Anarchism your view on it.

now, my knowledge on Lenins brother is a little light, but wasnt he part of the anarchist terrorist movement(or whatever) that existed in the mid to late 1800s in russia?

after the successive failures of the terrorist movement, the idea of an organize and dedicated party came to be?

also, his brothers nom de guarre(sp?) was Lenin as well and thats where he got it.

on anarchism, i respect most anarchists so long as they are class war anarchists. they do have a revolutionary drive. i just dont think anarchism is ideologically capable of creating a organized and dedicated movement. its just bouts of rage at the system a la riots and terrorism.

anarchism predates marxism and marxism predates leninism. yes this is a sort of mechanical or linear way of looking at it but i came from anarchism to leninism. ive met many leninists who had their radical roots in anarchism. and i know many anarchists who are considering the validity of leninism. almost all anarchists agree with Marx's critique of Capitalism, just not the organizational methods of leninism. it seems Anarchism is just a stepping stone into revolutionary politics. is easier to immediately reject all authority, state institutions, and governments out of hand. but it leads to the anarchist(well the less ideologically developed anarchists like i was) to having to confront the shortcomings of its methods and its inability to connect with the goals.

Note that the use of the word anarchist is how we use terrorist today which is very different then the use of the word by us today, which is lack of goverment.

I don't know too much about the specifics of different anarchist tendencies. Do these class war anarchists think in terms of the classes as Marxists do (proletariat, bourgeoisie, etc.)? It seems to me that most of them are primarily concerned with autonomy and authority of bodies over each other, whereas we Marxists are concerned with class divisions, not these vague concepts of "authoritarianism" and whatnot. It certainly has that revolutionary spirit, I will give them that.
.

by class war anarchism i mean anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism(to an extent). i eman it to differentiate from "anarcho-capitalism" egoism/individualism, mutualism, primitivism, and racial anarchism like national anarchism.

You forgot libertarians, as they wish for no state be it nation, world or city, and wish everthing to be protected with Private Military troops. But on the subject class war, anarchist that I meet form the left wing, use Marx as much the same way as a Leninist would use Noam Chomsky. Most for anti-capitalist, they normally turn Marx ideals on there head a make the nation state the creater of the class system, instead of Marx view which is that any class system will create a nation state to protect it self. Most of thse anarchist use class warfare to justify there hate of authority.

As far as I know, Marxism is predated by a conglomeration of different utopian socialist, democratic socialist, and anarchist tendencies along with all the philosophical stuff that Marx and Engels were influenced by early in their lives. Also, Marx did provide some ideas of organization. He and Engels talked about the dictatorship of the proletariat and briefly on how it might be organized and go about doing what it needs. And I would agree with you that it is easy to just hate and reject authority.

Thats what i was refering to. The socialist movement, in its infancy, was utopian. you had the owens and the early strands of anarchism. unscientific and unrefined. then you had more refined forms of anarchism come about when scientific socialism came about. then you had a sort of merger in some areas between parts of marxism and utopianism(which is what ill say is the stuff like syndicalism) and then lenin contributed greatly to marxism.

as for offering organizational methods, you are right. marx and engels did talk about societal organization and briefly about the role of the state, but lenin offered methods for actually building and making a revolution.

thats what i mean about organizational methods. Lenin refined the party whereas anarchism has only gotten as far as simply labor organizing.

Anarchism is the economic strategy a la unions and labor movements. nothing to really offer about political consciousness or the political power of the working class. on the economic realm of its power.

Leninism is the political and economic strategy.unions/councils and political critiquing and action. participation in bourgeois politics to politically attack the capitalist system for all to see as well as economic organization to help the working class to use its class ability to stop all work.

and then you have reformists which are solely about the political arena which was dead on arrival.

We must not also forget the effect of unions during the times of there writing. At this time in history unions that stoped the factory lines, would noramlly be attacked by polices or milita forces, which lead Marx to the ideal of taking over the nation state, and the army that belongs to that nation state. Very much like how unions were able to take over a factory. With the nation States army, now becoming a worker state(i.e. dictatorship of the proletariat ) as the workers now own the army, could now stand up to bourgeoisie milita and police forces.

Also it is hard for many of us to understand what it was like to work in those times, I remeber watching the movie "Red" about the Russain revolution and was shock to find out that people were forced to work 12 hours a day for 7 days a week. Emma an anime was the close I came to understand what think were like for workers in Marx time.

Anarchism has no ideas it only wants to destroy states but offers no equality or rights. In anarchism everyone acts as he decides its the best and not all people have moral values and will abuse it ( most of the people supporting it are maniacs, criminals, rapers) So anarchism for me is chaos, only that.

Anarchism has no ideas it only wants to destroy states but offers no equality or rights. In anarchism everyone acts as he decides its the best and not all people have moral values and will abuse it ( most of the people supporting it are maniacs, criminals, rapers) So anarchism for me is chaos, only that.

wrong

Being a two phase revolutionary myself, I don't see Anarchists as reactionary, as reactionaries have the same inevitable goal of Communism that Marxism advocates, except-- They themselves don't recognize the need of a Transitional Socialist Republic, which is where they should be critiqued, however-- Anarchists are capable of playing an integral part in the founding of Special Communist Economic Zones, in which Communism is to be achieved alongside Communism.

Anarchists shouldn't be focused as being inherently reactionary as some Marxist-Leninists consider them to be-- Instead they should be directed toward the foundation of Special Communistic Economic Zones with the help of the Revolutionary State and Vanguard Party.

The first phase must the founding of the Socialist Republic in which the Working Class is redistributed the means of production and they're allowed to take control of society, where as the second phase as previously said must be the foundation of Communist Autonomous Zones that aren't apart of the Centralized Socialist Government and Anarchists can play a direct part in this.

I don't think Marx ever had a goal of destroying unions.

Without preparing the people we cannot form a stateless society. But anarchists want that. They want it in one step which will result in chaos. We have socialism where the peoples common sense is to be developed before going into communism. We still have too much rapers and hooligans for us to go in stateless society straight from capitalism.

wrong

You better offer something a bit more concrete than this FF0000.

Anarchism has no ideas it only wants to destroy states but offers no equality or rights. In anarchism everyone acts as he decides its the best and not all people have moral values and will abuse it ( most of the people supporting it are maniacs, criminals, rapers) So anarchism for me is chaos, only that.

wrong

It would seem that maniacs, criminals, rapers would have the most to gain under a anarchist system. would come after that rapist i fhtere is no state. Even unde a nation state or city state, rapist are normally killed one way or other.

I dont think anyone considers anarchism reactionary. Certain trends of anarchism like national anarchism and to some extent, primitivism, can be but not egoist anarchism or anything left of that.

Reaction is beign against progress in all degrees and also seeking to rebuild a previous social order or some mythic halcyon days.

Anarchism for the most part seeks to eliminate authority and in some cases, class difference. that isnt reactionary. obviously being an anti-authoritarian egoist can have its contradictions but it isnt reactionary.

Left-anarchists do tend to be thoughtful, earnest and genuinely concerned with eradicating capitalism.

They follow a utopian socialism which lacks the insight of a historical materialist analysis.

I agree with the basic consensus here - anarchist-socialists/communists are essentially utopians. Because of this, what theory they have is inconsistent (ex. is anyone really concerned with the liberty of murderers, rapists, or capitalists? Quite the contrary - and that includes the Anarchists themselves.)

I don't hate them, I just see them as heavily misguided.

Similiar to Trotskyists though they seem fairly deluded and don't like to admit that even Trotsky admits to violating party discipline as established during the 10th Party Congress about political factions. It seemed the longer Trotsky remained in exile the more and more his ideas slide into Utopianism as he basically claims everything can be fixed by decentralization which goes against most of his theories while apart of the Bolsheviks not that Trotskyists will admit that.

Indeed

Similiar to Trotskyists though they seem fairly deluded and don't like to admit that even Trotsky admits to violating party discipline as established during the 10th Party Congress about political factions. It seemed the longer Trotsky remained in exile the more and more his ideas slide into Utopianism as he basically claims everything can be fixed by decentralization which goes against most of his theories while apart of the Bolsheviks not that Trotskyists will admit that.

I find that more trotskyists are idealist, while more anarchist are utopian in there view. Most of the debate that I have with Trotsky have some world where one can live on there ideals alone. While most anarchist clame that we can live in a world without war if we destroy the state.

Trotskyists annoy me. My experiences with them have lead me to see that they are no less "authoritarian" than Stalin-supporters. They just wish Trotsky could have been the dictator instead of Stalin, as if he would have cleared everything up more or something. I think it's a stupid trend trapped in the past. I also don't see any amazingly different and unique theories coming out of them. They seem to just be pissed that Trotsky didn't get power.

wrong

Who let the anarchist in?

Maybe you can tell us why we are wrong, though? Because just saying ''wrong'' isn't a valid refutation.

Who let the anarchist in?

Maybe you can tell us why we are wrong, though? Because just saying ''wrong'' isn't a valid refutation.

Ironically #FF0000's wholly inadequate post sort of sums up MaximMK's post (which #FF0000 was attempting (poorly) to refute), particularly here;

Anarchism has no ideas

The lack of elaboration on #FF0000's part demonstrates this.

Ironically #FF0000's wholly inadequate post sort of sums up MaximMK's post (which #FF0000 was attempting (poorly) to refute), particularly here;



The lack of elaboration on #FF0000's part demonstrates this.

Well observed, my friend.

Well observed, my friend.

w00t w00t

Anarchism can be seen as a form idealist socialism. I also think it can be seen as a limited world view. Anarchists have the same end goal and the same enemy as us, same God and Devil, if you will, but they have far less in the middle.

Marxists study the complexities of class relations. Compare the Manifesto to something like the Wobblies' membership guidelines, rather simplistic--anyone without the power to hire and fire. Likewise, their view of history, even when not riddled with liberal lies and misinformation, has a binary classification. They rightly identify the USSR as not having achieved a classless and stateless society of abundance and point to that as a fault, but are unable to see that for its faults, the USSR was a net good because it improved the lives of Russians, Asians, Europeans, and Third-Worlders (in the economic, not 3-World-Theory sense). For the time and conditions, it was amazing. They get too hung up on the civil liberties too sometimes. Make no bones about it, though, the USA had only marginally freer freedom of the press and that was only available to those who owned a press. Additionally, now that the 99% are waking up and actually present a threat, the bourgeois states are identifying which forms of expression are bad and cracking down on them.

I would generally agree that most anarchist trends are idealistic. Their constant attacks of anything "authoritarian" and saying dictators and tyrants are the sole problems are ridiculous. The entire world is under one dictatorship or the other at this point. We communists want a dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, the opposite of the current state of affairs: the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat. Our analysis and solutions are class based, not solely power based.

Anarchists are quite hypocritical in that they attack dictatorships and force, yet they want to win their revolution...and force anarchism on everyone else. They want to dictate anarchism to the masses. They really want a dictatorship of the anarchists over everyone else, they just try to phrase things differently.