First time on a Anarchist blog

Hey everyone, im Damien. Im a revolutionary socialist who loves to hear all other types of alternative ideas about changing society. Thats mainly why I'm here. I like anarchist discussions as well. Well nice to meet everyone.

Damien wrote:

Hey everyone, im Damien. Im a revolutionary socialist who loves to hear all other types of alternative ideas about changing society. Thats mainly why I'm here. I like anarchist discussions as well. Well nice to meet everyone.

Welcome to the site, Damien! I used to be a (state) Socialist, but now I'm a Stateless Socialist -- to be more specific, a Libertarian Socialist / Anarcho Syndicalist.

KenCat wrote:

Damien wrote:

Hey everyone, im Damien. Im a revolutionary socialist who loves to hear all other types of alternative ideas about changing society. Thats mainly why I'm here. I like anarchist discussions as well. Well nice to meet everyone.

Welcome to the site, Damien! I used to be a (state) Socialist, but now I'm a Stateless Socialist -- to be more specific, a Libertarian Socialist / Anarcho Syndicalist.

By stateless im assuming you mean to classify your vision on how society should look after the overthrow of capitalism-particularly a society with no state?

Damien wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Damien wrote:

Hey everyone, im Damien. Im a revolutionary socialist who loves to hear all other types of alternative ideas about changing society. Thats mainly why I'm here. I like anarchist discussions as well. Well nice to meet everyone.

Welcome to the site, Damien! I used to be a (state) Socialist, but now I'm a Stateless Socialist -- to be more specific, a Libertarian Socialist / Anarcho Syndicalist.

By stateless im assuming you mean to classify your vision on how society should look after the overthrow of capitalism-particularly a society with no state?

You could say that. There are mainly two different types of anarchy, socialistic and individualistic (where you look after yourself). I believe in the Social ideology of Anarchism, for Anarchy is a form of Socialism.

Damien wrote:

Hey everyone, im Damien. Im a revolutionary socialist who loves to hear all other types of alternative ideas about changing society. Thats mainly why I'm here. I like anarchist discussions as well. Well nice to meet everyone.

Check out the portal for an introduction to Anarchism

You could say that. There are mainly two different types of anarchy, socialistic and individualistic (where you look after yourself). I believe in the Social ideology of Anarchism, for Anarchy is a form of Socialism.[/quote]

But there are diametrically opposed definitions in terms of what Anarchy and Socialism actually are. In classical marxist terms socialism is merely the transition from Capitalism to Communism. Theres so many different definitions for Anarchy. I guess the most poignant definition describing Anarchism is that Anarchism is a society in which individuals collectively participate in every form of life with no form of subordination or social rank. Most of the Anarchists I met usually stress that sort of definition in describing Anarchism. With that said, I dont think its accurate to say that Anarchy is a form of Socialism. They're two different things.

Damien wrote:

You could say that. There are mainly two different types of anarchy, socialistic and individualistic (where you look after yourself). I believe in the Social ideology of Anarchism, for Anarchy is a form of Socialism.

But there are diametrically opposed definitions in terms of what Anarchy and Socialism actually are. In classical marxist terms socialism is merely the transition from Capitalism to Communism. Theres so many different definitions for Anarchy. I guess the most poignant definition describing Anarchism is that Anarchism is a society in which individuals collectively participate in every form of life with no form of subordination or social rank. Most of the Anarchists I met usually stress that sort of definition in describing Anarchism. With that said, I dont think its accurate to say that Anarchy is a form of Socialism. They're two different things.[/quote]

Not necessarily -- Anarchism cannot be defined in one sentence, it's an entire philosophy. And yes, there are many socialist aspects of Anarchism. Take a look at Anarcho Communism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho Syndicalism, etc.

KenCat wrote:

Damien wrote:

You could say that. There are mainly two different types of anarchy, socialistic and individualistic (where you look after yourself). I believe in the Social ideology of Anarchism, for Anarchy is a form of Socialism.

Not necessarily -- Anarchism cannot be defined in one sentence, it's an entire philosophy. And yes, there are many socialist aspects of Anarchism. Take a look at Anarcho Communism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho Syndicalism, etc.

But socialism is just the transition from Capitalism to classless society. What exactly do you mean by "socialist aspects"?

Damien wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Damien wrote:

You could say that. There are mainly two different types of anarchy, socialistic and individualistic (where you look after yourself). I believe in the Social ideology of Anarchism, for Anarchy is a form of Socialism.

Not necessarily -- Anarchism cannot be defined in one sentence, it's an entire philosophy. And yes, there are many socialist aspects of Anarchism. Take a look at Anarcho Communism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho Syndicalism, etc.

But socialism is just the transition from Capitalism to classless society. What exactly do you mean by "socialist aspects"?

Anarchism (such as Anarcho Communism, Syndicalism or Libertarian Socialism) could be a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods -- this is very prominent in Anarcho Syndicalism. Libertarian Socialism is a little more about the social programs and Anarcho Communism is a little more about the revolutionary rights.

KenCat wrote:

Damien wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Damien wrote:

You could say that. There are mainly two different types of anarchy, socialistic and individualistic (where you look after yourself). I believe in the Social ideology of Anarchism, for Anarchy is a form of Socialism.

Not necessarily -- Anarchism cannot be defined in one sentence, it's an entire philosophy. And yes, there are many socialist aspects of Anarchism. Take a look at Anarcho Communism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho Syndicalism, etc.

But socialism is just the transition from Capitalism to classless society. What exactly do you mean by "socialist aspects"?

Anarchism (such as Anarcho Communism, Syndicalism or Libertarian Socialism) could be a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods -- this is very prominent in Anarcho Syndicalism. Libertarian Socialism is a little more about the social programs and Anarcho Communism is a little more about the revolutionary rights.

Ok. Then all of those forms of Anarchism do share similarities to Socialism in terms of what should happen in society-particulary the working class taking control over the means of production and a classless society afterwards.

Damien wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Damien wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Damien wrote:

You could say that. There are mainly two different types of anarchy, socialistic and individualistic (where you look after yourself). I believe in the Social ideology of Anarchism, for Anarchy is a form of Socialism.

Not necessarily -- Anarchism cannot be defined in one sentence, it's an entire philosophy. And yes, there are many socialist aspects of Anarchism. Take a look at Anarcho Communism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho Syndicalism, etc.

But socialism is just the transition from Capitalism to classless society. What exactly do you mean by "socialist aspects"?

Anarchism (such as Anarcho Communism, Syndicalism or Libertarian Socialism) could be a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods -- this is very prominent in Anarcho Syndicalism. Libertarian Socialism is a little more about the social programs and Anarcho Communism is a little more about the revolutionary rights.

Ok. Then all of those forms of Anarchism do share similarities to Socialism in terms of what should happen in society-particulary the working class taking control over the means of production and a classless society afterwards.

Exactly. In fact, all forms of Anarchism aim to create a classless society.

hey damien.

i think socialism is used more to describe a transcition phase, while communism is what is achieved.

i would say anarchism is a communistic ideology as well as a socialistic ideology, because its both used to achieve communism, and it remains after communism is achieved.

god0fmusic wrote:

hey damien.

i think socialism is used more to describe a transcition phase, while communism is what is achieved.

i would say anarchism is a communistic ideology as well as a socialistic ideology, because its both used to achieve communism, and it remains after communism is achieved.

Quite true.

god0fmusic wrote:

hey damien.

i think socialism is used more to describe a transcition phase, while communism is what is achieved.

i would say anarchism is a communistic ideology as well as a socialistic ideology, because its both used to achieve communism, and it remains after communism is achieved.

Well thats what I said before. Socialism is the transition from capitalism to communism. Anarchy is said to desire the same thing as communism, but theres been recent debate on whether anarchism and communism desires the same thing. The marxist argument is that because of the class origins of anarchism, and its heavy emphasis on individual freedom, the end desire of anarchism is not the same as the end desire of communism. It seems pretty convincing, but I'd like to hear arguments from anarchists i suppose.

Damien wrote:

god0fmusic wrote:

hey damien.

i think socialism is used more to describe a transcition phase, while communism is what is achieved.

i would say anarchism is a communistic ideology as well as a socialistic ideology, because its both used to achieve communism, and it remains after communism is achieved.

Well thats what I said before. Socialism is the transition from capitalism to communism. Anarchy is said to desire the same thing as communism, but theres been recent debate on whether anarchism and communism desires the same thing. The marxist argument is that because of the class origins of anarchism, and its heavy emphasis on individual freedom, the end desire of anarchism is not the same as the end desire of communism. It seems pretty convincing, but I'd like to hear arguments from anarchists i suppose.

Like there are different Communists, there are different Anarchists. There are those who desire 'individual freedom' and those who desire ultimate freedom with an end result of a stateless commune. There are Individualist Anarchists and Anarcho Communists -- I'm more of an Anarcho Communist.

Damien wrote:

god0fmusic wrote:

hey damien.

i think socialism is used more to describe a transcition phase, while communism is what is achieved.

i would say anarchism is a communistic ideology as well as a socialistic ideology, because its both used to achieve communism, and it remains after communism is achieved.

Well thats what I said before. Socialism is the transition from capitalism to communism. Anarchy is said to desire the same thing as communism, but theres been recent debate on whether anarchism and communism desires the same thing. The marxist argument is that because of the class origins of anarchism, and its heavy emphasis on individual freedom, the end desire of anarchism is not the same as the end desire of communism. It seems pretty convincing, but I'd like to hear arguments from anarchists i suppose.

Socialism is the transition from capitalism to communism within 'Marxism' - otherwise called 'the dictatorship of the proletariat'. Socialism as a concept 'pre-dates' Marxism. Marxists have no monopoly on the concept of socialism. Unfortunately within the US people automaticly attach the words socialism and communism to the Marxist defintions.

Anarchists are communists in truest sence of the word. We reject the need for centralized government considering it would create new class's based on party relations. Concentration of power occurs within the state - society becomes once again based on subordination and domination. Anarchists believe that in order to have a truly free and equal society hierarchy must be done away with all together - essentially we seek a communism after revolution.

Anarchists in the nineteenth century rejected the idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" simply because the proletariat was a minority of working people at the time. As such, to argue for a dictatorship of the proletariat meant to argue for the dictatorship of a minority class, a class which excluded the majority of toiling people. When Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto, for example, over 80% of the population of France and Germany were peasants or artisans. Marx and Engels vision of proletarian revolution was one which involved a minority dictating to the majority.

As such, Bakunin rejected the concept. He was simply pointing out the fact that a "dictatorship of the proletariat," at the time, actually meant a dictatorship by a minority of working people and so a "revolution" which excluded the majority of working people (i.e. artisans and peasants). As he argued in 1873: "If the proletariat is to be the ruling class then whom will it rule? There must be yet another proletariat which will be subject to this new rule, this new state. It may be the peasant rabble . . . which, finding itself on a lower cultural level, will probably be governed by the urban and factory proletariat." [Statism and Anarchy, pp. 177-8]

So it is important to note that Marx meant a minority dictatorship when he wrote the communist manifesto ''The first step on the path to the workers' revolution is the elevation of the proletariat to the position of ruling class. The proletariat will gain from its political domination by gradually tearing away from the bourgeoisie all capital, by centralizing all means of production in the hands of the State, that is to say in the hands of the proletariat itself organized as the ruling class' - Karl Marx

Most socialist parties today are marked by strong currents of Leninism or even stalinism as we can see within many social democratic parties - They seek to govern the centralized gov without upsetting their bourgeoisie masters - or electorate as the case may be. Engaging in political activity in order to govern alongside the capitalists with no real drive to overthrow them. The majority of so called socialist parties today have become tainted by the power of gov - which proves that Anarchist thinkers are accurate in the observation that no one can wield power within the hierarchy without becoming corrupted by it.

Inkus2000 wrote:

Damien wrote:

god0fmusic wrote:

hey damien.

i think socialism is used more to describe a transcition phase, while communism is what is achieved.

i would say anarchism is a communistic ideology as well as a socialistic ideology, because its both used to achieve communism, and it remains after communism is achieved.

Well thats what I said before. Socialism is the transition from capitalism to communism. Anarchy is said to desire the same thing as communism, but theres been recent debate on whether anarchism and communism desires the same thing. The marxist argument is that because of the class origins of anarchism, and its heavy emphasis on individual freedom, the end desire of anarchism is not the same as the end desire of communism. It seems pretty convincing, but I'd like to hear arguments from anarchists i suppose.

Socialism is the transition from capitalism to communism within 'Marxism' - otherwise called 'the dictatorship of the proletariat'. Socialism as a concept 'pre-dates' Marxism. Marxists have no monopoly on the concept of socialism. Unfortunately within the US people automaticly attach the words socialism and communism to the Marxist defintions.

Anarchists are communists in truest sence of the word. We reject the need for centralized government considering it would create new class's based on party relations. Concentration of power occurs within the state - society becomes once again based on subordination and domination. Anarchists believe that in order to have a truly free and equal society hierarchy must be done away with all together - essentially we seek a communism after revolution.

Anarchists in the nineteenth century rejected the idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" simply because the proletariat was a minority of working people at the time. As such, to argue for a dictatorship of the proletariat meant to argue for the dictatorship of a minority class, a class which excluded the majority of toiling people. When Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto, for example, over 80% of the population of France and Germany were peasants or artisans. Marx and Engels vision of proletarian revolution was one which involved a minority dictating to the majority.

As such, Bakunin rejected the concept. He was simply pointing out the fact that a "dictatorship of the proletariat," at the time, actually meant a dictatorship by a minority of working people and so a "revolution" which excluded the majority of working people (i.e. artisans and peasants). As he argued in 1873: "If the proletariat is to be the ruling class then whom will it rule? There must be yet another proletariat which will be subject to this new rule, this new state. It may be the peasant rabble . . . which, finding itself on a lower cultural level, will probably be governed by the urban and factory proletariat." [Statism and Anarchy, pp. 177-8]

So it is important to note that Marx meant a minority dictatorship when he wrote the communist manifesto ''The first step on the path to the workers' revolution is the elevation of the proletariat to the position of ruling class. The proletariat will gain from its political domination by gradually tearing away from the bourgeoisie all capital, by centralizing all means of production in the hands of the State, that is to say in the hands of the proletariat itself organized as the ruling class' - Karl Marx

Most socialist parties today are marked by strong currents of Leninism or even stalinism as we can see within many social democratic parties - They seek to govern the centralized gov without upsetting their bourgeoisie masters - or electorate as the case may be. Engaging in political activity in order to govern alongside the capitalists with no real drive to overthrow them. The majority of so called socialist parties today have become tainted by the power of gov - which proves that Anarchist thinkers are accurate in the observation that no one can wield power within the hierarchy without becoming corrupted by it.

Well the whole thing about the term "socialism" i think really has to do with semantics. The Fabians in the 19th century used term "socialism" but obviously they didnt mean "the dictatorship of the proletariat". I think its accurate to say that for right now, when you use the term "socialism" then youre talking about the transition from communism to capitalism.

One of the key aspects of Marxism is that as capitalism expands, the working class will expand. Marx and Engels knew this when they wrote the Communist Manifesto. Not only were they aware of the ultimate expansion of the proletariat. but they were convinced that the proletariat was the only class capable of doing away with capitalism and establshing a workers government that would concentrate all resources into the hands of the majority of people for the first time ever since the rise of class society. Although the working class was obviously a minority at the time. the eventual expansion of it was absolutely inevitable because of the underlying principles under capitalism-namely the accumulation of profit depends on the exploitation of the wage worker.

Bakunin and Proudhon depended on the peasants and artisans simply because they were a majority of the population, but Marx and Engels were able to see that the peasants were incapable of overthrowing capitalism because of their specific mode of production, and the artisans were just a traditional European middle class that sought its own economic interests in diametrical opposition to the interests of the proletariat which would eventually become the class with the most people, because of the inherent nature of capitalism to "accumulate!accumulate! for accumulations sake" at the expense of the wage worker obviously. But the key was that the proletariat was eventually to expand, the artisan and the peasant would become unnecessary, and the proletariat was the key to the destruction of capitalism. Marx and Engels were able to see this before the Proudhonists and Bakuninists did I suppose.

Damien wrote:

Inkus2000 wrote:

Damien wrote:

god0fmusic wrote:

hey damien.

i think socialism is used more to describe a transcition phase, while communism is what is achieved.

i would say anarchism is a communistic ideology as well as a socialistic ideology, because its both used to achieve communism, and it remains after communism is achieved.

Well thats what I said before. Socialism is the transition from capitalism to communism. Anarchy is said to desire the same thing as communism, but theres been recent debate on whether anarchism and communism desires the same thing. The marxist argument is that because of the class origins of anarchism, and its heavy emphasis on individual freedom, the end desire of anarchism is not the same as the end desire of communism. It seems pretty convincing, but I'd like to hear arguments from anarchists i suppose.

Socialism is the transition from capitalism to communism within 'Marxism' - otherwise called 'the dictatorship of the proletariat'. Socialism as a concept 'pre-dates' Marxism. Marxists have no monopoly on the concept of socialism. Unfortunately within the US people automaticly attach the words socialism and communism to the Marxist defintions.

Anarchists are communists in truest sence of the word. We reject the need for centralized government considering it would create new class's based on party relations. Concentration of power occurs within the state - society becomes once again based on subordination and domination. Anarchists believe that in order to have a truly free and equal society hierarchy must be done away with all together - essentially we seek a communism after revolution.

Anarchists in the nineteenth century rejected the idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" simply because the proletariat was a minority of working people at the time. As such, to argue for a dictatorship of the proletariat meant to argue for the dictatorship of a minority class, a class which excluded the majority of toiling people. When Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto, for example, over 80% of the population of France and Germany were peasants or artisans. Marx and Engels vision of proletarian revolution was one which involved a minority dictating to the majority.

As such, Bakunin rejected the concept. He was simply pointing out the fact that a "dictatorship of the proletariat," at the time, actually meant a dictatorship by a minority of working people and so a "revolution" which excluded the majority of working people (i.e. artisans and peasants). As he argued in 1873: "If the proletariat is to be the ruling class then whom will it rule? There must be yet another proletariat which will be subject to this new rule, this new state. It may be the peasant rabble . . . which, finding itself on a lower cultural level, will probably be governed by the urban and factory proletariat." [Statism and Anarchy, pp. 177-8]

So it is important to note that Marx meant a minority dictatorship when he wrote the communist manifesto ''The first step on the path to the workers' revolution is the elevation of the proletariat to the position of ruling class. The proletariat will gain from its political domination by gradually tearing away from the bourgeoisie all capital, by centralizing all means of production in the hands of the State, that is to say in the hands of the proletariat itself organized as the ruling class' - Karl Marx

Most socialist parties today are marked by strong currents of Leninism or even stalinism as we can see within many social democratic parties - They seek to govern the centralized gov without upsetting their bourgeoisie masters - or electorate as the case may be. Engaging in political activity in order to govern alongside the capitalists with no real drive to overthrow them. The majority of so called socialist parties today have become tainted by the power of gov - which proves that Anarchist thinkers are accurate in the observation that no one can wield power within the hierarchy without becoming corrupted by it.

Well the whole thing about the term "socialism" i think really has to do with semantics. The Fabians in the 19th century used term "socialism" but obviously they didnt mean "the dictatorship of the proletariat". I think its accurate to say that for right now, when you use the term "socialism" then youre talking about the transition from communism to capitalism.

One of the key aspects of Marxism is that as capitalism expands, the working class will expand. Marx and Engels knew this when they wrote the Communist Manifesto. Not only were they aware of the ultimate expansion of the proletariat. but they were convinced that the proletariat was the only class capable of doing away with capitalism and establshing a workers government that would concentrate all resources into the hands of the majority of people for the first time ever since the rise of class society. Although the working class was obviously a minority at the time. the eventual expansion of it was absolutely inevitable because of the underlying principles under capitalism-namely the accumulation of profit depends on the exploitation of the wage worker.

Bakunin and Proudhon depended on the peasants and artisans simply because they were a majority of the population, but Marx and Engels were able to see that the peasants were incapable of overthrowing capitalism because of their specific mode of production, and the artisans were just a traditional European middle class that sought its own economic interests in diametrical opposition to the interests of the proletariat which would eventually become the class with the most people, because of the inherent nature of capitalism to "accumulate!accumulate! for accumulations sake" at the expense of the wage worker obviously. But the key was that the proletariat was eventually to expand, the artisan and the peasant would become unnecessary, and the proletariat was the key to the destruction of capitalism. Marx and Engels were able to see this before the Proudhonists and Bakuninists did I suppose.

Quote :

Well the whole thing about the term "socialism" i think really has to do with semantics. The Fabians in the 19th century used term "socialism" but obviously they didnt mean "the dictatorship of the proletariat". I think its accurate to say that for right now, when you use the term "socialism" then youre talking about the transition from communism to capitalism.

Not semantics, although socialism refers to a transition - there is a huge difference between the Marxist definition of socialism and Anarchist or Utopian socialism. The main difference being that Marx implies centralization.

Quote :

One of the key aspects of Marxism is that as capitalism expands, the working class will expand. Marx and Engels knew this when they wrote the Communist Manifesto. Not only were they aware of the ultimate expansion of the proletariat. but they were convinced that the proletariat was the only class capable of doing away with capitalism and establshing a workers government that would concentrate all resources into the hands of the majority of people for the first time ever since the rise of class society. Although the working class was obviously a minority at the time. the eventual expansion of it was absolutely inevitable because of the underlying principles under capitalism-namely the accumulation of profit depends on the exploitation of the wage worker.

It has been proven by history that a minority dictatorship cannot bring about communism - it would require the volentary participation of all within society.The state is an institution of hierarchy and corrupts all who come to hold it as we see in the USSR - China - Cuba ect .'The Marxists argue, that state yoke, dictatorship, is a necessary transitional device for achieving the total liberation of the people: anarchy, or freedom, is the goal, and the state, or dictatorship, is the means . We reply that no dictatorship can have any other objective than to perpetuate itself, and that it can engender and nurture only slavery in the people who endure it. Liberty can be created only by liberty, by an insurrection of all the people and the voluntary organisation of the workers from below upwards." [Statism and Anarchy, p. 179]

Quote :

Bakunin and Proudhon depended on the peasants and artisans simply because they were a majority of the population, but Marx and Engels were able to see that the peasants were incapable of overthrowing capitalism because of their specific mode of production, and the artisans were just a traditional European middle class that sought its own economic interests in diametrical opposition to the interests of the proletariat which would eventually become the class with the most people, because of the inherent nature of capitalism to "accumulate!accumulate! for accumulations sake" at the expense of the wage worker obviously. But the key was that the proletariat was eventually to expand, the artisan and the peasant would become unnecessary, and the proletariat was the key to the destruction of capitalism. Marx and Engels were able to see this before the Proudhonists and Bakuninists did I suppose.[

Marx proposed a revolution for the people but not 'by the people'. We hold that revolution must be carried out by participatory confedirations of workers communes. Marx has been proven wrong by history in his assertion that the Anarchist method would not function - If you want to learn about anarchist society in action read the accounts of the Spanish Revolution

"the foundation of this administration will be the commune. These communes are to be autonomous and will be federated at regional and national levels to achieve their general goals. The right to autonomy does not preclude the duty to implement agreements regarding collective benefits. The commune . without any voluntary restrictions will undertake to adhere to whatever general norms may be agreed by majority vote after free debate. In return, those communities which industrialisation . may agree upon a different model of co-existence and will be entitled to an autonomous administration released from the general commitments . . the commune is to be autonomous and confederated with the other communes .the commune will have the duty to concern itself with whatever may be of interest to the individual. It will have to oversee organising, running and beautification of the settlement. It will see that its inhabitants; are housed and that items and products be made available to them by the producers' unions or associations. Similarly, it is concern itself with hygiene, the keeping of communal statistics and with collective requirements such as education, health services and with the maintenance and improvement of local means of communication. It will orchestrate relations with other communes and will take care to stimulate all artistic and cultural pursuits. So that this mission may be properly fulfilled, a communal council is to be appointed . . None of these posts will carry any executive or bureaucratic powers . [its members] will perform their role as producers coming together in session at the close of the day's work to discuss the detailed items which may not require the endorsement of communal assemblies. Assemblies are to be summoned as often as required by communal interests, upon the request of the communal council or according to the wishes of the inhabitants of each commune . The inhabitants of a commune are to debate among themselves their internal problems .Federations are to deliberate over major problems affecting a country or province and all communes are to be represented at their reunions and assemblies, thereby enabling their delegates to convey the democratic viewpoint of their respective communes every commune which is implicated will have its right to have its say .On matters of a regional nature, it is the duty of the regional federation to implement agreements .So the starting point is the individual, moving on through the commune, to the federation and right on up finally to the confederation." [quoted by Jose Peirats, The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, pp. 106-7]

History has shown time and again that the dictatorship of the proletariat devolves into a gang of oligarchs often lead by a brutal dictator - and the so called 'socialist state' etches ever closer to Fascism rather than communism. The "vanguard" invariably becomes the new aristocracy.

Damn dude, you really know how to make someone read a lengthy paragraph.

I mean, from the CNT FAI quote, one can get a real grasp into how confusing anarchist theory can become, but at the same time, it can be fairly easy. Alright, im going to make an attempt to deal with all of this.

From al of this, ive gathered 3 critiques about anarchism that actually other anarchists have as well.
1. That anarchism in large part is filled with these universal axioms that can be learned in 5 minutes. (Revolutionary party=dictatorship)
2. As far as the end vision is concerned, anarchism can become extremely confusing and dogmatic. (Parecon, workers federations(individual-municipality-regional-federation) I mean, are we merely dealing with geography here, or are we talking about exercising our economic power as a collective class with purpose of overtaking the means of production away from the ruling class? Because thats what its really going to have to take in order to change society.
3.Anarchism speculates way too much into the future with these meticulous experiments as shown with the CNT FAI.

Noam Chomsky actually admitted once in a interview that lots of anarchists studies are too meticulous with the future of society. All of this talk about communes, and federations, and regions, and all just seems as if there are a couple people just planning this stuff out on how they think society can become the most democratic, the most participatory. I mean how do we know that that particular system is going to work? The thing about Marxism was that Marx was forced to reassess his analysis on how the working class is to take control because of the actual concrete events of the Paris Commune in 1871. He was learning from the instinctive role the workers took during that time. They were teaching him!!!! But people like Michael Albert who contrive these meticulous future anarchist plans are not learning from concrete experiences per se, but are really just using idealist tactics-basically speculating in ther adademic fashion on how they think society can be the most democratic.
Franco's armies were able to crush those communes left and right because they were decentralized and some were autonomous. Decision implementation was at times a insurmountable task specifically because of the way they organized. They exhausted debates and it took forever to finally get a vote. And when it came time for the working class to take power in Catalonia, the FAI stated "we dont believe in dictatorships" and therefore joined the right wing government. Historically, when anarchism is confronted with the time to take power and crush the opposition, it doesnt do it, and it goes back to the right because thats the only place to go.
The point is this. Dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean dictatorship of the minority. Again, the proletariat not only makes up the majority of the people on the planet, but its the only force capable of overthrowing capitalism. Why??? Because the capitalists need us in order to generate profit. We hold a vital productive role in capitalism. Once we revoke that role, the system falls like a deck of cards. Therefore when we say "dictatorship of the proletariat" we mean the majority fighting off the old minority exploiters.
When you say communism can be only brung about if the revolution involves "the voluntary participation of all within society" i hope you are not referring to forces who have diametrically opposed interests to the working class, namely the ruling class. I think that might have been just a slip of the pen.
How can a dictatorship of the proletariat perpetuate a dictatorship of the minority if the proletariat makes up the majority??? I really dont understand that. Again, the universal axioms that most anarchists adhere to are blindly followed without analyzing the circumstances in which these historically events have occured.
In Russia, the working class was a minority with a totally different mode of production from the other classes that existed. Yet the bolsheviks still felt it necessary to orgaize a revolutionary party capable of playing a role in the overthrow of capitalism. When this finally occured, almost immediately the revolution was doomed-most notably with the invasion of 19 different imperialist armies, with the failure of the workers revolution in Germany and elsewhere, and with the decimation of the working class as a whole in Russia. Therefore the only force in society capable of overthrowing capitalism dissapeared in the midst of civil war and starvation. There were even reports of cannibalism in some regions. Thats how bad it was in post revolutionary Russia.
Were the bolsheviks to just give up??? No, they thought that if they temporarily replaced the workers government with the party, rebuild the working class as a sufficient fighting force through rapid industrialization (which obviously turned out to be a failure) then maybe they can get back on track. Obviously that didnt happen, but its no fault of the sincere revolutionaries that gave their life fighting against the counterrevolution, or people like Lenin, Trotsky and others. It was purely the conditions of backwardness and tzarism in Russia that really doomed the Russian Revolution. Lenin was once quoted as saying "If the revolution doesn't succeed in Germany, we are doomed". This is partially why Trotsky developed his theory on "Permanant Revolution" for a circumstance like Russia. Its really too much to discuss on a blog. I can recommend books if you want.

Quote :

Noam Chomsky actually admitted once in a interview that lots of anarchists studies are too meticulous with the future of society. All of this talk about communes, and federations, and regions, and all just seems as if there are a couple people just planning this stuff out on how they think society can become the most democratic, the most participatory. I mean how do we know that that particular system is going to work?

Anarchist society has 'already' functioned as seen during the Spanish revolution, Chomsky would be the first to point that out. Much recent Anarchist theory on revolt ect is derived from observation of the the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, the Italian Factory Occupations, the Spanish Revolution, The May-June revolt 1968 ect. Earlier Anarchist theory is also based on observation of historical social movements - much the way Marxism is. If you think Anarchist theory is complicated - try to understand Marxist economics or explain how a centralized command economy is supposed to function.

Quote :

The thing about Marxism was that Marx was forced to reassess his analysis on how the working class is to take control because of the actual concrete events of the Paris Commune in 1871. He was learning from the instinctive role the workers took during that time. They were teaching him!!!! But people like Michael Albert who contrive these meticulous future anarchist plans are not learning from concrete experiences per se, but are really just using idealist tactics-basically speculating in ther adademic fashion on how they think society can be the most democratic.

Bakunin's critique of Marx is entirely consistent with his earlier writings. Marx adjusted his ideas and became more libertarian after witnessing the Parie commune - needless to say most socialists interpreted Marx as implying centralized power in the hands of a minority ie Lenin. In fact many socialist parties today take the same line based on the larger body of Marx's work - an element that I think causes huge problems within the movement. From what I have read Marx simply seems to have contradicted himself.

Quote :

Franco's armies were able to crush those communes left and right because they were decentralized and some were autonomous. Decision implementation was at times a insurmountable task specifically because of the way they organized. They exhausted debates and it took forever to finally get a vote. And when it came time for the working class to take power in Catalonia, the FAI stated "we dont believe in dictatorships" and therefore joined the right wing government. Historically, when anarchism is confronted with the time to take power and crush the opposition, it doesnt do it, and it goes back to the right because thats the only place to go.

The experience of the C.N.T and F.A.I during the Spanish revolution indicates a failure of anarchists rather than of anarchism, a mistake made under difficult objective circumstances and one which anarchists have learnt from - As Vernon Richards argues, "the basis of his criticism is not that anarchist ideas were proved to be unworkable by the Spanish experience, but that the Spanish anarchists and syndicalists failed to put their theories to the test, adopting instead the tactics of the enemy." [Lessons of the Spanish Revolution, p. 14]

The situation of the Anarchists needs to be taken into account - Jose Peirats quotes from the report made by the C.N.T to the International Workers Association as follows:

"Levante was defenceless and uncertain . . . We were in a minority in Madrid. The situation in Andalusia was unknown . . . There was no information from the North, and we assumed the rest of Spain was in the hands of the fascists. The enemy was in Aragon, at the gates of Catalonia. The nervousness of foreign consular officials led to the presence of a great number of war ships around our ports." [quoted in Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, p. 180]

He also notes that:

"According to the report, the CNT was in absolute control of Catalonia in July 19, 1936, but its strength was less in Levante and still less in central Spain where the central government and the traditional parties were dominant. In the north of Spain the situation was confused. The CNT could have mounted an insurrection on its own 'with probable success' but such a takeover would have led to a struggle on three fronts: against the fascists, the government and foreign capitalism. In view of the difficulty of such an undertaking, collaboration with other antifascist groups was the only alternative." [Op. Cit., p. 179]

In the words of the CNT report itself:

"The CNT showed a conscientious scrupulousness in the face of a difficult alternative: to destroy completely the State in Catalonia, to declare war against the Rebels [i.e. the fascists], the government, foreign capitalism, and thus assuming complete control of Catalan society; or collaborating in the responsibilities of government with the other antifascist fractions." [quoted by Robert Alexander, The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, vol. 2, p. 1156]

Quote :

When you say communism can be only brung about if the revolution involves "the voluntary participation of all within society" i hope you are not referring to forces who have diametrically opposed interests to the working class, namely the ruling class. I think that might have been just a slip of the pen.

No I refer to all segments of society who's interests are in opposition to the buguarsie.

Quote :

How can a dictatorship of the proletariat perpetuate a dictatorship of the minority if the proletariat makes up the majority??? I really dont understand that. Again, the universal axioms that most anarchists adhere to are blindly followed without analyzing the circumstances in which these historically events have occured.

No - The proletariat during Marx's time where the industrial/urban working class. The rural peasants would have constituted the majority of the working class - Anarchists at the time rejected the Marxist version of the proletarian revolution considering it excluded the majority of the working class. Such a revolution would have concentrated power in the hands of the educated urban class who controlled the party. If any revolution is proposed - Anarchists will only
adheer to it provided it is carried out by the majority of the working class.

Quote :

In Russia, the working class was a minority with a totally different mode of production from the other classes that existed. Yet the bolsheviks still felt it necessary to orgaize a revolutionary party capable of playing a role in the overthrow of capitalism. When this finally occured, almost immediately the revolution was doomed-most notably with the invasion of 19 different imperialist armies, with the failure of the workers revolution in Germany and elsewhere, and with the decimation of the working class as a whole in Russia. Therefore the only force in society capable of overthrowing capitalism dissapeared in the midst of civil war and starvation. There were even reports of cannibalism in some regions. Thats how bad it was in post revolutionary Russia.Were the bolsheviks to just give up??? No, they thought that if they temporarily replaced the workers government with the party, rebuild the working class as a sufficient fighting force through rapid industrialization (which obviously turned out to be a failure) then maybe they can get back on track. Obviously that didnt happen, but its no fault of the sincere revolutionaries that gave their life fighting against the counterrevolution, or people like Lenin, Trotsky and others. It was purely the conditions of backwardness and tzarism in Russia that really doomed the Russian Revolution. Lenin was once quoted as saying "If the revolution doesn't succeed in Germany, we are doomed". This is partially why Trotsky developed his theory on "Permanant Revolution" for a circumstance like Russia. Its really too much to discuss on a blog. I can recommend books if you want.

The bolsheviks exchanged one dictatorship for another - Russia transformed from a feudal society to state capitalism. The Tzar was replaced by Stalin - the aristocracy replaced by the Soviet elite. The oppression of Tzarist Russia replaced by the new agents of totalitarian rule - the KGB. This should come as no suprise, when anti socialist means are used an anti socialist end is achieved.Leninism proved the anarchist critique of Marxism to be correct.

political ideology is at least two dimensional. Anarchy is the extreme of the order/freedom dimension, while socialism is on the economic dimension. Other possible dimensions are political attitude, which includes foreign policy and hawkishness/dovishness, cultural issues, and maybe some others I havn't thought of. My ideology is post-anarchist neo-existentialism, which is a philosophical ideology as well as a political ideology, and the strategy I favor for achieving anarchism is libertarian municipalism.

Corrbrias wrote:

political ideology is at least two dimensional. Anarchy is the extreme of the order/freedom dimension, while socialism is on the economic dimension. Other possible dimensions are political attitude, which includes foreign policy and hawkishness/dovishness, cultural issues, and maybe some others I havn't thought of. My ideology is post-anarchist neo-existentialism, which is a philosophical ideology as well as a political ideology, and the strategy I favor for achieving anarchism is libertarian municipalism.

Is Libertarian Municipalism more of an Individualistic Anarchism (where you look out for yourself)?

Inkus

The proletariat is the only class that can end capitalism. No other class can. Thats the thing that Marx and Engels tried to emphasize. You keep referring to how Bakunin viewed the Marxist analysis as dictatorialist because it emphasized that the class that was suppose to take power at that time was a minority. But the key is AT THAT TIME!!!! The proletariat is without a doubt the most populated class on the planet. How can you still advocate that a proletarian dictatorship would mean the dictatorship of the minority??? Again, the proletariat is the MAJORITY CLASS!!! Bakuninian and Proudhonian views are obsolete.

Again, as capitalism expands, the working class expands. We are largely unaware of our power, but when we finally become knowledgeable of it we become a formidable fighting force. Thats because our power is increased as capitalism expands. Exploitation of the wage worker in order to accumulate profit is indispensable under capitalism. Therefore the capitalists will always need us.

And you stated that in Russia the power went straight from the Tzar to Stalin. This is a erroneous view obviously. When the Tzar finally abdicated his power, there was a Provisional Government that took over in Russia led by Alexander Kerensky. When the Provisional Government was overthrown, the Bolshevik Government was installed with councils throughout Russia led by delegates who were revocable at the will of the people. Again, as soon as this occured, the revolution was brutalized by 19 different invading imperialist armies, including the US. Then a civil war followed that ravaged the country, decimated the tiny portion of the Russian population that was actually working class which wiped out the only social, economic force capable of prolonging the revolution. Therefore in order to save Russia from total chaos, the Bolshevik Government had to replace the wiped out working class with their party. It took years for a portion of the party-specifically the inert bureacratic portion of the party lead by Stalin-to realize that they were actually becoming a class. Then the term "Socialism in one country" came about which was merely a ruling class justification for what had become a new class.

Just put it this way. If there were no mass peasantry in Russia, and majority of the population was working class-then the dictatorship would had never came about. It was specifically because of the backwardness of Russia, and the failure of worker revolutions abroad-most particularly in Germany, Bavaria, and Hungary-that the revolution turned into a autocratic disaster. The party contained the embryo of potential dictatorship no more than a human body contains malignant cancerous agents capable of becoming a escalated tumor.

And to say that Marx became more "libertarian" after the Paris Commune is a utterly ridiculous assumption. Marx and his followers continued to try and build the International Workingman's Association which was the first attempt at a real worldwide revolutionary communist party-a party that Bakunin himself tried to undermine from within and take over with his own platform (talk about being autocratic)

And as for Leninism, ill just say one thing. The conditions in Russia at the time were completely exceptional. Have you ever tried building a mass revolutionary social democratic organization in the face of heavy tzarist repression while trying to organize an illiterate social force which is coincidentally the only class capable of overthrowing the economic system that you hate, while at the same time this class represents only a tiny portion of the population???