Results 1 to 20 of 43
My question is this, since anarchism is society working together for the better of society where there is no govt, just one big govt of the people, and pure-communism is the exact same. Is it correct to say that Anarchists are Communists and visa versa? If I'm wrong please inform me.
Capitalism is the pimp that turned mother earth into a whore.
If you read State and Revolution by Lenin you would not have this problem.
Communists and anarchists believe in essentially the same thing only that anarchists believe anarchy can be established in 24 hours after the revolution has been won by the proletariat while the communists believe that there needs to be a transitional period (i.e. socialism) and then a gradual "withering away of the state" to the point of anarchism.
How absurd that you claim that anarchists wish to establish a classless society "within 24 hours after a revolution". It is recognised by anarchists that social revolution is a process, not an event, although it could possibly be marked by uprisings, insurrections, etc.
It would be absolutely impossible to do away with class difference and create the necessary political, social, and economic institutions that would be required for a fully voluntary, non-hierarchical society "within 24 hours".
You would be correct to say that anarchists wish to start the process to a classless society "from the start", without the creation of a state apparatus or any other hierarchical authority, and "take it from there".
As Peter Kropotkin said, "we know that an uprising can overthrow and change a government in one day, while a revolution needs three or four years of revolutionary convulsion to arrive at tangible results..."
It might even take longer. It might not.
So to answer your question again, NO, they can't be regarded as the same.
James, who will wield power during these three or four years prior to the freedom and peace achieved by these independant, sovereign local collectives? Will there be any organization? Will the guerrillas control everything for these three to four years?
There would be, of course, at the very least, a basic structure to the society. The various voluntary, non-hierarchical institutions created at the time would "wield power". There should be co-operation between these various workers' institutions, possibly through the use of syndicalist unions, or through the creation of various levels of federations.
"The guerillas" would not, and should not, control anything. Their function would be to defend from external threat, and not impose its will on people. They would be, and should be, derived from workers' collectives and not separate entities.
A revolution would face many problems, you see, including the disruption of economic activity, civil war, attempted imperialist invastion, and isolation, and it is these constraints that could undermine the development of a fully stateless, classless society.
The introduction of the classless society would come about during a (revolutionary) period "partially", depending on the circumstances at the time. The society would need time to develop and mature. Not everything will be created at once, but over time as the circumstances are overcome.
For example, an institution dedicated to having delegates from a number of local environmental groups on the issue to meet on a quarterly basis on the management of forests may not be created in the face of an external capitalist threat in this "revolutionary period". People would be dedicated to fighting off these forces before they would even bother worrying about forests, as it would seem a trivial thing to do at the time, and possibly a disastrous mistake to make.
All ideological nit-picking aside, you could go to the point of saying Communism is Anarchism.
The difference is Leninists believe a middle step is needed in between the revolution and the elimination of class and state.
Not all Communists believe that though, and the difference even with most Leninists is mostly style. We are comrades still, because they do believe in classless, stateless society. Their leaders are a different story all together though.
We're on the same side guys :P
Yes, That's what he meant, Comrade James,--- that power (and socialist process) will be in the hands of The People, within the 24 hours, so to speak, rather than turned over to a hierarchy. Right, EP?
Again, that's not what happens. Hierarchy doesn't just "disappear overnight", but we believe we should be fighting it from the beginning. It'll take years, while the revolution is ongoing.
It's a revolution of gains, guerrilla down to the society it is building. Every gain we make, we work towards a non-hierarchical society with. Every factory that is taken begins to collectivize and work towards building the revolution.
That does not mean "change overnight" <_< It means ongoing victories and a war with clear, realistic goals and objectives to be accomplished, that can show results and make people believe in the future.
An approach to conflict the US still hasn't learned, after Vietnam, that we would do well to live by.
And it can't be discounted that Anarchists are Already, RIGHT NOW, in the process of setting up these various institutions. because they don't need the hierarchial consent to act, are organizing these things now within the structures of the ruling class society. So alot of these things are already going to be in place at certain levels.
Ooops.. we posted at the same time Che-mari.
again semantics error.. EP said "when the revolution is won"
I tend to view Insurrection to Revolution, the end result, as an almost seamless process. That these ruling class institutions are being taken down and socialist institutions are being built up in it's place DURING The Struggle, i.e. NOW. I always believe the transition takes place during the struggle. Yes, a LONG struggle indeed, BUT when the Revolution is won, it pretty much is already in place. Maybe just a faint blow on a few of the reactionary institutions that remain..and some reappropriation and redistribution, but otherwise.. when the Revolution is won..IT'S WON. A clear victory. With people with places to go and resources to use. That to me is what we are doing and trying to do NOW during the struggle. We can't take away shit, without replacing it with something... NOt to say,that when it's won, it will not need to be consistently defended. Of course We can't lie back on our laurels. .
oh yeah, and I agree, that the society will mature with time and that things will be created on an as need basis.
Anyway.. I just came here to point out that EP was taken out of context.. not split hairs over theory.
But you see Valkyrie, my objection was that Edward Penishands pointed out the "communist" alternative as something viable (gradual), but ridiculed the anarchist alternative by including "within 24 hours". Why did he not also say that "communists" believe that the vanguardist state would be set up "within 24 hours" and then say it would gradually "wither away"?
The fact that he takes his definition of anarchism from a non-anarchist (the argument that State and Revolution is a semi-anarchist work is not relevant in this case) does not suggest that he has the credibility to answer such a question on anarchism. Why did he not take from an anarchist source?
Now, when I speak of the institutions to be created, I do not speak of the institutions being created now at all. I speak specifically of the various workers' collectives (workplaces in specific), and the consequent federations that should be set up. It is extremely unlikely that even a tenth of these would be set up by the time the overthrow of the state has taken place. There would have to be a rapid continuation of development of these to satisfy needs, as it is unlikely that during the attempted overthrow of the state that many will be set up. People would be too preoccupied physically fighting.
The change to a fully stateless, classless society would be the end of the revolution, and that would not happen with the smashing of the state machinery. It would be the end well after that. That is what I mean by revolution.
When Penishands spoke of revolution, he meant only the destruction of the state, which is why I objected. When you say revolution, you agree very much with his own meaning, and so you thought I misinterpreted him.
It is a matter of definition.
But my explanation of the specifics of what Penishands said should show that I did not misinterpret him. He showed contempt of the anarchist alternative.
I agree with you about the building of worker collectives and federations, and some institutions... yes, that would be an ongoing process. and dependent on regional needs and so forth. and either/ both revolutionary paths will be gradual.. But, What I'm referring to is that a successful Completion of the Overthrow of the State and the overthrow of the ruling class, is that one qualifying factor is that the basic operations of a functional society are in place, such as water, electric, transportation, natural resources, --Those basic strategical points which tells who is in control, -- the people or the opposition, -- and will HAVE to be in place and in possession of society and operating at some level of effieciency, (Yes, we can take those things) otherwise we're still in the Coup stages and society would indeed grind to a halt. The major fear against anarchism.
Not sure where else I was going with this.. But.. I agree with the points on everything else.
At the end of the day, communists and anarchists want the same thing, so we should not argue, instead we should join together. There have been too many times in history where socialists, communists, and anarchists have refused to work together, leading to fascists getting into power.
We should sort out our differences when we get into power.
Metal up your ass
Hammer & Sickle - I totally agree!!!!
Comrade James, rereading my post.. I see I went off on a small tangent and not really addressed your points at all, which I agree with in that there will be alot of post revolutionary setting up and adjusting period. I was basically referring to the strategy of parallel resources, and societies as one way of getting there and imperative that major resources are in place at the onset, post-struggle.
Still, I'm pretty sure EP was not intentionally denigrating anarchism as he was also speaking post revolution and seems to have given the quick, short answer.
anyway, everyone has their own ideas of how it might best work. I, myself, listen to them all of them, at this point.
Peace!!!
True words..
It just occurred to me that Robob8760's question was never answered. The whole topic digressed.
There is a seemingly limitless amount of different ideas and trends within anarchism, that could or could not be "the same" or compatible as "pure communism".
"Pure communism" appears to be the same as the anarcho-communist and anarcho-collectivist trends within anarchism. However, it should be noted that when speaking of "communist" and "collectivist" in anarchist terms, they have more precise meanings.
Thanks James
Capitalism is the pimp that turned mother earth into a whore.
>>>"The change to a fully stateless, classless society would be the end of the revolution, and that would not happen with the smashing of the state machinery. It would be the end well after that. That is what I mean by revolution.
When Penishands spoke of revolution, he meant only the destruction of the state, which is why I objected. When you say revolution, you agree very much with his own meaning, and so you thought I misinterpreted him.
It is a matter of definition."<<<<<
I don't want to be taken out of context either. I am going to try to be really careful in my wording here!!!! When I refer to revolution.. I am referring to the entire process.. encompassing collective conciousness to insurrection.. to the end condition of a transformed society held by the people that was previously held by the ruling class.
I agree with your first paragraph above.
The second paragraph I don't agree. Just in the fact that I believe that the people MUST be in posssession of the MEANS that keep the ruling class in power before one can even claim that a successful overthrow of the ruling class and thus the inception and the carrying out of the new society, (revolution or what ever you want to call it) would not confer any truth in that statement.
In other words... I don't believe that we are going to knock on the door of the white house and tell the ruling class at gunpoint.. that they have to leave.. because we are in possession of some weapons..
I think, (and am well aware that I'm in the minority thinking this) that The People are going to have to be in possession of these Means of the things of the ruling class,--- production, resources, economy etc.. and there will be no question as to who is now in charge of society and then.. after that.. the loose ends of setting things up will be carried out from there. How the means are to be seized is by insurrectional uprising. Not necessarily armed.. however.
that pretty much is my particular view in a nutshell in regard to both communism and anarchism. And I am sure I didn't explain it in the best of terms, still.
Enough for me on this thread.. as I try to make it a habit to avoid these types of circular arguments, because I end up being taken out of context and misinterpretated. I think Both me and Edward Penishands have been with regards to the claim that we think revolution means (only) the destruction of The State, and his use of referencing "The State and Revolution." The State and Revolution is just a scholary attempt on Lenin's part to explain certain points of Marx/Engels and does not really follow a strong premise, is quite weak, in fact, where it disagrees with anarchist theories.
APOLOGIES TO REBOB.
here are some links that might answer your questions.
http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/marxismfaq.asp
www.anarchyfaq.org
I just found a condensed version of the FAQ that is easier to read.
http://www.anarchy.be/anarchie/teksten/anarchyfaq.html
WOW cool!
So how do we go about doing this then....a communist democracy?
You tell Moses to make bricks without straw,
Now he tells you to make cities without bricks!
