[Kamil]

I still think that it'd be a good idea to create an anarchist board instead of having it under 'other.' DF, Deicidus, Communo-Anarchist, Anarcho-Communist, Morpheus, Tuco, and I already constitute a sufficient number not to mentioned that there are other anarchists on the board in which I may have missed.

[Morpheus]

Considering that the majority of posts in this forum are anarchist related I think a libertarian socialist forum would be good.

[tuco]

On the whole, the idea sounds pretty good.

But wouldn't it be a good idea to avoid the slippery slope of getting to specific? A libertarian socialist forum may sound like a good idea, but what of the other branches of anarchism (eg primitivism, individualism, etc).

[Morpheus]

Yes, it should be a forum for all anti-authoritarians/anarchists. I use the phrase "libertarian socialist" as a synonym for anarchist, of all varieties. Individualists like Benjamin Tucker openly called themselves socialist, although the primitivists don't like that phrase.

[El Infiltr(A)do]

there's an anarchist forum at:
http://www.theideal.tk

I told some of you already. Please take a look.

Anyway, this place needs an anarchist forum.

[Napuljun]

It is true that the majority of the postings here of anarchist discussions but im quite happy with this forum. If we do an anarchist forum than 'other ideolgies' forum would be nearly vacant.

[Kamil]

Maybe that gives you the hint that no one is interested in other ideologies. As we can see, several individuals on this forum adhere to the Anarchist line of thought. Currently, Anarchism is just as big as Communism in the world, if not bigger. In fact, Anarchists, quite a few years back, demonstrated their sufficient numbers and dedication to their cause in the anti-globalization movements. I have not seen such movements displayed by our Communist adversaries. If you look through different websites, you'll notice that not only are anarchists more dominant, they're more organized, and offer a lot. Perhaps the only viable Communist site around is marxists.org since they offer a political encyclopedia, sufficient information, and a large on-line free library. If you look around some anarchist websites, so much more is provided beyond what the Communists have. There are barely any viable Socialist websites which I have seen, too. I don't understand why such ideologies as Communism and Socialism deserve their own section when Anarchists don't.

[jaakko]

Maybe that gives you the hint that no one is interested in other ideologies. As we can see, several individuals on this forum adhere to the Anarchist line of thought.

True. Maybe it's time to have a separate 'Anarchism' forum, seeing as there already are forums for more marginal ideologies such as 'Technocracy'.

Currently, Anarchism is just as big as Communism in the world, if not bigger.

Not true. Anarchist movement is concentrated in the commercial centres of world imperialism, and there mostly in the radical student circles. Which is not accidental. Anarchist movement is almost microscopic as compared to the World communist movement. In my dictionary, "world" includes also the so-called "third world", the dependent and colonial type countries which include the overwhelming majority of human population

In fact, Anarchists, quite a few years back, demonstrated their sufficient numbers and dedication to their cause in the anti-globalization movements. I have not seen such movements displayed by our Communist adversaries.

There's a world outside Seattle.

If you look around some anarchist websites, so much more is provided beyond what the Communists have.

Most of the world communist movement and its followers and symphatisers don't have access to internet. Thus newspapers are a million time more important for the communist and labour movement than websites.

[Anarchocommunist]

while there may still be more communists, the third world still has it's anarchist movements. in every nation there will be anarchists. and seeing as how the only attention the other ideologies have gotten is a "ideologies that don't really exist" thread than an anarchist forum should be a good idea. either a way i like how thinngs are going. i don't want to have to fight with the communists on moot points, i would much rather do it with an anarchist and get a bit more accomplished. but the real quewstion is, if there is an anarchism board, how will moderating be handled. do we select one or not have any, or possibley let any anarchist be an equal moderator.

[Kamil]

I would propose that there be no need in having moderators. Surely, if there is something unsuitable and unwanted in the forum, perhaps the administrator's can remove it. I wouldn't mind being a moderator, though. Since I do spend a lot of my time online, I'd definately be able to keep up with my duties, by I'd prefer that we'd let the administrator's handle the affairs.

Not true. Anarchist movement is concentrated in the commercial centres of world imperialism, and there mostly in the radical student circles. Which is not accidental. Anarchist movement is almost microscopic as compared to the World communist movement. In my dictionary, "world" includes also the so-called "third world", the dependent and colonial type countries which include the overwhelming majority of human population

Besides the Maoist revolution in Nepal, I have not seen any productivity in the Communist movement. I guess I can't blaim anyone in a third world country not able to access or start up in-depth and viable projects. I still believe that the Anarchists may have an equal number of adherents as the Communists do. I do not keep track of foreign Anarchist affairs, but I do know of some African Anarchist organizations such as Zabalaza. I also believe that Anarchism may have stronger numbers since Communism is a much more complex system of thought which may take foreigners a harder time of grasping the revolutionary theory since the education there is far less suitable. Perhaps this can be a factor of certain third world revolutions result in minority rule. Small groups of people may offer the masses better promises, come into power, and dictate them, and since these groups may have an easier time forming coups and taking over the position of government and imposing their beliefs. Unlike Anarchism, a revolution is made by the masses themselves, not a small group.

There's a world outside Seattle.

There was a movement in Quebec against the North American summit. As a friend told me a couple of days ago, an Anarchist movement earlier this year was prompted in Cancun. Frankly, I don't know of any recent Communists movements other than the one in Nepal which is usually dismissed by revolutionaries for its Maoist nature.

Another example of Anarchist culmination, the IWW. The biggest Communist organizations that I have seen are Communist Parties who do not have any significant effect. The most outstanding thing I have witnessed performed by a Communist organization, recently, was the 7% a Trotskyite group in France culminated in the elections. But as Emma Goldman said, "If voting ever changed anything, it'd be illegal." Maybe the presence of such Communists Parties make it seem as if the Communists are bigger than numbers since not too many Anarchists partake in organizational activity.

[jaakko]

Besides the Maoist revolution in Nepal, I have not seen any productivity in the Communist movement.

If only ongoing succesfull revolution processes are counted, then communists still are doing better than anarchists. In most parts of the world communists can ignore anarchists for their marginality.

I guess I can't blaim anyone in a third world country not able to access or start up in-depth and viable projects. I still believe that the Anarchists may have an equal number of adherents as the Communists do. I do not keep track of foreign Anarchist affairs, but I do know of some African Anarchist organizations such as Zabalaza.

Do you want me to start naming communist organisations in Africa?

I also believe that Anarchism may have stronger numbers since Communism is a much more complex system of thought which may take foreigners a harder time of grasping the revolutionary theory since the education there is far less suitable.

That's a prejudicious assumption. Communists are political fighters, whose understanding of scientific socialism may vary. The symphatisers and supporters of the communist movement do understand the goals and aims, while not the theory behind them. Actually the world outlook of many followers may be the exact opposite of dialectical materialism, but that doesn't stop them from supporting the communists if they understand their class interests. And there's not such division (except in the few extremely underdeveloped countries) as "vanguard intelligentsia & masses". The vast majority of the ranks of the world communist movement consists of workers and peasants. In my country the proletarian composition of the communist party exceeds 80%, while the vast majority of anarchists are youth and students.

There was a movement in Quebec against the North American summit. As a friend told me a couple of days ago, an Anarchist movement earlier this year was prompted in Cancun. Frankly, I don't know of any recent Communists movements other than the one in Nepal which is usually dismissed by revolutionaries for its Maoist nature.

You're still limiting your vision on the commercial centres of the world imperialism. Examples of communist presence: labour movement in all continents, revolutionary and national liberation movements, NPA in Philippines, FARC, ELN, and EPL in Colombia, PCMLE lead mass movement in Ecuador, India (both Maoists and others, both illegal and legal), Turkey (both in the semi-legal labour movement aswell as urban guerrilla organisations), etc., etc...

The most outstanding thing I have witnessed performed by a Communist organization, recently, was the 7% a Trotskyite group in France culminated in the elections.

Another recent election example; KKE with 9.9% (Greece).

Maybe the presence of such Communists Parties make it seem as if the Communists are bigger than numbers since not too many Anarchists partake in organizational activity.

If they don't take part in organisational activities, they can't expect to have many followers either.

[| I, CWAS |]

And we saw them shut up after that. As soon as force is applied they get timid. A lot more government buildings should be burning. These people are like cicadas, they come out at intervals.

[Kamil]

If only ongoing succesfull revolution processes are counted, then communists still are doing better than anarchists. In most parts of the world communists can ignore anarchists for their marginality.

If we measure culmination by the amount of successful revolutions each group has had, and if we counted each transubstantiation of proletarian revolution into bourgeoisie revolution as a minus point, anarchists would lead the score by a proportionate margin. As for the other comment, I'm not too informed on anarchist or Communist influences present in foreign lands, so I won't be able to judge the statistics without concrete evidence.

At the moment, I will try to compile anarchist movements from around the world so perhaps we can engender a juxtapose of statistics between the two groups seeing as which one is dominant in foreign affairs.

America
http://www.anarchism.ws/usa.html
Britain
http://www.anarchism.ws/britain.html
Ireland
http://www.anarchism.ws/ireland.html
Chile
http://www.anarchism.ws/places/chile.html
Africa
http://struggle.ws/africa.html
http://www.zabalaza.net

Australia
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropol ... archy.html
Canada
http://www.geocities.com/vcmtalk/anarch ... 0221751930
Iran
http://www.edris.s5.com/


Organizational Platforms
http://www.anarchism.ws/platform.html
Collaboration of Different Movements
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm_international.html
Anarchist Yellow Pages
http://ayp.subvert.info/
More
http://recollectionbooks.com/anow/world/about.html

---
Do you want me to start naming communist organisations in Africa?

Sure. I think perhaps we should total up an estimate for the popularity of Anarchism and Communism in different parts of the world. It'd be useful.

That's a prejudicious assumption. Communists are political fighters, whose understanding of scientific socialism may vary. The symphatisers and supporters of the communist movement do understand the goals and aims, while not the theory behind them.

I doubt that many of the Communists on this forum understand the goals and aims of the Communist movement put out by Marx and Engels. For all we know, anarchism can be just as prominent as Communism since it is often misconcepted that both have similiar or identical aims. So, as most conceive of it, both groups have similiar aims which might as well have foreigners taking part in anarchist movements.[/b]

[jaakko]

I'm not going to argue about "good" and "bad" revolutions. The fact remains there's no anarchist lead revolution going on in any part of the world, while there are many communist lead (more or less succesfull).

The links you gave listed mostly different local organisations, websites, and campaigns. You know it would be very impractical for me to link every existing communist lead campaign, local organisations, trade unions, educational organisations, youth groups, websites etc. Even Africa has too much websites, even if only parties (which by nature function on a national level) were considered. Therefore I give just one link, through which you should be able to find most of the communist parties / communist lead fronts existing in Africa.

http://www.broadleft.org/africa.htm

I doubt that many of the Communists on this forum understand the goals and aims of the Communist movement put out by Marx and Engels.

Well this is just a forum. This is just internet, this is not the real world. Most of the communists here aren't communists, but communist symphatisers. They symphatise with the communist cause, support it, but aren't communists themselves.

In the real world we have communist youth organisations because of that; to make communists out of communist symphatising youth.

[Kamil]

I'm not going to argue about "good" and "bad" revolutions. The fact remains there's no anarchist lead revolution going on in any part of the world, while there are many communist lead (more or less succesfull).

From what I comprehend, the Maoists in Nepal have not yet come into power and are still struggling with the monarchy. Am I correct? If this is so, the revolution is still a peasant revolution. If the Maoists come in power, I doubt it'll continue to stay that way. As for Cuba, the other Communist movement that I know, it is a bourgeoisie revolution, which even many Commie's concede to say.

Well this is just a forum. This is just internet, this is not the real world. Most of the communists here aren't communists, but communist symphatisers. They symphatise with the communist cause, support it, but aren't communists themselves.

Would you consider yourself as being part of the group that comprehends what Marx and Engels proposed a communist society should look like. The fact is widely misconcepted, even perhaps by most Communists.

Even after the revolution, the state withers away in the sense of losing its class-political functions, not the centralist, authoritarian, and coercive methods used in the period of Socialism, which could ineluctably prompt a class struggle in a distorted sense.
___

In search for information on such statistics of the popularity of the Anarchist and Communists movements, a fellow Anarchist(Morpheus) which does reside in this forum implied the following:

"Most "communist" organizations have sold out and are now reformist or, in the case of ruling parties in China, etc., "revisionist." If you exclude those and count only genuinely *revolutionary* movements anarchism is more popular. This is especially the case if you count people who act & organize in an anarchistic manner but don't explicity call themselves anarchists, like much of the landless movement in Brazil. Uruguayan anarchists were fighting a low-level guerilla war a while ago. There's the SAC in Sweden, and I heard that the anarchist faction in Moroccan trade unions is growing. See also http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.p ... 02/2697468 "[/b]

[jaakko]

I'll just reply mechanically point after point:

From what I comprehend, the Maoists in Nepal have not yet come into power and are still struggling with the monarchy. Am I correct? If this is so, the revolution is still a peasant revolution.

Well, there's no such thing as communist revolution. What we can agree is there are communist lead revolutions. The stage of the revolutionary process in such underdeveloped, semi-feudal, semi-colonial country as Nepal, is inevitably national-democratic (or New Democratic Revolution, as the Maoists coin it) irrespective of which political party is leading it. The stage of the revolution is dictated by objective factors, not voluntarily.

If the Maoists come in power, I doubt it'll continue to stay that way.

I could say the same about any past anarchist revolutionary movement, none of which has been even close attaining power on a national level.

As for Cuba, the other Communist movement that I know, it is a bourgeoisie revolution, which even many Commie's concede to say.

Cuba is not a communist movement, nor is it a revolution. Many Marxist-Leninists indeed do argue that the Cuban revolution stagnated on the national-democratic stage, not proceeding on socialism. But it's nevertheless lead by declared communists, and we're not arguing here who's a real communist or a real anarchist.

Would you consider yourself as being part of the group that comprehends what Marx and Engels proposed a communist society should look like.

I didn't consider myself a communist before joining communist organisations. Opinions alone don't make one a communist.

"Most "communist" organizations have sold out and are now reformist or, in the case of ruling parties in China, etc., "revisionist." If you exclude those and count only genuinely *revolutionary* movements anarchism is more popular.

If we're to include only those communist parties which are genuinely and consistently revolutionary, then we should do the same with anarchists. Actually about 2/3 of declared anarchists I've have met turned out to be reformists. But this is highly subjective and it would be impractical for us to enter such debate on each and every organisation.

This is especially the case if you count people who act & organize in an anarchistic manner but don't explicity call themselves anarchists, like much of the landless movement in Brazil.

That is just too vague. We're talking about communist/anarchist popularity, not how much this or that movement resembles their methods.

But as I said, this isn't the real world.. It's apparent that this forum needs an anarchist section.

[Kamil]

Well, there's no such thing as communist revolution. What we can agree is there are communist lead revolutions. The stage of the revolutionary process in such underdeveloped, semi-feudal, semi-colonial country as Nepal, is inevitably national-democratic (or New Democratic Revolution, as the Maoists coin it) irrespective of which political party is leading it. The stage of the revolution is dictated by objective factors, not voluntarily.

I'd beg to differ. If a revolution is dominantly Communist, therefore, most likely Communist-lead, it is a Communist revolution.

I could say the same about any past anarchist revolutionary movement, none of which has been even close attaining power on a national level.

The Spanish Anarchists took control of two-thirds of Spain. I'd consider that to be close to prompting Anarchist control on a national level.

If we're to include only those communist parties which are genuinely and consistently revolutionary, then we should do the same with anarchists. Actually about 2/3 of declared anarchists I've have turned out to be reformists. But this is highly subjective and it would be impractical for us to enter such debate on each and every organisation.

Would you care to substantiate such a claim?