Grievances between Anarchists and Communists

Good, good. Let's work with that.

Would you agree that your objection here can be translated into different terms if I could reasonably convince you? I think I can.

Ultimately your objection, stripped down to its bare essentials, is that there is a person/class that is profiting from your labor....a profit that you do not get yourself. We can bypass the concept of "money" completely here and equate "profit" with "commodity consumption", since a capitalist's money inevitably becomes a consumable commodity in that he too buys things with that money. Now your argument becomes: I do not want to support the consumption habits of another person with my labor. The basis of your argument is that a capitalist does not labor himself....but has the opportunity to use commodities through the medium of money...which he makes from exploiting workers.

So far so good. Your argument is stripped down to its main point of objection.

Now I ask you: what is the fundamental difference between being exploited by a capitalist class and equalized to others in a working class that might not produce as much as yourself?

Here the same objection should occur, because still you are creating the privilege for others who are not laboring as much as yourself to consume as much as yourself or more, without having provided the same amount of labor.

If you work X amount of hours and produce Y amount of commodities, while another person works X amount of hours and produces Z amount of commodities, and the maximum allowance of commodity possession for a worker allowed by the state is W, then the worker who produces Z amount of commodities is equal to the worker who produces Y amount of commodities, and both get Z amount of commodities to consume despite the amount of labor they invest in production.

What is the difference between working for a capitalist who consumes as much or more than yourself by using the money he makes from your labor to buy commodities, and working with and beside another worker who consumes as much or more than yourself while working less?

The "other worker" is synonymous to the "capitalist" here.

The only difference between these two conditions is that in the former...you have the opportunity to make a higher wage, and therefore consume more, while in the latter you do not have the opportunity to make a higher wage or consume more without the permission of the state.

Suddenly, the capitalist system becomes the superior system for the proletariat who is better skilled than another proletariat.

If you look closely at what I have just shown you, you will see that your objection is not resolved by communism but instead is worsened.

Dare I say that the real solution to this problem is to both preserve the integrity of the better skilled worker and his right to be rewarded according to his own personal effort....and eliminate the possibility of a single person profiting from the labor of another person while not laboring himself?

Perhaps this can be done by state controlled corporations, which retain the right to subordinate a corporation at any time to be used for the advantage of the entire society? Intervals of redistribution of the wealth of corporations, and/or increased taxing for corporations while decreased taxing for the working classes? Free education and medical care for everyone. Free mandatory housing. All of this funded by the taxes paid by corporations.

Is it all coming together for you now? Do you see it and say "aha!"?

The incentive remains for everyone- working classes are enthusiastic about their work because they know they can progress, and corporations are put in "check" by the state so they do not mutate into supercapitalist structures.

In a communist system everyone is leveled, equalized, turned into a drone. In a capitalist system the majority gets fucked. In this system......well, what would we call such a system?

[ crosses fingers ]

They backstabbed us in Spain.

They backstabbed us in Ukraine.

They will work with us until they find a way to undermine us, which is why proud sectarians like me don't work with them.

My issue with anarchism is just this: You "Smash the State." Okay, if there is no centralization of anything, you're going to have a big fucking war. If there's no centralization of power to command the military for defense, to make decisions, or at least carry them out, and things like that... Dear God, comrade! How can we just be thrust from a stated society into "just getting along?" The worker's state is necessary. It has formed into dictatorships in the past, but it's a "necessary evil."

H&S forever,
-PC

You're going to get the shit flamed out of you for this, y'nkow?

We don't just plan to get rid of the state and leave everything be. Read this before you make assumptions about anarchism: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist...quest/toc.html

What makes a workers state any different than a bourgeois state? Why must I submit to the authority of another that I do not fully consent to? What is to stop our oh so wonderful rulers from abandoning socialism and going the path of China, or even Cambodia?

If you base your economy on centralization, how is it supposed to function in Communism (that is, if a state could ever bring us there), where there will have to be decentralization?

Because expropriation of the expropriators requires the subjugation of the interests of one class to another. Which, presumably, would mean the capitalist class 'submitting to the authority of another that one does not fully consent to'. I would presume that you do not see a revolution any differently. As for what makes the class rule of the proletariat any different from that of the bourgeoisie, I would expect that to be fairly self-evident.

Really? My reaction was TL;DR.

Nah. The commies don't want none.

[ draws a line in the sand ]

It is not repression of the (former) bourgeoisie any more than a national liberation struggle is repression of the colonizing nation. It is rather liberation, the bourgeoisie will be ousted from their positions, and will be repressed only if they attempt resistance.

they are very different people anarchist don't like ANY type of government a communist style government sounds good at first but like a democratic one it can be easily corrupted, anarchist are scared that said communist government can turn totalitarianistic because simply they never promise they are not going to. it doesn't help that the government structure reserves the right to take resources from the people to suit their needs (war, giving luxuries to officials, or just common theft)

the fact that the first critic of the USSR was an anarchist (Emma Goldman)

Someone may find this useful -- marxists.org : index of documents related to the conflict between Marx and Bakunin ... http://marxists.org/history/internat...n-conflict.htm

But (I think) that index omits an important one, Marx's "Conspectus of Bakunin's' State and Anarchy'" - http://marxists.org/archive/marx/wor...unin-notes.htm

It is subjugation of the interests of the existing bourgeoisie to dispossess them. Of course we don't repress the 'former bourgeoisie', that's not a class.

I'm fairly sure that the SPGB also got around pretty early, though they're also anarchist. I'd also give the Mensheviks credit here.

Last I recall, anarchists don't really mind self-government. Anyways, the USSR was not communist, it was capitalist, a 'communist state' is an oxymoron, etc.

Libcom has the full thing, while the MIA only has an extract, but that's really the most important part of it, since the rest is mainly just copying down Bakunin (to learn Russian or something, if I recall correctly. Writing down how much you apparently suck is apparently a great way to learn a language).

Aren't they Marxists?I may be wrong, but last time I checked their site, I think I saw somewhere that they consider themselves as true Marxists (unlike Leninists) and that they promote Historical Materialism.Their principles may be considered anarchistic, but I think that's only because they have correct approach to Marxism, not because they are actually anarcists.Also they call their organization party and participate in elections, wouldn't they, if they were anarchist, rather call it federation(or something similar) and abstain?

Yes.

I generally don't see the use of the ballot as being incompatible with anarchism, at least if used as a destructive force (which most of them would support, I believe). On the other hand, they're not Leninists, Blanquists, Bordigists, and the like, they're certainly against the Church, they're against the schooling system, judging from articles in the Socialist Standard, and, of course, are against capital and the state. They're closer to Kropotkin than Marx on post-revolutionary society.

You are right.But I think that's only because of their stance against labour vouchers, everything else they advocate goes quite well with Marxism.Personally, I don't agree with them, but that's only because I don't consider this the right moment to make such decision.When(If) socialism is established society will best decide whether some sort of rationing is needed or not, right now I think it's too early to tell.Although, with the way technology advances all the time, I can see why they have such attitude.

Sure, I don't agree with them on that either. Still, I don't really see Marxism and anarchism as having any necessary distinction.

I thank you, comrade, for the link, but I'm not reading 10+ chapters of book just to find out how anarchists model their government when you could simply explain it in a sentence or two. No offense, I guess I'm just lazy. ;)

What's TL;DR mean?

USSR wasn't socialist after Lenin. Stal was totalitarian, and then the reformists fucked everything all the way back to capitalism! Lenin would have cried. Poor man, he died watching his country fall to hellfire. It's sad.

H&S forever,
-PC

It stands for Too Long; Didn't Read.

Oh. I get that reaction a lot. :D

-PC

Why? It was Lenin's regime not Stalin's who first outlawed the anarchist press, imprisoned and murdered anarchists. Is that 'socialism'?