[fuser]

Bolshevism was just one small part of communism. There's no reason to think that every revolution will be exact replica of 1917.

The means of production remain in the hands of a small group, a "ruling class", it is only through the abolition of authority that true emancipation can occur.

Of course we agree but its wishful thinking that proletarians can survive one day by giving up power just like that. This is not perfect but its much better as this "select group" is working for proletarian interest rather than bourgeoisie interest.

Announcing this stated intention openly has never been a particularly great method for building middle class support, Fuser.

TCR covered it but I don't think above was for consumption of this middle class, obviously our propaganda directed to them will tell an entirely different story.

But you are just as authoritarian as the far right.

It doesn't really matter, we can be more authoritarian and less it all depends on the condition of the revolution.

You cannot wish to liberate the proletariat by structural division. The state needs to go, let go of it, it does nothing but oppress

Yes and this oppression is an useful tool for liquidating classes and class antagonism. If you don't keep power of the state, the enemy will gracefully accept this gift and we will be crushed in no time.Nothing beats organized power like that of state, why you want the most lethal weapon in history in the hands of only enemy?

What, are you going to send all anarchists to the gulag after the revolution?

As I said it doesn't matter what your ideology is as long as you are not threatening the power of proletarian state but by definition anarchists will defy and try to bring down the state, if they become serious enough threat like the Ukranian Black Army, harsh measures should indeed be considered.

You can't kill an ideology, but go ahead suppress all you want.

Its not about killing an ideology but saving a revolutionary proletarian state.

[The Clockwork Rat]

You must have forgotten the Forum Rules that you read and agreed to when you signed up to this forum. Allow me to remind you:

12. Personal signature images may only be 100 pixels in height and 400 pixels in width. Only a single image may be included in your personal signature and images may not be animated. Personal signatures may not contain URLs or hyperlinks to websites outside PoliticsForum.

Could I also remind you again to refrain from double-posting. Use the Edit button at the top right of your posts.

The means of production remain in the hands of a small group, a "ruling class", it is only through the abolition of authority that true emancipation can occur.

... does the concept of worker's councils not mean anything to you? I wholeheartedly encourage anarchists to agitate towards this end.

[Goldberk]

Of course we agree but its wishful thinking that proletarians can survive one day by giving up power just like that.

I agree, but this is why revolutions originating from settled states are unlikely to result in communism. That is not to say they cannot deliver progress but not utopia.

does the concept of worker's councils not mean anything to you? I wholeheartedly encourage anarchists to agitate towards this end.

Workers councils are great, and they should be supported and agitated for, however I am unconvinced that they last for long without permanent disruption of the state. The state by it's very nature seeks to monopolise power and sit upon hierarchal divisions thus negating the conditions needed for such things as workers councils.

[The Clockwork Rat]

The socialist state is by its very nature transitory. I would be agitating for its removal myself.

[Goldberk]

But would you do that alongside the solidifying of proletarian state power?

[The Clockwork Rat]

But would you do that alongside the solidifying of proletarian state power?

No. Only once bourgeois influence was dissolved beyond reasonable doubt. I believe such influence would be under rapid decline upon loss of the means of production.

[JohannKaspurSchmidt]

Also, I disagree that communists have a more systematic approach of dismantling the current state of power than anarchists do even though they want to supplant one form of tyranny for another.

Many anarchist factions even my own has our own aspirations and systematic approach to the situation that are very much reasonable.

For my own one might call it seperatist, secessionist, insurrectionary, and non particapatory describing it under a few words.

[Someone5]

I would like to know why communist statists worldwide have historically violently persecuted anarchists. Anybody?

Political movements often have an easier time magnifying differences within their own ranks than they do examining the differences among others. Or, in other words, family infighting is often quite vicious, because it is often the most emotional sort of conflict.

[Decky]

Announcing this stated intention openly has never been a particularly great method for building middle class support, Fuser.

The middle class are all but history FRS. Capitalism is wiping them out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarianization

The middle class can chose to become Proletarian under a capitalist system (i.e. oppressed, powerless, improvised and all that goes with it) or they can choose to be Proletarian under a new socialist order (powerful, in charge of their own destinies in a state of and for the Proletariat).

[Paradigm]

Basically Anarchists (real not phoney one) have same end goal the only difference being, communists have a blue print for how to achieve that end goal where as anarchists don't.

Materialism ftw.

An abstract theory about the internal contradictions of capitalism leading to its inevitable collapse does not constitute a "blue print." For anarchists and Marxists alike, plans have to be formulated in real time based on material conditions on the ground.

[fuser]

I was not talking about inevitable collapse but using "power of state" to end class antagonism unlike the anarchists who abhor "state".

[The Immortal Goon]

I'm not necessarily opposed to Anarchists. I think, in the right time and place, they're very helpful, mostly on the same page, and would be a reasonable and welcome alarm bell for fighting bureaucracy in the worker's state.

The main issue tends to be abstract. Marxists tend to think that Anarchists are treating a symptom instead of the root of the problem. Dissolving the state would destabilize certain institutional inequalities, for sure. However, without replacing the means of production and all that it entails—giving people the ability to live better lives with fewer restrictions.

Though it's cliche, I think about it almost in terms of the French Revolution. The anarchist is to the proletariat as the Girondist was to the bourgeoisie; correctly diagnosing several things that needed to change, not the least of which the collapse of the old political order. They raged against the enemies of the bourgeoisie on the basis of almost wildly flailing about, while resisting the social revolution whenever possible in order to keep a certain sense of order. Their armies knew not how to function once they were stripped of aristocracy; the people on the streets were still victims of the economic system; the peasants still starved.

The socialist (at least Leninist) is to the proletariat as the Jacobin was to the bourgeoisie. It organized the revolution, gave it a transitional state, and prepared the way for a bourgeoisie system as we would understand it today.

The analysis is fundamentally flawed, of course, as it's not an exact parallel. Though I do think it highlights some of the historic issues between the socialists (especially the Leninists) and the anarchists. We all want the same thing...

[Paradigm]

In my experience, there's a lot of talking past each other on both sides. Usually, when I hear communists critique anarchism, what they're describing sounds like insurrectionary anarchism, which is one subgroup of anarchists among many. Insurrectionists reject formal organization and dual power, and instead seek to directly attack the system and let a spontaneous order arise out of the chaos. I have a couple friends who are insurrectionists, and I find some of their critiques compelling, but ultimately I can't get on board with it, and most anarchists I know do not identify with this camp. On the other end of the spectrum is anarcho-syndicalism, which I've heard insurrectionists critique as "closet communism." Anarcho-syndicalists believe in workplace organizing and dual power to take the means of production and have the workers run it themselves. There are some interesting critiques of anarcho-syndicalism that make me hesitant to fully identify as one, but it's probably the closest thing to describing my politics. I do wish to correct one common misperception about anarchism writ large: we are not simply anti-state, nor do we simply seek to topple the state in order to end capitalism. Rather, we are against all forms of domination and coercive hierarchies, whether it be capitalism, the state, patriarchy, white supremacy, and so on, and our attack is directed at all these fronts.

[Dagoth Ur]

For my own one might call it seperatist, secessionist, insurrectionary, and non particapatory describing it under a few words.

So you wanna carve up the world into a thousand tiny "nations"? Y'know it's only a matter of time before imperialists show back up and consolidate new superpowers.

[KlassWar]

Simple explanation: Both anarchists and communists believe in the establishment of a classless, stateless society. We differ on how to get there:

Anarchists believe the State can be abolished outright, that we can achieve communism NOW! Communists, on the other hand, believe that in order to collectivize the means of production and annihilate the bourgeoisie as a class we need a proletarian State: A social and political organization that allows the proletariat to effectively engage in mass terror against class enemies. Many anarchists believe that the Revolution's won as soon as bourgeois government is overthrown, while communists believe that it's when it truly starts.

Anarchists typically believe the Revolution is being betrayed when the overthrowal of the State is not immediately followed by the abolition of the State, and us commies will fight tooth and claw for the preservation of our instruments of class struggle. That's why we tend to come to blows.

A United Front between anarchists and communists is not impossible, but it would require a modicum of mutual trust and for anarchists to have some damn patience: It's suicidal to abolish the State when we're going to need its structural violence to crush class enemies and wage war against capitalist intervention. Once the means of production have been collectivized, the bourgeoisie has been eradicated and capitalist powers are no longer a threat, THEN we can abolish the State and build communism. Within a workers' State, anarchists could push for economics closer to syndicalism and greater personal liberties: There's no rule set in stone against their participation. And when the time comes for us to tear down the State as it outlives its usefulness, they can count with our wholehearted support.

[Someone5]

Simple explanation: Both anarchists and communists believe in the establishment of a classless, stateless society. We differ on how to get there:

Anarchists believe the State can be abolished outright, that we can achieve communism NOW! Communists, on the other hand, believe that in order to collectivize the means of production and annihilate the bourgeoisie as a class we need a proletarian State: A social and political organization that allows the proletariat to effectively engage in mass terror against class enemies. Many anarchists believe that the Revolution's won as soon as bourgeois government is overthrown, while communists believe that it's when it truly starts.

Anarchists typically believe the Revolution is being betrayed when the overthrowal of the State is not immediately followed by the abolition of the State, and us commies will fight tooth and claw for the preservation of our instruments of class struggle. That's why we tend to come to blows.

A United Front between anarchists and communists is not impossible, but it would require a modicum of mutual trust and for anarchists to have some damn patience: It's suicidal to abolish the State when we're going to need its structural violence to crush class enemies and wage war against capitalist intervention. Once the means of production have been collectivized, the bourgeoisie has been eradicated and capitalist powers are no longer a threat, THEN we can abolish the State and build communism. Within a workers' State, anarchists could push for economics closer to syndicalism and greater personal liberties: There's no rule set in stone against their participation. And when the time comes for us to tear down the State as it outlives its usefulness, they can count with our wholehearted support.

If there is no state to protect the capitalists, then capitalism will cease to exist; that is sufficient. That would push society to a choice between returning to preindustrial economies or to accept industrialization and socialism.

You don't need any tools to abolish the class enemies--a majority refusing to play their game would be sufficient. They have power only because we allow them to have power.

[Conscript]

A state is still needed, because it is the dictatorship of the proletariat, there are property relations to defend even if it is only in relation to the property owners.

There are still counter-revolutionaries (but not like stalinists and maoists claim, that some reactionary spectre haunts the 'peoples state', and the 'class war' supposedly intensifies) insofar there is manifestations of capital and a bourgeois state, and for the most part that is other nation-states the revolution hasn't spread to yet. After the DOTP has encompassed the world, there is no reason to keep it around, everything is already held in common.

Honestly I feel as if the split between marxists and anarchists is worthless nowadays, when capitalism has fully encompassed and integrated the world. The anarchists can only do the same shit as the rest of the communists, just with a different name. Their struggles will manifest as a dictatorship of the proletariat. Their very left leaning nature would probably do well in keeping the revolution revolutionary, instead of simply managing capitalism and (ugh) building 'socialism' in a nation-state.

[KlassWar]

If there is no state to protect the capitalists, then capitalism will cease to exist; that is sufficient.

If there is no State to protect the capitalists but the capitalists still have money, and there is no systemmatic application of organized, structural violence against them to break their resistance, they'll merely use their wealth and connections to prevent their expropriation, whether by inciting capitalist military intervention or hiring mercenaries outright. A dictatorship of the proletariat (a dictatorship in the Marxist sense of class supremacy and monopoly on violence) is necessary for the revolutionary working masses to expropriate and destroy the class enemy.

This dictatorship of the proletariat can take the form of a traditional, orthodox M-L state with a centrally planned economy and organized terror, it can take the form of an anarcho-syndicalist society, or it can go the council-communist route of government by workers' councils and socialist self-management: Under Marxist analysis it is, semantics aside, a dictatorship of the proletariat nonetheless.

That would push society to a choice between returning to preindustrial economies or to accept industrialization and socialism.

There is no such choice, as a deindustrialized society would not be productive enough to withstand foreign intervention or its own internal enemies, let alone maintain a functioning economy capable of satisfying demand for necessary equipment and consumption goods for an industrial-scale population. This choice is illusory and primitivism is reactionary, if we're to use any sort of materialist analysis at all.

You don't need any tools to abolish the class enemies--a majority refusing to play their game would be sufficient. They have power only because we allow them to have power.

Wrong. They have power because they command the force to enforce their class interests. It is not enough with merely abolishing their current means of self-preservation and class domination, we must build our own means of class domination to ensure they can't just build new ones or reestablish the old ones.

[Paradigm]

Simple explanation: Both anarchists and communists believe in the establishment of a classless, stateless society. We differ on how to get there:

Anarchists believe the State can be abolished outright, that we can achieve communism NOW! Communists, on the other hand, believe that in order to collectivize the means of production and annihilate the bourgeoisie as a class we need a proletarian State: A social and political organization that allows the proletariat to effectively engage in mass terror against class enemies. Many anarchists believe that the Revolution's won as soon as bourgeois government is overthrown, while communists believe that it's when it truly starts.

Anarchists typically believe the Revolution is being betrayed when the overthrowal of the State is not immediately followed by the abolition of the State, and us commies will fight tooth and claw for the preservation of our instruments of class struggle. That's why we tend to come to blows.

A United Front between anarchists and communists is not impossible, but it would require a modicum of mutual trust and for anarchists to have some damn patience: It's suicidal to abolish the State when we're going to need its structural violence to crush class enemies and wage war against capitalist intervention. Once the means of production have been collectivized, the bourgeoisie has been eradicated and capitalist powers are no longer a threat, THEN we can abolish the State and build communism. Within a workers' State, anarchists could push for economics closer to syndicalism and greater personal liberties: There's no rule set in stone against their participation. And when the time comes for us to tear down the State as it outlives its usefulness, they can count with our wholehearted support.

Wait, what? No anarchist I know actually thinks we can snap our fingers and bring down the state tomorrow. We believe in using dual power to create the institutions that will serve us after the state and capitalism have been abolished. The fact that we do not wish to set up a "worker's state" to replace the capitalist state does not mean we simply expect the state to disappear overnight. It simply means we will continue fighting until the state, along with capitalism, is abolished.

[Someone5]

If there is no State to protect the capitalists but the capitalists still have money,

Note; the money that capitalists hold has value only so long as a government is around to give it value, and only so long as people consider the laws of that government to be valid. Again, it's an example of everyone else giving the wealthy their power. If a society reached a point where, in order to use money, you had to bring armed guards to force people to accept the money, that's a society in collapse that isn't going to be practicing capitalism for very much longer.

and there is no systemmatic application of organized, structural violence against them to break their resistance, they'll merely use their wealth and connections to prevent their expropriation, whether by inciting capitalist military intervention or hiring mercenaries outright.

Again--with what? If the government backing their fiat currency collapsed, the money they were offering would have no value. They could hire no mercenaries with it.

A dictatorship of the proletariat (a dictatorship in the Marxist sense of class supremacy and monopoly on violence) is necessary for the revolutionary working masses to expropriate and destroy the class enemy.

Expropriation does not require a state to enforce it; indeed, expropriation is only a problem within the context of a powerful capitalist state. If the capitalist state no longer existed, there would be nothing to protect the property of the wealthy from direct expropriation other than whatever they could barter protection for--like anyone else.

This dictatorship of the proletariat can take the form of a traditional, orthodox M-L state with a centrally planned economy and organized terror, it can take the form of an anarcho-syndicalist society, or it can go the council-communist route of government by workers' councils and socialist self-management: Under Marxist analysis it is, semantics aside, a dictatorship of the proletariat nonetheless.

And still unnecessary--and likely to result in more problems than it would help to solve.

There is no such choice, as a deindustrialized society would not be productive enough to withstand foreign intervention or its own internal enemies,

There are alternatives to resistance by force; namely peddling the value of feudalism.

let alone maintain a functioning economy capable of satisfying demand for necessary equipment and consumption goods for an industrial-scale population. This choice is illusory and primitivism is reactionary, if we're to use any sort of materialist analysis at all.

It is reactionary, but it is also a choice that a society would end up making. Both are options that would resolve the international resistance. Feudalism would be acceptable to the capitalists, because they know how to deal with that. Socialism would be able to resist directly. Both are routes out of the dilemma.

Wrong. They have power because they command the force to enforce their class interests.

Yet their "force" is for the most part minimal. Capitalists do maintain security, but they're not really very well positioned to become feudal lords. Their capital is deployed in ways that earn them money, not in ways that control land. Outside of the state, they have very limited power to actually do very much of anything. Almost everything they do is within the context of the state, and within the rules of the state. Their entire claim to power--the ownership of things--is rooted in the protections granted their claim by organized capitalist states.

That does not require a dictatorship of any sort to resolve. Simply refusing to recognize their property claims and refusing to collectively defend those claims would end their power. It really is that simple. Now, I will grant you, external capitalists who do have states to back them would be a problem, but that's still no grounds for violating the intent of an anarchist revolution. If the only way that an anarchist society could defend itself is to create another state, then obviously the time has not come to have the revolution.

It is not enough with merely abolishing their current means of self-preservation and class domination, we must build our own means of class domination to ensure they can't just build new ones or reestablish the old ones.

A complete societal rejection of property claims is not something the capitalists could ever recover from.