied to overcome it, firstly work, and not form things and values we don't want?
Perhaps, we'd have to try it first.

[Wild_Fire]

You may choose to interpret Marx and my words through De Leonist lines and that's fine.

I'm saying I don't need Marx because it is unworkable and perhaps, so is De Leonist theory.

Workers have the power, so, why do they need some governmental support too?

People if they understood the reality, how any form of government is too much government, De Leonist theory would fall flat in a second.

It would have a superfluous revolutionary political party working in government for the interests of the working class when it isn't needed. :blink:

[ZeroNowhere]

You may choose to interpret Marx and my words through De Leonist lines and that's fine.

Rubel and such weren't De Leonists, however, as far as I know.


People if they understood the reality, how any form of government is too much government, De Leonist theory would fall flat in a second.
If a man governs himself, he does not do so on that principle.

[Coggeh]

You may choose to interpret Marx and my words through De Leonist lines and that's fine.

I'm saying I don't need Marx because it is unworkable and perhaps, so is De Leonist theory.

Workers have the power, so, why do they need some governmental support too?

People if they understood the reality, how any form of government is too much government, De Leonist theory would fall flat in a second.

It would have a superfluous revolutionary political party working in government for the interests of the working class when it isn't needed. :blink:
The government after the revolution would be a working class government ,i.e the dictatorship of the proletariat as we live in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie .

It would be a democratic socialist state , until the revolution spreads and we can then advance to communism which is a stateless and classless society basically anarchism just anarchists don't believe their is any necessity for the state after the revolution and it will just become bureaucratic .

Workers don't need "government support" but workers basically are the government , they organize in the form of soviets etc.

The revolutionary party doesn't work in the government for the workers their would be democratic socialism ,the workers would control the state .

[Oneironaut]

When a revolution takes place under Marxist theory, it doesn't/hasn;t worked that's all.
Hence, I don't agree with Marx.

Piss poor argument. How many attempts to fly did it take before a plane actually flew? Your argument shows very little logic.

If you are put off by Marxist-Leninism, that's great. There are communists who don't ascribe to that line, including myself. I suggest you do some research into other Marxist thought before you make such conclusions. I would read Paul Mattick and Karl Kautsky... but those are just my suggestions.

[Wild_Fire]

Cool thanks for the suggestions, I will be reading more. Like I said I'm new to this.