Marxism vs. Annarchy

[orwellcommie]

No owning firearms and living rural is a retreate from Class struggle but in doing so you extract yourself from class based oppression.  I do concede that should every one own a gun class structure might be structured arounds one's proficiency with them.  I.E. the Fastest gun in the west does whatever he like and get's whatever he wants.  However it doest still mean that current determinations of Class structure would cease to be.  People who didn't like thier "upper class" could simple pull out their guns and blow them away, and if the masses didn't agree with the use of violence then people could then intern punish "the man who shot first".  Before long the general rule would be "The man who pulls his weapons will be THE FIRST ONE TO DIE!" And order would be re-established.  Sure this is starting to lean more towards Anarchy in the whol Anarchy Vs. Marxism debate of this topic.  However It's occured to me that Marxism IS a form of Anarchy, and that's what the Abolition of Class structure means, all are equal and there is no need for a state to enforce a class structure.  You are your own government and just like the colt revolver slogar read "Fear no man no matter his size, call on ME and I will equalize"

[anomaly]

My thoughts on government are rather different than most of you. I think that currently government is an evil, but we can change it, rather than destroy it. A democratic government, such as those often seen in capitalist countries, is a ready made tool for grabbing state power. To do this I firmly bleive we must have one united anti-capitalist party, as I have outlined in other forums. So to me, government is not itself an evil, but rather a form of power. In socialism, the government must become more powerful than the economic forces surrounding it, in other words the government must run and plan the economy and not the other way around. We must remember that government, as an institution, especially democratic government, is not a static being but rather a dynamic one. We all want some form of anarchism, I believe, most of us probably want anarcho-communism (I am a big supporter of it), but we must be reasonable. We must realize that anarchism cannot be a second step, anarchism cannot suddenly evolve from capitalism, but rather there must be a gradual process, or what I like to call economic evolution, an evolution in which anarchism is the last step, not the second.

As far as guns and gun ownership goes, I have a rather interesting, I think, idea. Today capitalist economies spend a ton of money on the military and its maintenance. In socialism, we could divert a huge sum of money towards social welfare if the military was privatised, so to speak. That is, have the government maintain private militia, but not a professional military. We could create thousands of tiny militia units rather than a large military. Basically, we'd abolish the thought of professional soldiers and instead give every citizen a gun and use thse armed citizens, grouped into militias, as defense. Instead of a grand red army we'd have thousands of tiny red militia units. I know that idea is a bit out there and quite radical, but the monetary gains from it would do wonders for the socialist economy. What do you think?

[ckaihatsu]

My thoughts on government are rather different than most of you. I think that currently government is an evil, but we can change it, rather than destroy it. A democratic government, such as those often seen in capitalist countries, is a ready made tool for grabbing state power. To do this I firmly bleive we must have one united anti-capitalist party, as I have outlined in other forums. So to me, government is not itself an evil, but rather a form of power. In socialism, the government must become more powerful than the economic forces surrounding it, in other words the government must run and plan the economy and not the other way around. We must remember that government, as an institution, especially democratic government, is not a static being but rather a dynamic one.

I agree with this entirely -- government and/or bureaucracy should be seen as a tool -- as the societal overhead (and concomitant labor) required for the most humane functioning of a global society.

I have often wrestled with this party-and-class issue, and it is an important one. In the context you've presented above, the overarching question, or goal, becomes *how quickly* (a variable) can we revolutionize society to adopt the push for socialism, and *in what manner* (a variable of process) can socialism, and then anarcho-communism, be realized? The "how" can also be expressed in terms of how to focus pro-worker/pro-oppressed-minority sentiment and effort to realize the best results.

I vacillate in my feelings regarding a party proper. At best I think it could be a focused force, correct and unwavering, sitting at the international table and ultimately overshadowing all bourgeois parties. At worst I see it as bureaucratic, in the worst sense of the word, with vast internal struggles over semantics or something similarly petty.

These days -- and particularly in being net-oriented -- I seem to wonder if the establishment won't just simply lose so much credibility and manueverability that they will inexorably lose their grip on the state/media machinery and find themselves on the political sidelines.

Will the proletariat "automatically" draw revolutionary conclusions from bourgeois instability? Certainly not automatically, but these days the smallest catalyst could put a worker onto a good, Internet-based reading source. Truly unemcumbered, no-strings-attached, self-directed education may be the historical gift of the 21st century, enabling self-organizing, self-aware, best-interests political coalescings that take on, then supplant, establishment policy right across the board.

In short, can the average person find political interactivity on the net? -- Does the pope shit in the woods?

But also, *is it enough?* Is a formal party structure really required, or is the state already irreversibly withering away? I submit the following as a snapshot of symptomatic trends:


Journalists must stop being in denial: bloggers are here to stay
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1494564,00.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

Fox News Viewership Drops by Half in 6 Months
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/318087.shtml

Running Out of Bubbles
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_business&Number=293657848

Lending Standards Plumb New Depths
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/ackerman/ackerman052705_keep.html

We all want some form of anarchism, I believe, most of us probably want anarcho-communism (I am a big supporter of it), but we must be reasonable. We must realize that anarchism cannot be a second step, anarchism cannot suddenly evolve from capitalism, but rather there must be a gradual process, or what I like to call economic evolution, an evolution in which anarchism is the last step, not the second.

So, to reiterate, are there enough popular pressures now unleashed so that capitalism will continue on a continual downslope, with the process being more of an evolutionary one (rather than a sharp-shock revolutionary one), towards anarcho-communism?

As far as guns and gun ownership goes, I have a rather interesting, I think, idea. Today capitalist economies spend a ton of money on the military and its maintenance. In socialism, we could divert a huge sum of money towards social welfare if the military was privatised, so to speak. That is, have the government maintain private militia, but not a professional military. We could create thousands of tiny militia units rather than a large military. Basically, we'd abolish the thought of professional soldiers and instead give every citizen a gun and use thse armed citizens, grouped into militias, as defense. Instead of a grand red army we'd have thousands of tiny red militia units. I know that idea is a bit out there and quite radical, but the monetary gains from it would do wonders for the socialist economy. What do you think?

Doesn't this beg the question of centralization?

Which should it be, autonomous militias, or a workers' state with the cohesion and authority to use a democratic process to mobilize force correctly, quickly, and decisively in any locale. My vote is with the latter.

I would add that I appreciate the spirit of what you're saying, though -- that there would be no need for an expensive, standing army. Contemporary communications enable very real-time, low-intensity policing.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by ckaihatsu
I agree with this entirely -- government and/or bureaucracy should be seen as a tool -- as the societal overhead (and concomitant labor) required for the most humane functioning of a global society.

I have often wrestled with this party-and-class issue, and it is an important one. In the context you've presented above, the overarching question, or goal, becomes *how quickly* (a variable) can we revolutionize society to adopt the push for socialism, and *in what manner* (a variable of process) can socialism, and then anarcho-communism, be realized? The "how" can also be expressed in terms of how to focus pro-worker/pro-oppressed-minority sentiment and effort to realize the best results.

I vacillate in my feelings regarding a party proper. At best I think it could be a focused force, correct and unwavering, sitting at the international table and ultimately overshadowing all bourgeois parties. At worst I see it as bureaucratic, in the worst sense of the word, with vast internal struggles over semantics or something similarly petty.

These days -- and particularly in being net-oriented -- I seem to wonder if the establishment won't just simply lose so much credibility and manueverability that they will inexorably lose their grip on the state/media machinery and find themselves on the political sidelines.

Will the proletariat "automatically" draw revolutionary conclusions from bourgeois instability? Certainly not automatically, but these days the smallest catalyst could put a worker onto a good, Internet-based reading source. Truly unemcumbered, no-strings-attached, self-directed education may be the historical gift of the 21st century, enabling self-organizing, self-aware, best-interests political coalescings that take on, then supplant, establishment policy right across the board.

In short, can the average person find political interactivity on the net? -- Does the pope shit in the woods?

But also, *is it enough?* Is a formal party structure really required, or is the state already irreversibly withering away? I submit the following as a snapshot of symptomatic trends:


Journalists must stop being in denial: bloggers are here to stay
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1494564,00.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

Fox News Viewership Drops by Half in 6 Months
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/318087.shtml

Running Out of Bubbles
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_business&Number=293657848

Lending Standards Plumb New Depths
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/ackerman/ackerman052705_keep.html





So, to reiterate, are there enough popular pressures now unleashed so that capitalism will continue on a continual downslope, with the process being more of an evolutionary one (rather than a sharp-shock revolutionary one), towards anarcho-communism?





Doesn't this beg the question of centralization?

Which should it be, autonomous militias, or a workers' state with the cohesion and authority to use a democratic process to mobilize force correctly, quickly, and decisively in any locale. My vote is with the latter.

I would add that I appreciate the spirit of what you're saying, though -- that there would be no need for an expensive, standing army. Contemporary communications enable very real-time, low-intensity policing.

As far as 'popular pressures' go, I again think that capitalism cannot fade away until we have state power in some industrialized country, and then use it as a base. I agree with most of what you say, but I think the popular pressure that will dismantle capitalism completely will work much more effectively if there is a socialist country in the world. Until state power is achieved, any and all efforts at the gradual destruction of capitalism will be futile. Everything begins with state power, or atleast greatly facilitates everything you're suggesting. Therefore the acquistion of state power should be our short term goal, and to do this we must have a powerful party that can attract the majority of some industrialised country. I suggest a European country, perhaps France or Italy where Marxist parties are already rather strong. From there we can work with the leftist trends in Europe to establish a socialist EU and so on. so basically I think any evolutionary process will begin only after capitalism is defeated somewhere in the world and replaced with socialism. Once socialism is established, a n evolutionary path can be set, much like the one I've described elsewhere on this site. But first we must have political revolution in an industrialised country, from which to coordinate violent revolution in poorer, needier third world countries (Bolivia, for example). But, to reitierate again, state power is, or should be, our primary objective for the foreseeable future.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by ckaihatsu
I agree with this entirely -- government and/or bureaucracy should be seen as a tool -- as the societal overhead (and concomitant labor) required for the most humane functioning of a global society.

I have often wrestled with this party-and-class issue, and it is an important one. In the context you've presented above, the overarching question, or goal, becomes *how quickly* (a variable) can we revolutionize society to adopt the push for socialism, and *in what manner* (a variable of process) can socialism, and then anarcho-communism, be realized? The "how" can also be expressed in terms of how to focus pro-worker/pro-oppressed-minority sentiment and effort to realize the best results.

I vacillate in my feelings regarding a party proper. At best I think it could be a focused force, correct and unwavering, sitting at the international table and ultimately overshadowing all bourgeois parties. At worst I see it as bureaucratic, in the worst sense of the word, with vast internal struggles over semantics or something similarly petty.

These days -- and particularly in being net-oriented -- I seem to wonder if the establishment won't just simply lose so much credibility and manueverability that they will inexorably lose their grip on the state/media machinery and find themselves on the political sidelines.

Will the proletariat "automatically" draw revolutionary conclusions from bourgeois instability? Certainly not automatically, but these days the smallest catalyst could put a worker onto a good, Internet-based reading source. Truly unemcumbered, no-strings-attached, self-directed education may be the historical gift of the 21st century, enabling self-organizing, self-aware, best-interests political coalescings that take on, then supplant, establishment policy right across the board.

In short, can the average person find political interactivity on the net? -- Does the pope shit in the woods?

But also, *is it enough?* Is a formal party structure really required, or is the state already irreversibly withering away? I submit the following as a snapshot of symptomatic trends:


Journalists must stop being in denial: bloggers are here to stay
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1494564,00.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

Fox News Viewership Drops by Half in 6 Months
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/318087.shtml

Running Out of Bubbles
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_business&Number=293657848

Lending Standards Plumb New Depths
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/ackerman/ackerman052705_keep.html





So, to reiterate, are there enough popular pressures now unleashed so that capitalism will continue on a continual downslope, with the process being more of an evolutionary one (rather than a sharp-shock revolutionary one), towards anarcho-communism?





Doesn't this beg the question of centralization?

Which should it be, autonomous militias, or a workers' state with the cohesion and authority to use a democratic process to mobilize force correctly, quickly, and decisively in any locale. My vote is with the latter.

I would add that I appreciate the spirit of what you're saying, though -- that there would be no need for an expensive, standing army. Contemporary communications enable very real-time, low-intensity policing.

As far as 'popular pressures' go, I again think that capitalism cannot fade away until we have state power in some industrialized country, and then use it as a base. I agree with most of what you say, but I think the popular pressure that will dismantle capitalism completely will work much more effectively if there is a socialist country in the world. Until state power is achieved, any and all efforts at the gradual destruction of capitalism will be futile. Everything begins with state power, or atleast greatly facilitates everything you're suggesting. Therefore the acquistion of state power should be our short term goal, and to do this we must have a powerful party that can attract the majority of some industrialised country. I suggest a European country, perhaps France or Italy where Marxist parties are already rather strong. From there we can work with the leftist trends in Europe to establish a socialist EU and so on. so basically I think any evolutionary process will begin only after capitalism is defeated somewhere in the world and replaced with socialism. Once socialism is established, a n evolutionary path can be set, much like the one I've described elsewhere on this site. But first we must have political revolution in an industrialised country, from which to coordinate violent revolution in poorer, needier third world countries (Bolivia, for example). But, to reitierate again, state power is, or should be, our primary objective for the foreseeable future.

Aslo, I agree with you on the military point. My objective is to eliminate such heavy costs of military forces, whatever means we use are quite irrelevant. that being said, I never intended any 'autonomous' militias, only ones under the guidance of the worker's state. But they should be private in that government does not issue pay for every soldier in these militias and government should not use such tremendously large sums of money to strengthen the military.

[ckaihatsu]

Therefore the acquistion of state power should be our short term goal, and to do this we must have a powerful party that can attract the majority of some industrialised country. I suggest a European country, perhaps France or Italy where Marxist parties are already rather strong.

This sounds very good -- my remaining concern would be about geo-strategic timing and logistics. For example, we see how the U.S. deliberately encircles an area around Iran -- shouldn't a Marxist movement avoid being corralled, as with Cuba? In the interests of efficacy I'd think that it would be best to see several distributed areas of worker-controlled production (and hopefully compatible distribution systems, or economies, around them), expanding until they link up and bypass capitalist modes and channels.

Already the worker-controlled factories in Venezuela and Argentina are incredibly inspiring, including the vital surrounding community support they receive.

[Holocaustpulp]

ckaihatsu: Venezuela, Bolivia, and perhaps Argentina would be great partners. It seems as if one nation is not going to rid of the American threat - a bloc however would prove mass support and a large military force (that of the workers of course). It would be good to have a revolution in France and in surrounding countries (all have many socialists), yet there is already a revolution occurring in Venezuela, and we must protect that first. MAS in Bolivia just needs some time.

- Holocaustpulp

[ckaihatsu]

MAS is go-slow -- it capitulates to multinational interests:

The hydrocarbons law proposed by Mesa, increases the taxes on multinational companies, leaving royalties at the same level, but falls short of the demand of what was agreed in a referendum one year ago: 50% royalties on gas and oil extraction. This was the proposal put forward by Mesa and supported by Evo Morales, the leader of the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS), which has its main base of support among the coca-growing peasants in the Chapare regions.

The proposal was in fact an attempt to defuse the demand for nationalisation raised by the Bolivian Workers’ Union (COB) and the workers’ organisations in El Alto, the working class city just outside La Paz which played a key role in the October 2003 uprising. The questions in the referendum were posed in such a way as to push people into voting for that option, and was therefore dubbed the “tramparendum” (trickerendum) by the workers’ organisations.

http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/bolivia-revolutionary-wave250505.htm

[anomaly]

I would agree that socialism woul do wonders for these poorer Latin American countries, but would you not agree that, as a base for socialist action, it would be wise to have socialism in an industrialised country? To me, it seems the thing we need before the globe can turn socialist and then communist.

[P.O.U.M]

Originally posted by anomaly
I would agree that socialism woul do wonders for these poorer Latin American countries, but would you not agree that, as a base for socialist action, it would be wise to have socialism in an industrialised country? To me, it seems the thing we need before the globe can turn socialist and then communist.

It would be nice to have a fully developed industrial country to join along with the revolution and would be able to build up the economy in the under developed countries. But conditions are not always ideal. Take Russia for example, they were waiting for Germany which would help the build up the lacking RUssian economy. I do believe Russia is still waiting for that help.

But it would be better to have a bloc of Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Argentina, Mexico (begining to show revolutionary potential), and any other Latin American country than have these countries wait for an industrialized country. Im sure some of the afore mentioned countries would have a good strength that could help where the another lacking.

[Holocaustpulp]

ckaihatsu: I was not aware of this stance by MAS, but perhaps Morales is one that stops short of revolution (after all, he was nearly elected and is currently opted to be new president).

Also, the MAS socialists may be linked to those IMF and World Bank funds... However, I do heed your point. Thanks for making it known.

anomaly: as P.O.U.M mentioned, industrialized nations are a perk, not a necessity, and we should definitely not wait for them to begin a revolution. Besides, the nationalization under socialism of industries (i.e., taking them back from the capitalists) would itself stimulate national growth without decreasing motivation and opportunity by bourgeois means.

- Holocaustpulp

[anomaly]

I agree with you holocaust, but I still would prefer a rich, industrialized country turning to socialism. Poor countries can and will begin revolution without them, I only hope that sympathy for the revolutionary cause catches fire in Europe so that the socialist movement may have a rich central headquarters of sorts. I envision the revolutionary movement as a web, with one country turning socialist and then sending supportiof any form to other revolutionary movements worldwide. The center of this web is ideally a rich industrialised nation, which is why I feel the way I do about creating socialism in some rich country, again likely Italy or France (or even Spain, possibly).

[Holocaustpulp]

anomaly: I see your point. It would be ideal and also a historical breakthrough, one which may be less likely to lead to dictatorial measures.

- HP