Grievances between Anarchists and Communists

That AND unjustified authority (they go hand in hand).

Equal in authority and rights ....

You don't know what communism is AT ALL, it has NOTHING to do with everyone getting the same. It is equality and freedom, and equality in CONTROL OVER THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND LAND, i.e. equal rights (the same way theoretically we all have equal control over the government).

Seriously, writing a long elegant philisophical paragraph, based on such ignorance about the topic just makes you look really stupid.

Slower traffic keep right.

Why not learn what we believe in before arguing against nothing.

My good man, not only do I know what "we believe in", but I could explain, argue and defend your beliefs better than most of you could yourselves.

If I am not a communist it is not because I do not understand the theory, but because I understand the theory and find it incomprehensible in practice.

I have been in and out of Revleft for over four years, and I assure you I have a very firm grasp on communist theory.

And........I have a Mao t-shirt too.

No you could'nt. Stop pretending your an enlightened philosopher.

well lets see.

No one believes in that. A communist system is about abolishing private property, and democratizing the workplace, not about everyone is equal and gets the same of everything.

Who is talking about equal pay for everyone here? Or pay at all? Communism abolishes money (at least as we know it under Capitalism).

I'll repeat EQUAL IN RIGHTS AND AUTHORITY. Not the rediculous thing your talking about, everyone getting paid the same.

your not enlightenend, your not a philosopher, you don't understand communism, and I doubt you understand capitalism either, your just a condesending asshole who is condesending about something of which he has no clue.

You are welcome to read my post history from years ago...under the screen name "Epoche", if you desire.

Right now I'm killing time and waiting to go see my probation officer, so I don't want to get involved in heavy thinking right now. I want to drink my coffee and bullshit for a few minutes, that's it.

We'll have our debates, G, so relax.

They can start with you answering my posts.

Anarchists want communism bottom-up. Marxists/Communists want communists opposed from above. Those two things are ultimately uncompatible, which is why the whole working class history speaks of conflicts between the two.

That doesn't mean I don't work with communists. Many of them are fine guys, and in general, their motives are good. The only problem is that they are so easily corrupted when a "charismatic leader" comes along. I can work with individual communists, but I try to avoid communist organisations as much as possible. That's probably another major difference: anarchists base their alliances on personal feelings, communists seem to institutionalise everything for the sake of institutionalising.

That being said, I think communists of all sorts should thank us anarchists on their bare knees for actually even be willing to work with y'all. If I check the history of the anarchist movement, I cannot help but think that the commies killed more of us than the fascists. We've been killed, tortured, emprisonned, used and tossed aside when our work was done (in both Spain and Ukraine), discredited, slandered, ...

It's also bullshit to say we could live with Marx and Lenin, but not with Stalin and the rest. It was Marx who threw us out of the International. It was Lenin who persecuted us so much that there was barely anything left for him to persecute. Communist leaders have proven to be pricks in the past. (Notable exception is perhaps Subcommandante Marcos of the Zapatistas, but he's very close to anarchism).

And I can't help but think that many over here either do not know what the fuck they're talking about or otherwise talk for the sake of talking.

Let's do it.

Strangely enough, the distribution of property to the people by the state is only different from a capitalist system in that such property cannot be used to facilitate any productive capacity, any means to produce something.

In a communist system a person still "owns" the commodities in his possession in so far as the state doesn't repossess them. With the exception of his housing and land, a person can pretty much do what they want with what they have- car, TV, stereo, toaster, lawn mower, lave lamp, etc.

So really this isn't an accurate way of describing communism- "abolishing private property". A better way would be to explain it as a system that doesn't allow anybody to own some asset that could be used in the production of a commodity or to generate some sort of profit. Such things like rental land, factories, machines that produce things that can be distributed.

Now hold that thought for a moment. Next we have determine what kind of monetary system will be used, if any at all. If there is some kind of currency, then the state will only be able to prevent large scale exploitation (by preventing the means to privately produce anything), but wouldn't be able to prevent small scale forms of mercantilism. For example, if my neighbor liked my stereo and wanted to buy it...I could sell it to him right under the nose of the state. I could also pay my neighbor to pull the weeds from my garden...right under the nose of the state. What I couldn't do, however, is amass any legal means to generate money by selling something produced by someone else on a large scale. But I could give someone five dollars to fix my lawn mower, which I paid five dollars for, and then sell the mower to my neighbor for eleven dollars and make a one dollar profit from the labor of the guy who fixed it.

If no note currency is used and something like a digital credit system is used instead, the same kind of transactions can occur on a small scale. If my neighbor is low on credits and wants a new stereo, and I have a broken mower that would cost me five credits to get fixed, I could get him to fix the mower in exchange for me buying him a stereo that costs four credits.....and save one credit in the exchange.

In order to fully prevent these little transactions a monetary system would have to be completely abolished....and that would make things extremely difficult...especially if communism employs the principle "only according to his needs".

How does a democratic system determine what someone actually needs? Does it simply respond to a persons request? Does it depend on a majority of people agreeing that a person needs such and such?

A person needs medical attention and education, surely, but does that person need a new model car, or a bigger housing facility, or two TVs, or a larger plot of land?

What if the person in question does not produce as much as his neighbor, because of a disability, while the neighbor tells the state he needs a bigger TV......does the state determine that the neighbor can have the bigger TV because he is more productive than the other guy.....and of so, the principle "each according to his need" is therefore directly proportionate to "each according to his ability". In this case, people are not technically equal, but may be treated as such....and the guy who produces more than the other guy who is disabled, but consumes as much, is going to be pissed when he is denied that bigger TV because the state can't give everyone a bigger TV.

You are making blanket statements which you don't fully understand. Both capitalism and communism are representational democracies in principle. This means as an exploited proletariat in a capitalist system you have as much authority as you would in a communism (in fact you would have less is a communism...but for other reasons) because you would be a voter. The fact that you are exploited in the capitalist system is technically only the result of you being incapable of becoming a capitalist yourself....in a society that provides the means and opportunities to do so.

That you wouldn't become a capitalist because of your principles, or because you think it is unethical is irrelevant- the opportunity to do so is not based on relative or absolute moral principles. Such things are neither here or there. The fact is you have the right to pursue your own business.

And "equal in rights" is just another blanket statement. You lack the critical analytical skills to imagine how such a principle would translate literally into a working society. You are just parroting what you read in the manifesto.

Again, what is meant by the term "equal"? And what is meant by the term "rights"?

I once was, Gacky, a long time ago. But I have discovered that philosophy is nothing more than a "house of cards", as Wittgenstein put it.

[ sigh ]

Well I've never.

Your talking to an Anarchist here, which means, I don't believe in the "distribution of property to the people by the state" I believe in the dismanteling of the state, and the Capitalist system, and the taking over of the means of production by the people. So your arguing the wrong argument, again.

See above, I'm an anarchist.

Nope, again, see Anarchist spain, thats the type of communism I'm talkin about.

First of all, like I said, I also believe in dismanteling the state along with Capitalism (they go hand in hand).

Also when you get into no private property laws the nature of productio changes, whats produced in a community is not for profit, it can't be because there are no private property laws, so the only reason to produce would be for actual wants and needs of the community. Whats the motivation for satisfying the needs of the community? Because the community is satisfying your needs. If you are good at making shoes, you'll make shoes, maybe someone else farms, maybe he does 2 things, then people produce what they need and consume what they need and if there are extras, or if they wan to produce extras, they can enjoy them as well.

There are many non hiarchal methods for doing this, councils, consensus, a type of free trade market, direct democracy, voluntary association and so on and so forth. The guy fixing stereos fixes the stereo because thats his function in society, thats what he's good at, chances are he takes pride in i too, and he also knows that the guy he's fixing it for also does what he can.

Also keep in mind that because profit motive is'nt an issue, things can be made more efficiently for the comfort of everyone, (not just those that can afford it), and also there would be less work needed to be done.

Before you point out how that could'nt work, I'd like to point out probably the only country in the world right now that is doing better economically, Norway, a country where you really don't have to work (yet it has very low unemployment, people still produce, and rather well), where work is very very laid back, and where the profit motive is very much reduced compared to the rest of the world, and where wages for "working class jobs" are very high, and where people have much more of a say over their working conditions (unions are very strong), and the walfare if extreamly generous. Guess what, the country is doing great, living standards are the best in the world.

Thats not my goal of coarse, social democracy, my goal is Anarchism, (obviously a much more extreme version of both socialism and democracy).

No, it depends whats being produced, how much of it, and what he really wants or desires.

Might there be inequalities? Sure, might there be disagreements? perhaps. does that justify Capitalism and the State? Not at all.

Again not the state, I'm an anarchism.

First of all, Capitalism is global, so you can't just take one country as an example, second of all. In the USSR, technically, anyone could become a party beurocrat, now are you going to sat that justifies the beurocracies power? I don't think so.

Would I become a capitalist if a had the chance? perhaps, then again, I might become a king if a had the chance too :P.

What I mean by equal in rights, I mean equal rights over the means of production and resources. Which means if 2 people have interests in a certain resource they must work it out, one person can't just claim rights to it, and violently oppress the other if he does'nt respect those claims.

The same way, here in America (in theory) We have an equal vote, whether or not we use it is a different thing. Its the same concept with communism.

But before you answer, remember, you are not talking to a marxist-leninist, nor a marxist. So you cannot use your cookie-cutter anti USSR arguments, nor can you tell me what I believe in and then argue against that. I'm an Anarcho-syndicalist, and a libertarian communist, so if your going to debate you have to debate against that, so stop bringing up "the state".

Oh, I didn't know that. In that case, sorry to bother you.

Anarchists are fun to hang-out and commit crimes with, but they are basically incapable of political debate....simply because their position is paradoxical.

Never before in history has an anarchist state existed as it is defined by Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Bakunin (the central theorists), and only during dissonant periods of political upheaval and disturbance has such theory come to life.

Translation: it is an impossible system (or lack thereof) conceived of in circumstances where societies were on the verge of class war.

This means that an anarchist is essentially a closet socialist, whether he knows it or not, because his contempt for monarchy and capitalism is not a contempt for politics in general....only a certain kind of politics which produce class divisions. Rather than having the intelligence to conceive of the impossibility of a social contract without law and ordinance, he resists politics at any cost and remains the antipode of government.

That and they wear spiked leather jackets and listen to the Sex Pistols.

Never has an anarchist society of the Bakunin/Kropotkin kind existed for a long time on a large scale. That doesn't mean they never existed, they were simply crushed by brutal force. That doesn't mean they don't exist now, you're just too blind to seem them. There's literally thousands of anarchist collectives, ranging from 5 to hundreds of participants. Thousands if you count in certain primitivist tribes in Africa (who are perfectly happy despite the fact that we look upon them as little more than animals. are you happy? really?)
Not to mention the fact that anarchists have been pivotal in the antiglobalist movement, the ecologist movement, the feminist movement, the open source movement, the gay and transgender rights movement, etcetera.

But yes, whatever, we're just irrelevant, aren't we?

Let's take a simple example: squatting. Clearly an anarchist strategy, since it neglects all laws in favor of your own needs. Without this strategy, millions would find themselves homeless.
Health care for illegal people, free software, we've provided people with just about everything. To say that anarchism is utopian is simply a lie. Without anarchism your world would collapse under the anger of a people.

(And just so you know: Bakunin and others were great thinkers. But their definition of what an anarchist society should look like is completely irrelevant. As they would certainly tell you themselves, if they'd still live.)

Oh no man, I didn't say that. We have a common enemy so we conspire together for power, we unite against that common enemy. The problem arises once the war is won; our definitions of what a society should be like are conflicting. Though I suspect that in the proper socialist society those anarchist tendencies would diminish....since many of the things you find contemptible would no longer exist. Then you would relax, take your leather jacket and bat utility belt off, and come out of the closet to join your comrades.

"A proper socialist society"? Anarchism has disappeared in any socialist society, proper or not. Through repression. There's been a bit too much examples of that for me to believe in proper socialism.

Ok, learn what paradoxical means, then tell me how it is paradoxical.

Not really, and psudo-philosophers like you sit in coffee shops to get noticed, wear turtlenecks and don't get laid (see we can all make unjustified generalizations).

Well the Zapatista territories came about in a time of relative peace and have lasted over 15 years doing pretty well.

How so? First of all, all revolutions come about when societies are on the verge of class war (thats what revolution is). How is it impossible?

Every Anarchist society that existed did just fine until a MILITARY FOCE (meaning guns and cannons and tanks) forcible took them down, they did'nt dissend into chaos, a strong man did'nt take over from within, production did'nt ocme to a halt, or all these other things capitalists and statists predict will happen. So please explain to me, HOW it is impossible.

How does "this" mean that an anarchist is esseitiall a closet socialist? Whats the connectio your making, there is not one.

Its not a contempt for only monarchy and Capitalism, its a contempt for all poetics, all unjustified authority.

Also had you had any knowledge of anarchism at all, you would understand that anarchism involves lots of ordinance and social contracts.

Also please explain the impossibility, instead of just saying its impossible without any proof.

Instead of just being a condesnding knuckle head saying things like "oh your just to dumb to understand this simple truth" why not give actual real reasonings, logical arguments and/or examples behind your baseless statements.

Read a history book, about almost every leninist revolution in history, and what happend to the anarchists, which clearly you hav'nt.

Also, do you know what anarcho-syndicalism is? (I suspect you don't) Read it up, then come back.

Is that the impression I gave you? You think I'm the guy who wears a pocket protector? Awesome. That's actually a compliment, sir. I've always wanted to be the studious nerd type. Instead, I turned out to be a juvenile delinquent from an abusive household, incarcerated from age twelve to sixteen, high school dropout, construction worker, convicted felon (did 171 days in county), thief, drifter, pot-head (I quit though), musician, and.....[wait for it].....revolutionary.

To summarize my philosophical position I might call myself a "Nietzschean Fundamentalist", if there is such a thing, which makes some things extraordinarily in common for us...and others...extraordinarily uncommon.

Good for you, get to my points please.

Armchair philosophers aren't the "studious nerd type". They merely make themselves sound smart with a load of bafflegab and bullshit in order to cover up the fact that they haven't got a single original thought in their heads.

Case in point.

Could you explain the entire structure of any society in one sentence?

By that logic would a rapist have his interest subjugated by the person they were attempting to rape if the would be raped successfully fought him off?