Marx an anarchist

[Communist Chris]

I have been reading Lenin's state of revolution and he quotes that some of Marx writings that the working class should through out the bourgeise and start a protalitarian(working class) government and then simply let the government dissolve. Dissolve!! Does he mean dissolve as no government at all? Is he anarchaist? Then what the fuck? He says that without any different social classes and when all are the same there should be no rule. What the fuck does he mean by this all most everything needs rule and order. Please help me out with this.

[Som]

Well yes, Anarchism is communism.

In marx's theory, after the world communist revolution happened, borders would begin to lessen, and the government would give up control, and once communism, where private property is gone completely, even from state ownership, and everyone is equal, is reached, then the state is simply unnecesary, and would natural dissolve away.

Marx is a communist, not an anarchist, the primary difference is social evolution. the capitalism -> socialism -> communism, while the anarchists favor going directly to an egalitarian society.

[ComradeJunichi]

No need to swear.

If you a communist, well a marxist, you are somewhat anarchist. And I agree with Som, Marx was not an anarchist but a Marxist. The state is no longer needed when there are no social classes, capital, etc. Once the state is created it is withering away, as Lenin put it...or was it Engels. Yeah Engels, state is made to wither away.

[RGacky3]

Marx was what I would call a evolutionary anarchist, as in eventual anarchy, unlike some that wanted anarchy strait away.

[Ian]

The last stage of Marxism, anarchism, is not nihilist by definition, there would still be a form of authority, but on a much more localised, decentralised level in a way we would not think of as authority today ie. something like a group of people in a community who form some kind of committee, who may come to a concensus decision and request everyone else follow.

[Communist Chris]

Thanks guys! This really helped me out beacuse I did not want to distortion his ideas in a stupid bourgise way like lenin said. Everybody that distorts Marx's ideas is considered a bourgeise and making that a way to make bourgeise feel right about it. Thanks again guys.

[KARL P E G]

There have been whole communities carrying out "experiments" with anarchy. Everything went well just until catastrophies of nature occured or other nations interferred. They were kind of lost because they didn`t really have a social ensurance and they werent able to organize help against floodings. Anarchy is really just a shall be vision to me. I`m hoping for an earlier step of communism to develope. Good luck to the World!

[ComradeJunichi]

Is english the second language for everyone? Or is everyone just horrible at spelling?

Anarchy can't be achieved because of the perception of man (or woman) you are thinking about. You are thinking of human in this capitalist and materialist world. Remember communism is the last stage, not the day after the fall of capitalism. Socialism is the transition stage, we will remodel the average man. One cannot be greedy if the idea is never presented to him/her. In this world where one can do better than another in say for example race, sex, and such, we cannot help but feel the greed.

[BOZG]

Everything went well just until catastrophies of nature occured or other nations interferred.

Anarchism is an internationalist movement and nothing less. It will not work or be implemented til capitalism is buried in the ground.

Personally I don't think anarchism would ever work, couse if so, everybody would have to have the same opinions, and that day will never come.

Why do you think this? Anarchy works on a majority rule of what's best to the community. As Junichi said, critics of anarchism think of the system within a materialistic, capitalist mentality. If human being are educated to know that what the people want, the people will have (not in the sense of I want a dvd player etc) but that if the majority believe this will work, then go along with it even if you don't agree. If it doesn't work suggest doing it the other way. Simple as that.

[BOZG]

Well would you be happy, if someone had 2 tvs and you only had 1? I think the majority of people would say no and what they would do, is knock politely on the theif's door ask for the tv back and if refused walk into the house and take the tv.

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from Ian Rocks on 8:01 am on Nov. 1, 2002
The last stage of Marxism, anarchism, is not nihilist by definition, there would still be a form of authority, but on a much more localized, decentralized level in a way we would not think of as authority today ie. Something like a group of people in a community who form some kind of committee, who may come to a consensus decision and request everyone else follows.

I would agree with Ian. The level of authority would be one that none of us could recognize. I doubt that we would even see it as any level of authority.

By no means however, should anybody think communism is the last evolutionary social strata for mankind. I would guess that if we jumped into a time machine and went fast forward to the future, we would see the world bouncing back and forth from Anarchy to Communism. I think Anarchy nonstates, would accidentally keep creating states then recognize the creating and then dissolve it and go back to anarchy immediately after a vote. I really doubt that we would be able to actually see them accidentally form a communist state or I should say unintentionally, only because the level would be so small, like the princess and the pea.

[Som]

redj: thats a common misconception about anarchy, the lack of authority in a certain sense.
In any given society, especially a completly egalitarian communist society, One persons rights end where another's begin.
With that, the communities, communes, organizations of whatever sort that the people have developed and participate in directly, would likely implement their own source of protection, and justice, as is decided.

But with that, crimes especially concerning theft, would be so little as the simple idea of property ownership would be almost nonexistant.

Authority is not against anarchism, Merely involuntary unaccountable authority is. A violation of your rights to life and things of that nature is an involuntary authority, and would be stopped.

[redstar2000]

It may be of interest for people to be aware that the "two-stage" theory (first socialism, then communism) is beginning to be criticized by some Marxists.

It comes from what happened in the USSR; the "lower stage" got institutionalized and no progress was ever made in moving to the higher stage.

So some are beginning to suggest that "after the revolution", we should go ahead with some aspects of "socialism" but we should ALSO begin IMMEDIATELY to introduce some features of communism. There will be no "lingering" in the socialist stage--the transition to communism must be consciously begun AT ONCE.

This idea has a lot of appeal to me...and I think it's truer to the spirit of Marx's work than the rigid two-stage theory that has dominated left thought since 1917.

[Communist Chris]

Esa Jopo! Tuanis! I think that it is true that al most everybody in a socitey will have different points of views. I think that anarchism must achived in a socitey that everybody must be the same, this is a good vision but it is practilly imposible. If anarchism is achived then it will be bothered by other countries for example the US. Like the US thinks it has the right to police the world I think that it will be picked by the US first. Also if anarchism is achived in a bad society there would be total caos.

[ComradeJunichi]

Why does everyone have to be the same? And why is everyone being the same a good vision?

Communism wouldn't occur in a 'bad society' because the state wouldn't wither away randomly. There's a reason the state exists in socialism.