Sorry to say, but your question should be how could communism/anarchy ever work, because there would be no leaders or laws in each, along with no countries.
Results 1 to 20 of 150
How would Anarchy ever even work?
So, How would Anarchy ever work? I just cant see how you could have a country with no leaders and would there be no laws what so ever?
Thanks.
In the kind words of the sweet virgin Mary.... "Capitalism sucks!"
Sorry to say, but your question should be how could communism/anarchy ever work, because there would be no leaders or laws in each, along with no countries.
There would still be structure, only it'd be nonhierarchical and bottom-up.
I don't believe in cops, bosses, or politicians. Some call that anarchism; I call it having a fucking heart that beats.
In reality, anarchism can surely work, and it has in the past (in the forms of Anarchist Spain, and the Free Territory in Ukraine, to name the two big ones). It gives the people the power and responsibilities of organizing with each other for the benefit of everyone, since everyone is a cog in a machine, and the machine needs to keep running. There's much more to it than that, of course.
There's many kinds of anarchism, but the most important ones are, in my opinion: anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism. Anarcho-communism is the one I subscribe to, because out of all the revolutionary books I've read, my desire points in its direction. If you want to really know about how anarchism(s) can work, you should read a book or two. I recommend Now and After: the ABCs of Communist Anarchism, by Alexander Berkman, because it's a good first step and he writes clearly.
It is not hard to guess who'll win a fight between ballots and bullets. - Alexander Berkman
The EZLN's tendency Zapatismo is influenced by anarchist thought as well ...
I really don't think Anarchism can work, no disrespect intended to any Anarchists here though.
I'm not very well informed regarding the CNT in Spain, but the Ukrainian Free Territory was doomed to failure. It was pretty much entirely a peasant movement with no real ambition to industrialize. Their desires were just an impossibility given the material conditions. It's easy to blame the Bolsheviks, but if they hadn't crushed Makhno, someone else would have. In my opinion, their hysteria over "statism" prevents them from acting in a pragmatic and realistic way. I really don't know too much about anarchism, but anarcho-syndicalism seems to be the most promising branch.
Also, Rosario is dead wrong. There would indeed be laws and leaders in a communist nation up until the point where communism is actually achieved from my understanding. Whether or not the state will actually "wither away;" however, is another matter entirely.
Anarchism really seems to be more of an ideal, rather than a set of working theories to achieve something. I'd be glad to be proven wrong, however.
Anarchist Communists simply desire to skip the whole "transitional worker's state" sham, eliminate all nations and governments, and move directly into Communism.
You're mistaking anarchism for chaos and lawlessness, which is - sadly - a common misperception. Anarchism and communism work towards the same end, which is the dissolution of the state and the establishment of a classless, stateless society. There would still be a necessary structure in place, but it would be built along nonhierarchical and non-authoritarian grounds. The end goals of anarchism and communism remain the same; the difference lies in how one goes about establishing it. Anarchism has accumulated a bad rap over the years, with most people associating it with chaos. It's not.
"Socialist ideas become significant only to the extent that they become rooted in the working class."
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. . .Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
SocialistWorker.org
International Socialist Review
Marxists Internet Archive
If you think that there would be leaders in a communist revolution then you must be some sort of leninist and therefor your views are so far set from marx's then, me as an anarchist, are probably closer to marx's views than your own. If your not however then you need to re look at what communism is, because the only person dead wrong here is you. There would absolutely not be leaders in a communist revolution anymore than perhaps some people would be able to accomplish more than others. And there would be no laws except for the law of the proletarians exerting their will over the bourgeoisie.
Yeah.
I don't like the idea of a vanguard party "leading" the people towards a communist society, because people can easily fuck everything up (whether on purpose or because of incompetence) if power is concentrated to a few people like it was in the USSR at times. You eliminate the old state and replace it with a new one, and a very centralized one. It doesn't seem very logical and practical to me.
Anarcho-communists want maximum decentralization, and to skip the transitional state and go straight into the classless, stateless society.
A lot of those misconceptions are because of 13-year-old kids sketching the circle-A in school textbooks and using it as an excuse to act like jackasses
As far as I see it there are two types of coercion: physical coercion, which primarily arises from the forceful control over property, and indirect coercion which arises from the scarcity of resources we depend on. We can abolish both of these forms of coercion by creating a society with vastly improved productive forces that are owned in common, then we will have a society where every people undertake is voluntary, in other words, anarchism. This is the ultimate goal of every leftist, and contrary to what comrade Hivemind said, no country, even "Anarchist Spain" is deserving of the label.
Leaders and laws only exist to mediate class antagonisms between those that own property and those that don't. In a society where there are incredibly advanced productive forces owned in common, there is no need for any of this.
That and, of course, misinformation passed down through generations through media and upbringing. It's the same as communism in terms of how it gets its bad rep. My parents are from "communist" Romania, and they honestly believe that they lived under communism. Neither of them knows what it is, yet they denounce it all the time. Many other people do. Couple that with the misinformation spread through media that "communism" is authoritarian and evil and "goes against human nature" has a true, everlasting impact on many human beings who parrot the bullshit on and on and on. This happens to Anarchism as well. They say that there's no laws or rules, just chaos, everybody killing everybody, and that a state is needed to protect society. People are too easily impressionable and they take it to heart. The only way to fix this is to show people that they don't know what either communism or anarchism is in actuality, and the misinformation slowly goes away. At least, that's the hope.
Yeah, I agree with you that the key for turning public sympathy back towards Socialism / Communism is educating people on the real principles. We, as self-professed socialists, communists, and anarchists, need to try and un-do the decades of propaganda put out by the bourgeoisie. I've spread socialist sympathies among my friends by explaining to them in a friendly (not condescending way) how daily events in their life (such as their gripes about feeling underappreciated at work and underpaid) relate to capitalism itself. None of them are self-professed socialists or anything, but I know they'd be quick to sympathize with any kind of worker's revolt or socialist movement in the US because of this. One of my friends used to be a huge individualist ... a serious "libertarian". Then he went to jail a few times. Was unemployed for an extended period of time. He's since adopted an anarchist philosophy ... although he's reluctant to adopt the label 'communist' ... he agrees with the principles.
Slowly, sentiments will change among the average people. It's my experience that class consciousness IS spreading ... slowly. We need to nurture this and educate people.
One of my managers (who I can't stand, but I'm still cordial with because she's my manager and I don't want to get fired) and I got into a quick discussion on politics today after I mentioned how I got the evil eye and some rude comments from the cashier at Barnes & Noble for buying a book containing some of Marx's short essays and letters to Engels, along with the Communist Manifesto. She goes "OH MY GOD. Why did you buy this?!" So I tell her I'm a socialist. She said on Friday we're going to have a serious political discussion when she has more time (she was leaving work for the day).
I'm looking forward to it not as a chance to prove someone wrong (I'm not a dick), but as a chance to educate someone on what Communism/Socialism and Anarchism actually are. I don't care if she still doesn't agree with me. I just want people to be informed. Sentiments will change once we've accomplished that.
Last edited by PC LOAD LETTER; 26th October 2011 at 04:11.
Aye, the only problem is if they want to open their mind and listen, or if they're too far gone to the point where they stick their fingers in their ears and yell LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! Then it's just a waste of time. I've encountered some really open minded people who listened to what I had to say, and others who were just facepalm worthy.
I wish people would stop claiming the EZLN as an example of Anarchism. Yes, they're influenced by Anarchist theory in some respect, but they're also influenced by many other Leftist ideas as well, not just Anarchism. You won't probably find a Zapatista nowadays, calling themselves a Marxist or Anarchist, you'll find them simply calling themselves Communist/Socialist, or maybe not even that, and they'll just say they're autonomous (not like the Autonomous/Operaismo, but autonomous).
The EZLN is more or less, just a collection of anti-statists, come together for an obvious fight for a Communist goal.
As for the original question on whether Anarchism, can be achieved: Yes, but like actual Communism (ie no state, no rulers, no ridiculous monetary system, etc.), has never actually been properly tested in the world. Even places like the Free Territory Ukraine and Catalonia, Spain, cannot be said to be proper examples of Anarchist theory at work. They were tests to a point in Anarchist theory, but never the complete package.
"We are free, truly free, when we don't need to rent our arms to anybody in order to be able to lift a piece of bread to our mouths."
- Ricardo Flores Magón
"I am resolved to struggle against everything and everybody."
- Emiliano Zapata
Hey, Nin. Chill out. You agreed with me. Nobody's saying the EZLN are anarchist. At least not in this thread. Why are you trippin out?
I'm sure people appreciate the elaboration on the EZLN ... but do you have to be so angry about it?
I'm not, I'm just saying I wish people would quite using the EZLN as an example of Anarchism, just because they're influenced a bit by Anarchism. They're just as equally capable as being an example of certain Marxist theories, as Anarchist ones. I'm not angry, I didn't post it to be as if I was, I just get tired of people posting the EZLN is Anarchist in some way solely.
"We are free, truly free, when we don't need to rent our arms to anybody in order to be able to lift a piece of bread to our mouths."
- Ricardo Flores Magón
"I am resolved to struggle against everything and everybody."
- Emiliano Zapata
Fair enough.
In my defense I was alluding to the legitimacy of anarchism by giving an example of a current revolutionary group that is influenced by anarchist thought.
If it were a topic questioning the legitimacy of Marxism ... or Communism / Socialism ... or indigenous rights, I'm sure the EZLN would be listed in that situation, along with a host of other groups, as evidence that they are legitimate movements and legitimate positions.
In other words, don't assume that because I said they're influenced by anarchist thought that I somehow think they are singularly influenced by anarchist thought. In other words ... Hoxha was a Marxist-Leninist ... that doesn't mean he masturbated to photos of Joseph Stalin every night. I'm sure it was only Thursday nights.
It's already working
