[CCJ]

I had heard that the idea was that communities would just naturally decide how to run themselves.

This is what I advocate. There are, however, other types of communism and anarchism.

Though, one country wouldn't really be able to do it. It's neighbours would just invade. With no organized military there wouldn't be a chance.

Maybe, maybe not. The communes would be able to ally in a time of common need in order to stay independent and each commune would call its 'warriors' to battle if the need arose.

[Kamil]

But, here's my point -- what might START as a pact of mutual economic self-interest, develops into a series of institutions and a proto-state which runs on exploitative principles.

I can theorise right now a state where everyone is altruistic and does everything for everyone else. And it sounds cool. I'd love to live like that. But when the question of practicalities arrives, I don't see much merit in that as a system...

Mutual pacts of self-interest aren't that big of a deal. In anarchism, there is definately an overabundance of resources, what's holding back the 'exploited' minority from gathering what they need themselves and working with that. Whenever the need to trade, they'll do so, with either their communal group, or others.

You still haven't answered my question. How do you propose that this economic pact will evolve into a state subordinated by the masses which are not being affected by this, and even if some would, it wouldn't make too big of a deal. If you mean to imply that the commune will evolve into a semi-state, you're forgetting that no one is obligated to remain a member in the commune.

I suggest that you should go over here http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionA.pdf and that you should read starting from page 15(A2) and read until A.2.6, if you can and feel like it.

Also, if you wish to understand better what relations syndicates and communes play with the individual, visit http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI3.html and for how an anarchist economy would function go to http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI4.html.

I don't know if you're up to reading all of that, but I'm pretty sure that the following links can refute your criticisms. I haven't read some of the stuff in a while, so I'm not really sure if they will, but it's worth it.

1] People would be so well educated, that everyone would support the system.

It's not really that people would be so well educated and cultivated, but life would take a different path once the anarchist society was implemented. The final step in prompting the revolution is the first step in a beautiful creation. In the embroy of such a society, perhaps there may be troubles every now and then, but, human nature has been severly corrupted by hierarchy. As soon as the anarchists way of life and conditions permeate throughout generations, people will become uncorrupted and will diminish hostile relationships between one another. Of course not everyone would support the system, but if any drastic violent or oppressive actions were to be taken, those people would be taken care of. Perhaps some may even not support all anarchist ideals, but I'm sure of it that humanity will learn from its mistakes of submitting under the jurisdiction of others only to be enslaved, manipulated, and to be denied the chance of living your own life on your own terms as long as you did not violate the freedom of another.

2] If people didn't support it, they'd move away.

Not quite. People could just stop participating, no one must move away if things aren't ideal. It's not as if you're obliged to participate, it's voluntary. What I mentioned before was that others could simply change their trading relations or if they'd like, relocate to an area more suitable with the individual's ideal social conditions and system.

3] If it was exploitative, it would be decimated.

Remember that it matters upon what form of exploitation arises. If it's coercive, deliberate, as well as enslaving, it'll need to be decimated. If it's a mere trading pact that is indirect and doesn't necessarily affect others, it should be left alone. How a state will grow out of that, I don't know.

I think the idea in 1] is Utopian. It sounds good, but I can make a fine-sounding society on paper also.

If anarchism were to be implemented, it would not be utopian nor intangible to maintain peaceful relations among the people. Essentially, people would learn to live without bosses and live their life the way they see fit. The basis of the society would be free association which would engender compatible behaviour with such a system. This could be applied to any system. In capitalism, since the milieu and conditions are hostile, exploitative, and authoritarian, that's exactly what happens and exactly how the relations are amongst the people. I'm sure that the Commie's would agree with me. Once a stateless and moneyless society were to be implemented, people would learn from their mistakes and would not retrogress.

It's a cycle. In order for revolution to arise, a sufficient mass, generally a majority must advocate it. Once the majority fights for it and wins, a lifestyle adhering to their beliefs(free association) forms the basis of society. As capitalist adherents or antagonists of anarchism would attempt to infiltrate the society, they'd be killed since they would be greatly outnumbered. Threats would diminish and when residents of the anarchist society passed on their beliefs to their children, everything would maintain to be good. People would no longer be malicious, people would be happy. Capitalism has bred disregard for altruism and assisted the state breed such hostile relations among people. It'd be the anarchist society that would ameliorate all the repugnant creations the state and capitalism have engendered. Anyways, there'd be tons of time to spend with others since one can labour whenever one needs to and the individual does not need to abide to a series of requisitions for surviving. Hypothetically, if your scenario evolved into a state-like system, it's be abolished. In order for anarchism to exist, world revolution must be prompted. How can there be a stateless society witihin only one country That's why, anarchists, too, must prompt world revolution. If in one city someone takes power, the people of the country, in alliance through a federation of communes, would destroy the power. Not only that, but if things got bigger, the remaining "countries," woul destroy the threat.

Well, for 2] people might move away, but just like the exploited worker can be dependent on what little income he receives today, so too would the minority.

Income is dispersed equally since there is no wage-labour. Not only that, the dominant economic trend in anarchism is communism, like I have reiterated, and does not maintain the use of any monetary units. Not only in communism, but even in market-oriented communes, people would take what the need, trade whenever they feel like it, etc... If someone doesn't include them in their trading pact, big dea, they're not going to die, or even get affected to a sufficient extent that this scenario would matter.

Finally, I am entirely unclear about 3]. Who's doing the decimating? God? The minority could try, but wouldn't get very far, and it is in the interests of the majority to preserve the status quo - which is preserving their economic advantages.

If it's harsh exploitation, such as utilizing others as slaves or something else of that nature, than the people would decimate the perpetrators. This would not go unnoticed.

Exactly, like you wrote: "...it is in the interests of the majority to preserve the status quo." That answers your questions. If any one of these little pacts somehow creates a state, the majority, wanting to preserve the status quo will kill them....Comprehend? That is in the sense that matters, forming a state which others are slaves to. If it's a communal state, not only will the "exploited" bunch leave, if they are forced to submit to slavery, others will notice and abolish the threat.

That answers two possible conceptions your scenario brings along. Whether a commune forms a semi-state or if a group of people grow into a ruling class amongst the masses.

This is why Communism - although not my favourite system (I think I'd prefer anarcho-syndicalism or similar) - seems to make more sense.

In my previous posts, I argued on some of the authoritarian and coercive measures of Communism which are not only unfair, but exploitative, coercive, etc..

"Finally, I am entirely unclear about 3]. Who's doing the decimating? God? The minority could try, but wouldn't get very far, and it is in the interests of the majority to preserve the status quo - which is preserving their economic advantages.

If it's harsh exploitation, such as utilizing others as slaves or something else of that nature, than the people would decimate the perpetrators. This would not go unnoticed.

Exactly, like you wrote: "...it is in the interests of the majority to preserve the status quo." That answers your questions. If any one of these little pacts somehow creates a state, the majority, wanting to preserve the status quo will kill them....Comprehend? That is in the sense that matters, forming a state which others are slaves to. If it's a communal state, not only will the "exploited" bunch leave, if they are forced to submit to slavery, others will notice and abolish the threat.

That answers two possible conceptions your scenario brings along. Whether a commune forms a semi-state or if a group of people grow into a ruling class amongst the masses.

In my previous posts, I offered a few arguements against Communism which prove it to be authoritarian, exploitative, oppressive, coercive, and can inevitably stir up some bad problems:

"Communism is even worse. Not only are minorities unprotected, the rule of the majority can lead to big problems. What will you do if your neighbout doesn't comply with the pre-established and enforced regulations? Will you shoot him? Will you turn him in so he can be hung? Do you kill people that have trading blocs between each other and are not oppressing anyone else, just making it easier for themselves by working together? In Communis, the majority can impose very harsh laws that are a necessity for the society to abide by. A whole bunch of whites can rule to kill all blacks which may be a minority. Another thing is, if a majority rules to impose a set of certain conditions and rules for the society to abide by, and it causes major discontent, and the results were almost 50-50, a civil war can easily break out. Not only this, but who makes sure that the majorities' decisions will come into being. You can't have all the people, extremely dispersed, tuning into a single assembly voting on what shall be done. Either a minority will take power since the people would need to struggle just to get their vote in. If things are to be tallied communally, having each commune submit their wishes to some central committee which count all the communes' votes and figure out what the total is. How do you know that such people will not manipulate the results to be in line with their wishes?"

"Oh you silly Commie's make me laugh. How can you reach a stateless society after a single revolution? You can't, firstly, one must prompt global revolution. Also, Communists go on about all the transition that is needed, which is utter bullshit. Anarchists do advocate a transitional period, just not one in both political and economic aspects. Let me explain:

Political Transition: Anarchists, unlike Communists, advocate working class power. We do not feel the need to implement a bourgeoisie revolution prior to attaining a class proletarian milieu. The Communists are stupid for thinking that a revolution of bourgeoisie nature will engender a free egalitarian milieu. Of course it won't, a bourgeoisie-run revolution will only engender a milieu in its own reflection. Surely, I do not speak of all Communists when I say this. Pannekoekists, Luxemborgists, non-Leninist Marxists, and council communists are all discluded from the equation of co-ordinating a bourgeoisie revolution. Unlike these proletariat-oriented branches of Communism, Marxist-Leninism, Leninism(Stalinism), Trotskyism, and Maoism are all bourgeoisie ideologies. If you fall under the first category that I mentioned, you are a supporter or proletarian-run revolution, if in in the second, you're an adherent of bourgeoisie revolution. Knowing that the majority of Communists are Marxist-Leninists and do advocate an epoch of party dictatorship, I can turn the polemic against Marxist-Leninism and deem it utopian since its adherents are stupid enough to believe that good can be implemented with evil, and, a proletarian milieu can be created through bourgeoisie means. Marxists, however, just exactly like Marx advocated it, too, do not advocate political transition, since, Marx himself was a vehement centralist, and believed that the state, manipulated by the entire proletariat class, directly, would be the decision-making method for the Marxist ideology. So, Marx, prior to communism and during communism believed that the working class should maintain power, just like anarchists. If you're adhering to Marxism, the central polemic consists not of transition, but free association or authority.

Economic Transition: Anarchists, like Communists, thought slightly different, believe that the period following a successful insurrection is the time for economic experimentation. Note that communism is not implemented "overnight." Communists, have it pre-determined in their theory that the economic epoch of socialism will precede the time after successful insurrection. Anarchists, however, communally, in referendum, vote on disparate economic capabilities and options, and implement such economic structuring within their community. Anarchists, not believing in coercion do not impose or force anyone to adhere to such an economy, but, regulate the central economic affiliation within the community to make it easier to organize and co-ordinate economic affairs. The majority of anarcho-communists believe that once counter-revolution is subdued is the time that communism should be planned to do in Spain. Unfortunately the revolution didn't work out, but hey, it was efficient, and was brought down by something the anarchists could not stop, therefore, there were no theoretical flaws. Communism on the other hand underwent several revolutions and each and everyone fell due to theoretical and internal problems. Whether you're a Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, Leninism, Maoist, or Trotskyist, all of your revolutions were already over in their embryonic periods."

Because, even though there is a state which has the potential not to listen to the minority, in pursuit of the interests of the majority, at least there is some means of regulating power. Without any means of stopping patterns of minor exploitation and pacts for mutual self-interest, these relations develop over time to more exploitative and vicious ways of asserting superiority and to state-type institutions. Which seems to be anarchy paving the way for the most exploitative of class dictatorships.

Anarchists do not believe in prerogatives, we do not believe in domination. We do not perceive society as necessarily being divided up into two camps: order givers and order takers. We respect every minorities' wishes, because the smallest minority on Earth is the individual, as Ayn Rand. Ugh, I hate to agree with Rand, but the concept of democracy is something that I unfortunately have in common with her; it's slavery.

So, my central problem is - what *stops* the majority from asserting their self-interest? WHO stops them?

You mean the majority in the commune, right? Well if things are unfair, the minority will dissociate themselves from such relations, therefore, those people in the pact maintain their links and support and don't have an advantage over anyone in their commune.

Like I have reiterated, acting in self-interest is not immoral. As you'll read in infoshop section A2, collectivism and individualism will be discussed. For more on socialism individual, go here: http://question-everything.mahost.org/P ... ividualism

It's an article written by a fellow anarchist, Morpheus, on flag.blackened.net , which may, hopefully, participate in this forum.

If your ideas were applied in a commune, then I can imagine it pretty much working -- because people have an opt-out possibility. But, applied to society in general, it just seems to employ no safeguards against exploitation.

Uhhh, you're thinking of Communism. Such situations are applied in society in general, in anarchism, nothing like that would happen as I bothered to demonstrate.
----

Also, I'd like to bring up that merely forming a pact discluding others is not actually exploitation, it's just a mere alliance. It's not as if it's directed against the minority, rather, it exists to have an easier time labouring and trading with each other.

Sorry if I've had to reiterate myself, but the point I'm trying to prove requires more tautology so that you'll comprehend the concepts.

[Kamil]

Though, one country wouldn't really be able to do it. It's neighbours would just invade. With no organized military there wouldn't be a chance.

Maybe, maybe not. The communes would be able to ally in a time of common need in order to stay independent and each commune would call its 'warriors' to battle if the need arose.

Speaking of militaries and militia's, past anarchist groups have been quitw successful and prominent. The Makhnovshchina in Ukraine at the time of the Russian Revolution were much stronger than the Red Army. This guerrilla militia allied with the Bolsheviks to take care of the White Army and the SR's and helped to a great extent. What's amazing about the militia was that everyone was free to join and leave, everyone followed and was not ordered into warfare, and had small quantities of men and weapons in comparison to the other armies. Still, their tactics and warfare was superior to that other the Red Army, the Whites, SR's, etc....What happened was that when they took out the White, the Red Army turned their back on them and killed a whole bunch of them. Trotsky and many other former Tsarist officers justified themselves by falsely postulating the fact that these revolutionaries were anti-semitist as well as a lot of bullshit. This goes to show you how full of shit Trotsky and Lenin were.

Another good example was is the Spanish Revolution. At the time of the civil war, the Spanish anarchists fought Stalin's army, Mussolini's army, Hitler's army, Franco's army, nationalists and republicans, and was also betrayed and stabbed in the back by the Communist-led PSUC.

[Deicidus]

I've been asked the questions of the army many times.

How can the revolution protect itself without a State to organise the workforce into a fighting able army ?

How can you defend the people against an invading army ?


As Kam already pointed out, anarchist militias became so feared by the red army in the Ukraine forests and stepps that some regiments refused to even enter their territory. Not because they were monsters or because they were commiting atrocities, but because they were fearless fighters, who fought with their hearts for the one purpose that was left when you take away everything else, freedom. They fought as free men, not as paid coward mercenaries, not as poor peasant conscripts. People were not forced into combat, they took arms themselves and organized themselves to create mobile and very effective guerilla militias. Those who did not fight provided those who did in weapons, amunitions, clothes, food and shelter, and only if they so choosed. They only defended themselves from opression because they understood one of the sole principal of anarchism, opression, either from the right or the left, from the east or from the west, is not acceptable.

[jaakko]

In order for anarchism to exist, world revolution must be prompted. How can there be a stateless society witihin only one country That's why, anarchists, too, must prompt world revolution.

Abstractively talking, we agree on the need of a world revolution. But what I see as a problem arising from anarchism's 'voluntarism' is the neglection of the uneven social development in the capitalist world system. Nations and areas become ripe for revolution at a different rate, and I honestly think it would be irresponsible to wait when in a revolutionary crisis on the pretext that "the rest of the world isn't ready yet". This isn't necessarily how you think, so I'd ask what's the alternative. If you accept revolution in one country or a group of countries, then you inevitably accept some sort of state (even if extremely decentralised, state is always a state) for the time defence is needed.

How can you reach a stateless society after a single revolution?

I don't know, but Marxism-Leninism doesn't claim such thing. Here's an important thing to remember:

State is a product of the existence of social classes.

Therefore, state exists as long as does the social classes.

The elimination of state cannot be done as separate from the elimination of classes. The two cannot be treated separately.

Social classes cannot be eliminated without the elimination of the relations of production that result in social classes.

Therefore as a logical conclusion, proletarian revolution is followed by a period during which the mode of production is transformed from capitalist to communist under a proletarian state.

We do not feel the need to implement a bourgeoisie revolution prior to attaining a class proletarian milieu.

Communists don't claim such. And the term is 'bourgeois revolution'. You got something confused there. Maybe you've vaguely read some MList texts concerning the revolutionary process in colonial type countries and misunderstood something. Revolution in colonial type countries and revolution in developed capitalist countries are a dealt differently in Marxism-Leninism, which I can explain if needed.

Knowing that the majority of Communists are Marxist-Leninists and do advocate an epoch of party dictatorship, I can turn the polemic against Marxist-Leninism

Marxist-Leninists don't hold "one party system" as an absolute necessity.

Then some terminology. The name of the ideology is Marxism-Leninism. Leninism is a component of Marxism-Leninism, so therefore "Marxist-Leninists" and "Leninists" don't exist as separate.

Marxists, however, just exactly like Marx advocated it, too, do not advocate political transition, since, Marx himself was a vehement centralist, and believed that the state, manipulated by the entire proletariat class, directly, would be the decision-making method for the Marxist ideology. So, Marx, prior to communism and during communism believed that the working class should maintain power, just like anarchists. If you're adhering to Marxism, the central polemic consists not of transition, but free association or authority.

-Marxists as dialectical materialists don't make a mechanistic division between "economic" and "political". The two are interrelated.

-In communist society working class doesn't hold power, as classes have disappeared. In communism it's the people, not this or that class, which is dominant.

Then on another matter.

According to Marxism-Leninism, markets and commodity production are eliminated gradually during the socialist transition, as plan (as exercised on the scale of society as a whole) conquers the area where law of value has operated and dominated previously. I ask how do anarchists like you plan to eliminate commodity production (production of value)? Because as long as it isn't eliminated there remains potential for capitalism's restauration.

[Morpheus]

A state is not necessary to defend the revolution, even if only part of the world goes anarchist and the other does not. Simply arm the workers. Form decentralized, democratic militias, if necessary, to wage guerilla war against any imperialist invaders. The classic example of this is the Makhnovists, but there's also the anarchist militias in Spain as another example.

The main function of the state may arguably be to defend the ruling class, but even if true that does not mean all class based violence is a state. If a worker hits his boss he does not suddenly become a state. The state is characterized by centralization of power and monopoly or near-monopoly of force, not merely class based violence.

To say "State is a product of the existence of social classes" isn't really correct. The inverse is equally correct, "Social classes is a product of the existence of the state." They are two sides of the same coin. If you have a state you will have a (minority) ruling class and vice versa. Eliminating the relations of production that result in social classes does not require a state.

The means of production should be directly expropriated by the workers during the revolution. We all take over our workplaces and run it directly democratically (or by consensus or some other non-hierarchical means) via worker assemblies. After that the various worker assemblies should form decentralized confederations to coordinate their activities in a decentralized fashion, with actual decision making power staying in the worker assemblies. Once this is set up it is a simple matter to abolish commidity production and implement need based production.

[Kamil]

Abstractively talking, we agree on the need of a world revolution. But what I see as a problem arising from anarchism's 'voluntarism' is the neglection of the uneven social development in the capitalist world system. Nations and areas become ripe for revolution at a different rate, and I honestly think it would be irresponsible to wait when in a revolutionary crisis on the pretext that "the rest of the world isn't ready yet". This isn't necessarily how you think, so I'd ask what's the alternative. If you accept revolution in one country or a group of countries, then you inevitably accept some sort of state (even if extremely decentralised, state is always a state) for the time defence is needed.

I accept revolution in a matter of countries, but feel the need for world revolution, otherwise, anarchism cannot exist. If we go along forcing revolutions in other countries, we'd be fighting too many militaries and antagonists that we can handle, and inevitably, we'd fall. What we need to do is epitomize the revolutionary spirit by co-ordinating a successful revolution without having any theoretical problems. Hopefully, then, other nations will take example and prompt their own revolution. The problem with all of this is, like what happened in Nepal, I believe, America bombed the place and said and claimed that this is how socialism works.

What you're getting wrong is the fact that you perceive that we "inevitably accept some sort of state for the time defence is needed." What's wrong with this is that anarchists, opposed to the state, are not opposed to organization, we advocate a different way of organizing ourselves. In anarcho-syndicalist thought, in which I follow, there is an organization, such as the CNT, that is a central organ for the anarchist society, yet, it is powerless. Along with this, anarchists advocate a federation of communes which keep connections between the communes strong, and so that the communes are not seperated. Also with this, there are reports on the status of the commune to make sure that no infiltration has been done. Like I have stated a few posts back and what Morpheus added, anarchists have had very prosperous militias, most notably in Spain and Ukraine/Russia. In Communism, all communes and all people are connected by the central organ known as the state. This organ is also known for being the decision-making tool for the masses. Now, since both ideologies have some sort of an organization for connecting the working class, the decision-making processes' are what make the difference between the two. Anarchists have decentralized means of decision-making, Communists have centralized decision-making methods. Not that much big of a deal on paper, but big in practise. Similarly, both have an organization, for anarchists an organization like the CNT, and for Communists, the vanguard. It is said that the vanguard is merely there to educate the masses and has no power to rule over them. Although this has been done in every Communist revolution, its initial function is not to do so.

How can you reach a stateless society after a single revolution?

When I implied this, I didn't state that Communists advocate "socialism in one country," I actually said numerous times that anarchists and Commie's don't differ on the point of global revolution.

Communists don't claim such. And the term is 'bourgeois revolution'. You got something confused there. Maybe you've vaguely read some MList texts concerning the revolutionary process in colonial type countries and misunderstood something. Revolution in colonial type countries and revolution in developed capitalist countries are a dealt differently in Marxism-Leninism, which I can explain if needed.

In theory, Marxism and Leninism barely differ, that is why both of them are merged to form Marxist-Leninism. Since Marx and Engels shared virtually identical beliefs and Lenin and Trotsky shared virtually identical beliefs, they are discluded from having their name in the equation. Now, we all know about the initial branch of Communism that Marx and Engels formulated, but what Lenin and Trotsky did was they updated and furthered the philosophy by incorporating several various theories ranging from Lenin's imperialism to Trotsky's permanent revolution theory.

What I do, though, is I distinguish Marxism and Leninism with theory and practise. Marxism, or Marxist-Leninism, of course, is theory and Leninism(also known as Stalinism) is what I like to call the practise of the vanguard expropriating the power of the working class, conveying it to themselves in order to subjugate the proletariat, and then ruling the masses, since it was Lenin who initiated the thermidor of the Bolshevik party, not Stalin. Anyways, Lenin took the duty of the party even farther, and though it'd consist of elected members, their duty was not to rule the workers, but rather, guide them. That is not what happened though, no matter how much Lenin reiterated that he stood for the dictatorship of the proletariat, in practise, he acted in his own interest, he subjugated the proletariat, and ruled over them. Initially, throughout his reign, he continually claimed to advocate the dictatorship of the proletariat and deemed that the dictatorship of one party equates to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marxist-Leninists don't hold "one party system" as an absolute necessity.

Then some terminology. The name of the ideology is Marxism-Leninism. Leninism is a component of Marxism-Leninism, so therefore "Marxist-Leninists" and "Leninists" don't exist as separate.

As most anarchists often misconcept, in Lenin's speech, when he stated his famous quote "when we are reproached of......," he did not imply that his party is reproached for taking power over the masses, rather, he was speaking of the Bolsheviks being the only vanguard helping out the working class since the Mensheviks sided with the antagonist Social Revolutionaries.

-Marxists as dialectical materialists don't make a mechanistic division between "economic" and "political". The two are interrelated.

Although politics and economics are inseperable, it is true that the Marxists don't carry out a political transition since they do not convey working class power into the hands of an elite oligarchy(i.e, the vanguard). Rather, they use the vanguard to guide the proletariat, not rule. Therefore, Marxists don't have a political transition. Certain Leninists will disagree, Leninists that support Lenin's party dictatorship over the proletariat.

-In communist society working class doesn't hold power, as classes have disappeared. In communism it's the people, not this or that class, which is dominant.

Do you imply this in the context that the working class is not in power before communism since the rest of the world is bourgeoisie-run or because the vanguard is calling the shots during their revolution?

[jaakko]

A state is not necessary to defend the revolution, even if only part of the world goes anarchist and the other does not. Simply arm the workers. Form decentralized, democratic militias, if necessary, to wage guerilla war against any imperialist invaders.

That is state, in its initial form. Decentralised, democratic state is still a state. If the working class is armed in an organised manner, it constitutes a proletarian state. It might be a question of terminology, though.

The main function of the state may arguably be to defend the ruling class, but even if true that does not mean all class based violence is a state.

But when it's organised for that purpose, it is.

If a worker hits his boss he does not suddenly become a state.

Sure.

The state is characterized by centralization of power and monopoly or near-monopoly of force, not merely class based violence.

Not necessarily "centralisation". It's "class based" + "organisation", taking this formulation from the early slave owners' states.

To say "State is a product of the existence of social classes" isn't really correct. The inverse is equally correct, "Social classes is a product of the existence of the state." They are two sides of the same coin.

This "two sided coin" view is an ahistorical view. The first antagonistic class division appeared before state, not vice versa. Let's not forget the evolution of society.

If you have a state you will have a (minority) ruling class and vice versa. Eliminating the relations of production that result in social classes does not require a state.

Yes, but as long as you have antagonistic social classes, you have some form of a state want it or not.

The means of production should be directly expropriated by the workers during the revolution. We all take over our workplaces and run it directly democratically (or by consensus or some other non-hierarchical means) via worker assemblies. After that the various worker assemblies should form decentralized confederations to coordinate their activities in a decentralized fashion, with actual decision making power staying in the worker assemblies. Once this is set up it is a simple matter to abolish commidity production and implement need based production.

That makes a lot sense as compared to what I often hear from many anarchists. I see a lot of anarchists who don't even have a vision of going beyond commodity production. Despite your use of the word "decentralisation" I actually see your system as democratic centralist. Local organs getting together making plans for the whole society. Also, the workplaces in your proposition wouldn't actually be co-operatives, but property of the whole people ie. socialist property of the higher type. Just pointing this out as a distinction to many other anarchist visions, not that you necessarily viewed it differently.

[Kamil]

Morpheus is not speaking of decentralized states, but rather decentralized militias. Like I included in my post: Anarchists establish a federation of communes alongside the implementation of an organization, powerless, in which guides the proletariat just like the CNT did. Obviously, this method does not constitute a state. The decentralized and democratic communes do not compose a state since they are based on voluntary co-operation and free association and do not impose regulations and orders, but rather implement guidelines for tackling issues that need to be tackled.

[jaakko]

Morpheus is not speaking of decentralized states, but rather decentralized militias.

State in its initial form wasn't country wide, or even city wide. State in its initial form was "militia" ie. an organised body of armed men.

Like I included in my post: Anarchists establish a federation of communes alongside the implementation of an organization, powerless, in which guides the proletariat just like the CNT did. Obviously, this method does not constitute a state. The decentralized and democratic communes do not compose a state since they are based on voluntary co-operation and free association and do not impose regulations and orders, but rather implement guidelines for tackling issues that need to be tackled.

Then our disagreement is on the level of terminology, ie. unsolvable except if we make it clear which definition we're using. I'm not adding more criterions for my criteria of 'state', and most probably you're not going to give up yours either. I'll comment your earlier reply later, now it's getting too late. Goodnight.

[Kamil]

State in its initial form wasn't country wide, or even city wide. State in its initial form was "militia" ie. an organised body of armed men.

What distinguishes these 'communal states' that you're referring to with anarchist communes is this: States not only have a professional nature of violence with their legitimate monopoly of violence, they're accompanied by armed bodies of men and coercive institutions. Opposed to free association and voluntary co-operation, states impose their established rule amongst their subjects. Those that don't comply will have violent measures perpetrated against them using these coercive institutions and armed bodies of men to establish subordination. These anarchist communes and militia do not impose anything nor do they have rulers and subjects, they are based upon egalitarian status. Using direct democracy, they vote on options that are viable in tackling the issues that need to be resolved, and like I said, do not impose these measures.

Then our disagreement is on the level of terminology, ie. unsolvable except if we make it clear which definition we're using. I'm not adding more criterions for my criteria of 'state', and most probably you're not going to give up yours either. I'll comment your earlier reply later, now it's getting too late. Goodnight.

We'll do this tomorrow. Good night and sweet dreams.

[Morpheus]

That is state, in its initial form. Decentralised, democratic state is still a state. If the working class is armed in an organised manner, it constitutes a proletarian state.

This is a double logical fallacy: equivocation and an overly broad definition. As I've said elsewhere:

Many Marxists define the state as "the organization of violence for the suppression of some class" (or something similar to this) and, based on this, claim that the above measures constitute a "state." This is a common Marxist fallacy whereby Marxists play with the definition of words to make two very different things seem the same. This definition is overly broad. To equate a confederation of community assemblies or a decentralized network of militias with the centralized states created by all Marxists when they get in power is pure nonsense. The state is more than merely an instrument of force used by one class against other class(es). If two workers punch their boss there is force being used against a different class, but that does not mean that those two workers suddenly become a state. If a boss beats up an employee he is not magically transformed into a state, even though he is using force against a different class. To equate _all_ use of force between classes with a state is pure sophistry. Marxists generally do not have a good understanding of the state; this definition is not based on any kind of empirical analysis of the state but is plucked out of thin air to suit their political agenda. When Marxists attempt to make an empirical analysis of the state they often end up acknowledging this and coming close to the anarchist view of the state but refuse to see the political implications. For example, in "The Family, Private Property and the State" Fredrick Engels differentiates between the state (which he describes as a public power placed "above" society with its own armed bodies of men and coercive institutions) and the "self-acting armed organization of the population." It is precisely the "self-acting armed organization of the population" which is advocated by anarchists as a means of defeating violent counterrevolutionaries!

The state is defined by:
1) A "monopoly of violence" in a given territorial area;
2) This violence having a "professional," institutional nature;
3) A hierarchical and authoritarian nature - centralisation of power and initiative into the hands of a few.

What I described has none of these characteristics. Furthermore, there are many examples of states not acting to support the ruling class. They usually do that, but not always. Napolean the third's regime in France or the abolition of serfdom in Russia are examples of this. To define the state as an instrument of the dominant class (as opposed to arguing that is their function) implies that there was no state in those examples - an obvious absurdity.

But when it's organised for that purpose, it is.

So if five workers organize to beat up their boss, you think it's a state?

Not necessarily "centralisation". It's "class based" + "organisation", taking this formulation from the early slave owners' states.

Early slave states were centralized, to varying degrees. As I said, there have been instances of states not acting in the interests of a class, so your theory is blown apart. And yes, centralization + monopoly of force. All organizations that have these characteristics are states, those that don't aren't states.

This "two sided coin" view is an ahistorical view. The first antagonistic class division appeared before state, not vice versa.

This contradicts your claim that "as long as you have antagonistic social classes, you have some form of a state want it or not". If that's the case then the first class system had to have a state, too. They go together. Name one society which developed classes but didn't have a state.

Also, the whole point of an anarchist revolution is to abolish classes. The moment the means of production are expropriated by the working class the bourgeoisie ceases to exist. There is no ruling class. Former capitalists may exist, but an actual capitalist class would not longer exist. There would no longer be a class system.

That makes a lot sense as compared to what I often hear from many anarchists. I see a lot of anarchists who don't even have a vision of going beyond commodity production.

Actually, most anarchists who have a specific economic vision prefer anarcho-communism (abolishing commodity production). The only big exception to this is the mutualists. A lot of Marxists like to focus on mutualist and similar forms of anarchism, and pretend that this represents all of anarchism (when it really only represents a minority), because it's easier to attack. Of course, some anarchists don't have much of a vision for a post-capitalist society - just an opposition to the present system.

Despite your use of the word "decentralisation" I actually see your system as democratic centralist. Local organs getting together making plans for the whole society.

It has nothing to do with centralism, there is no central authority. In Marxist usage "centralism," like "state," has a shifting two-sided meaning. On the one hand there is its usual meaning: subordination to a central authority (or "one deciding will" as Engels put it). On the other hand it is sometimes used in an overly broad manner that confuses centralization with coordination. Lenin does this in state & revolution. It is entirely possible to coordinate actions without centralism. The typical Marxist approach to defending oneself from decentralist criticisms, employed by Lenin & others, is to defend centralism in the overly broad sense (equating it with coordination) and then erroneously equating that with support for centralisation in it's ordinary sense (subordination to a central authority).

Also, the workplaces in your proposition wouldn't actually be co-operatives, but property of the whole people ie. socialist property of the higher type.

I prefer to think of it as there being no property at all.

[Maxim Litvinov]

This thread has become too long for me to read. Seriously. I suspect that not only has it developed into a clash with Orthodox Marxists, but that we'll be repeating ourselves anyway if I continue to try 'debating' here.

So - I will go off and read some Bakunin. And I will try to find out for myself some good answers to how anarchism keeps itself 'pure'. Then I might come back and read it all again and post here.

Thanks for your thoughts though, Kam.

[Kamil]

Anytime man, it's been fun.

I suggest that you read Peter Kropotkin's "The Conquest of Bread" if you want to find some good answers on how anarchism keep itself 'pure.' Kropotkin offers hitherto viable solutions to common revolutionary problems and offers a great perspective on revolution. Kropotkin also goes to measures giving an excellent critique of capitalist economics, too. Also, in his book "Mutual Aid," which I have not yet read, Kropotkin goes into an important aspect of anarchist thought which you could catch a preview at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid

Edit: Check out some more links concerning Kropotkin:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conquest_of_Bread -Synopsis and Information on the Conquest of Bread
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_ar ... t/toc.html -actual book

[Comrade Ogilvy]

But how does the police get its jurisdiction to enforce laws if there is no governing body to set rules and regs. And also who is to say what can be justifiable and not.

One word: Culture

Culture, as in the traditional culture of the masses, not as in the culture of the people not of the past ruling elite/ruling-classes. And religion and culture are different.