Marxism vs. Annarchy

[ACE]

Doesn't change the fact the that "Anarchist Cookbook" was a very Useful peice of work and considering it's practicality it's better to have anarchist working with us then against us.  Perhaps I'm assuming to much in the assertion that we both want the same thing but if it's true our ending goal is the same then it's certainly in both our interests to at the very least suspend our differences until the common enemy is defeated and that enemy is Bourgeoisie Capitalist and I'm hoping and beting that they might dislike us of perhaps just dissagree with us but hopefully they hate the capitalists far more, perhaps enough to work with us in acheiving our goals.

[P.O.U.M]

I will work with an be an anarchist... hell! i will be an anarcho capitalist the day before i even think (THINK!!) of working with a Maoist. Oh god! these people are impossible.

This maoist is giving his intrepretation of http://www.marxist.com article on International Womens Working Day, and wow, is it distorted and perverted and striaght up lying about it. While making his crappy RCP article about Bob Aviakan appear as if it was written by GOD himself!!! IMPOSSIBLE these people are.

[ACE]

Don't take your eye off the ball, the target is Capitalist not imperfect communist.  Infighting only weakens the over all objective of the global overthrow of the Capitalist system and the emancipation of the Prolitariate GLOBALLY.  Maoist might not have all the same conceptions over what the ideal Communist state should be however so long as they are willing to provide material support in the overthrow of Capitalism then infighting should be prohibited.

[Vespucci]

Don't be so sure... coming to power only to have another war between the followers of various models isn't an option either. The importance of unity can't be underestimated, but unity isn't just glossing over contradictions until they split the movement.

[P.O.U.M]

The general concensus at the flag.blackened.net forums is that anarchists refuse to work with Maxists for any reason what so ever. I recently asked

Out of curiousity, would you as an anarchist support a Marxist Revolution? And what if the Marxism was the leading ideology during a revolution which you were in, what would you do? Oh and these are Leninists. And what it matter if it was Trotskyist or Maoist, or Stalinist if there still around.

And here is what I recieved...

I do not support war or proactive violence, so no, I would not support a Marxit Revolution because it would invariably require war and proactive violence.

No. Marxists are not anarchists; they view anarchists as their enemies, and no qualms about slaughtering them.

Why would we (anarchists) support the over throw of one oppressive regime with another?

No. This is because Marxists actually lead revolutions even less frequently than anarchists do.

These are just some of the anwsers I recieved. The only anarchist which would even consider working with us is our local anarchist Cobra.

http://flag.blackened.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=71869&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[Cobra90x]

Yeah I was actually quite disturbed at how many anarchists were not willing to work with marxists. Although I do not agree with everything you guys say, I respect you as comrades because we have the same goal in mind: A classless, stateless society run along the lines of from each according to their ability to each according to their need. Even though the state is a big issue it should not make us enemies. We need to work together or nothing will ever get done. There are not enough anarchists or marxists to alone have a revolution. We need the left to unite or else we will be crushed by the right.

POUM keep in mind that there are some anarchists who think like I do, its actually pretty split.

[ACE]

I have had some Anarchist leanings myself (Big surprise right?)  But I understand that there are flaws in the anarchist model of society that couldn't be overcome as easily as the flaws of communism.  Anarchist is perhaps more based on the idea that people can govern themselves without government to oppress their evil tendencies.  This IS true for SOME people, but there are too many still who are either too materialistic to function in society or simply too selfish to not harm others for their own sadistic pleasures, for this reason the state despite the fact that it often poses more of a threat to individuals then individuals do to one another should not be abolished.  To be sure Just and an individual can succum to self interest and use their power to hard others take their dignity rights and sustanance so to government succum to this aswell and when governments do the net effect can far exceed the effect when individuals.  That is why I am also a strong supporter of an armed populice,  the right to bear arms ought never be taken away and infact should be granted to all the peoples of the world who don't have this right at present.  The government is ment to exsist to serve the PEOPLE the people DO NOT exsist to serve the government.  That being the case if the people object to their government they should and MOST have the means to use their right to bear arms and blow their government to bits.  That is why I'd suggest you all go out and find yourselves copies of "The anarchist's cook Book"  I'd say it's required reading for anyone who REALLY committed to revolution, and more inportantly making sure that their government is serving THEM and not the other way around.

[Cobra90x]

I really hope you do not take the cookbook seriously. That piece of trash probably single handidly ruind the public image of anarchism and it should be burned. It just promotes the image that anarchists are terrorists, which is far from the truth. Anarchists, like marxists, oppose terrorism. Most anarchists I know (including myself) oppose violence as well. There are better ways to change the world than blowing it up. Seriously though, that book should burn.

If you really want to get a good understanding of REAL anarchism, please read the Anarchist FAQ (Just ignore the "why do anarchists oppose state socialism?" section. It has a LOT of distortions and lies about marxism but is a good intro non-the-less.)

[P.O.U.M]

the FAQ is a good intro. Its what got me started on the idea of socialism.

ACE, please, paragraphs!!

[anomaly]

Originally posted by P.O.U.M
The general concensus at the flag.blackened.net forums is that anarchists refuse to work with Maxists for any reason what so ever. I recently asked

 

And here is what I recieved...

 

 

 

 

These are just some of the anwsers I recieved. The only anarchist which would even consider working with us is our local anarchist Cobra.

http://flag.blackened.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=71869&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

This is expected. This argument amongst fellow leftists in one reason for my want of an anti-capitalist party. Anarchists are obviously ignorant if they believe gov't will go away with the flip of a switch. Besides, communism, which I think we can all support, is a form of anarchism, as the state whithers away. I have laid out what I believe to be a good path to anarcho-communism in my thread 'the anti-capitalist party'. The anrchists must realize that if we are to defeat capitalism, we need to unite, not bicker amongst ourselves. State socialism could very well lead, given time, to anarcho-communism. We each have a common enemy, we are individually weak, that is why we must unite the reds, the blacks, and the greens to form the most powerful international party in history. Until the anarchists realize this, however, we will continue to fail. They are valuable allies to us, just as we are to them. My suggestion is to talk of political revolution rather than violent, as it seems anarchists are opposed to all violence. Also, note that the anarchist working with us is also the one most educated about Marxism.

[Cobra90x]

Thank you. I agree we do need unity. But I seriously doubt a state will become a stateless society. Anarchist do not want to abolish anything "over night". Revolution is a process not an event. The state will go with capitalism slowely. We will also need a transition period. Equal pay or rationing can serve as an economic transition. As for revolutionary defense, we can have voluntary militias for that. Not all anarchists are opposed to violence. I believe in violence in defense. You must understand the taking power will not lead to communism. A dictatorship OF the proletariat, I fear, will eventually become a state OVER the proletariat. However, convince me of the NECESSITY of the state and I might reconsider my position.

(But I do agree, most anarchists I know are clueless about marxism and think it means Stalin.)

[anomaly]

Originally posted by cobra90x
Thank you. I agree we do need unity. But I seriously doubt a state will become a stateless society. Anarchist do not want to abolish anything "over night". Revolution is a process not an event. The state will go with capitalism slowely. We will also need a transition period. Equal pay or rationing can serve as an economic transition. As for revolutionary defense, we can have voluntary militias for that. Not all anarchists are opposed to violence. I believe in violence in defense. You must understand the taking power will not lead to communism. A dictatorship OF the proletariat, I fear, will eventually become a state OVER the proletariat. However, convince me of the NECESSITY of the state and I might reconsider my position.

(But I do agree, most anarchists I know are clueless about marxism and think it means Stalin.)

This is why we must have a socialist state (communism must be a global effort): Capitalism today has become the only economic force in existence. It is free to rule, and as a result, inequality throughout the world continues to increase. A socialist state would entail the government controlling the market, so one can see how socialism is compatible, while completely different, from capitalism. Now, the question becomes, what makes up the government? I suggest a representative democracy, with only one party. This party may include all political beliefs, the most predominant of which would be anti-capitalist. One party including all political beliefs will alow for all views to be represented. Perhaps this one party will be the anti-capitalist party, perhaps not. But either way, the people will have a direct election to vote for any candidate they wish. A military would neccesarily be developed, to protect socialism and the people. So, you can see that the people indirectly control the gov't, and if politicians do something the people do not like, in a few years this person will no longer be a politician! Ah, the beauty of democracy. That is a socialist state. It still includes money, a market (not 'free' but controlled by the government i.e. the people), and some inequality, all be it inequality will be greatly reduced. Why do we need the state itself, you ask? Well, perhaps you should tell me how else we can create an anarcho-communist world? We must do it in steps, and they are as follows:
1. socialism
2. global socialism
3. anarcho-communism

We cannot destroy the capitalist world, but we can flip capitalism, so to speak, as to favor the workers much more and create more equality. Once the anti-capitalist party is chosen by a powerful country, more states will be persuaded to turn socialist (hey, they can do it, why not us?). From here we create global socialism, where we would gradually see the global state 'wither away' giving rise to anarcho-communism.

That is how I see the state evolving into communism. Perhaps you have another theory.

Also, I see noone has commented on my suggestion of an anti-capitalist party (in another thread). Please, if you would, read that, and give me some feedback. It'd be nice to see if you guys support the idea, or have a better one.

[Cobra90x]

So you advocate a one party military state? What is stopping that state from abusing it's power? If an elected official is to be recalled he or she could use the military to stop it. With a one party state and a military it will most certainly develope into a buerocracy.

Socialism must NOT have a military. Democracy and a state military do NOT go together. Nor should it have police. The people should have ultimate power NOT an elite few. I think you are confused on what exactly socialism is. Socialism is a workers democracy with elected, mandated, and recallable officials, no military, no police, and democracy. Well from responses I got in the Marxism FAQ forum anyway. Read my posts there and then respond to this and correct me if I'm wrong. Im sorry but a strong, centralized, military state will not develope into a classless, stateless society.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by cobra90x
So you advocate a one party military state? What is stopping that state from abusing it's power? If an elected official is to be recalled he or she could use the military to stop it. With a one party state and a military it will most certainly develope into a buerocracy.

Socialism must NOT have a military. Democracy and a state military do NOT go together. Nor should it have police. The people should have ultimate power NOT an elite few. I think you are confused on what exactly socialism is. Socialism is a workers democracy with elected, mandated, and recallable officials, no military, no police, and democracy. Well from responses I got in the Marxism FAQ forum anyway. Read my posts there and then respond to this and correct me if I'm wrong. Im sorry but a strong, centralized, military state will not develope into a classless, stateless society.

I hardly advocate a 'military state' instead I advocate a Democratic state. I offer this broad, one party system as only a suggestion, multi-party system would be equally possibe. What is stopping exploitation? The people. Do not be fooled by today's western democracys, this one would give the people much more control. The people will vote for their government, and the government will act. If the people are not satisfied, they can throw out any politician deemed unruly, or just vote someone else in at a later election. Democracy is what I want, not a military state. I do see the need for atleast some type of people's militia, though, since capitalist states would no doubt be hostile to a socialist state. I think you misunderstand me. Your ideas do not seem realistic. If a state has no military, what will stop a capitalist state from pursuing its interests and overthrowing democracy? I agree, police would not be needed. How 'bout a multi-party state with voluntary militias, so as to stop capitalist conquest. Give the people the economy indirectly. Socialism is not some magical classless society that develops automatically out of capitalism. Socialism is adjusted capitalism, with a nationalised economy in which the people elct officials and have supreme power over these officials. Give the people the economy through democratic vote, so as to allow workers to vote for more economic fairness. Perhaps I made a mistake by referring to 'one party', although I would hope the anti-capitalist party would be the people's choice. From this one socialist state more will develop, as the idea catches like wilfire throughout the world. No wars are needed. Global socialism would follow, and from here the people could democratically act to transition to communism. Socialism is, as Marx intended, a middle ground. In the USA democracy is spoiled with the two-party system, but would you be opposed to a multi-party socialist state? You must realize that the way I describe has become the only way to anarcho-communism with the advent of global capitalism. Socialism is the only system compatible with capitalism, which is certainly needed, but also can serve as a path to communism.

Why do you so fear the state? If you oppose the state, you are utopian, and thus only detrimental to the anti-capitalist cause. Anarchism will not just happen, it must take place through gradual steps, steaps that must be organised through truly a people's party, the Anti-Capitalist party. My thread on this new party is at the bottom of the thread list of this forum. Read it, perhaps comment on it, then get back to me please.

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by Cobra90x
Socialism must NOT have a military. Democracy and a state military do NOT go together.

I think you are confused here. If the state does not have a military, then how can it defend itself against capitalism?

There are very many misconceptions here. Instead of answering each in turn, I'll quote extensively from Marx' piece on the Paris Commune .

On the dawn of March 18 [1871], Paris arose to the thunder-burst of "Vive la Commune!" What is the Commune, that sphinx so tantalizing to the bourgeois mind?

"The proletarians of Paris," said the Central Committee in its manifesto of March 18, "amidst the failures and treasons of the ruling classes, have understood that the hour has struck for them to save the situation by taking into their own hands the direction of public affairs.... They have understood that it is their imperious duty, and their absolute right, to render themselves masters of their own destinies, by seizing upon the governmental power."

But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes...

The direct antithesis to the empire was the Commune. The cry of "social republic", with which the February Revolution [of 1848] was ushered in by the Paris proletariat, did but express a vague aspiration after a republic that was not only to supercede the monarchical form of class rule, but class rule itself. The Commune was the positive form of that republic.

Paris, the central seat of the old governmental power, and, at the same time, the social stronghold of the French working class, had risen in arms against the attempt of Thiers and the Rurals to restore and perpetuate that old governmental power bequeathed to them by the empire. Paris could resist only because, in consequence of the siege, it had got rid of the army, and replaced it by a National Guard, the bulk of which consisted of working men. This fact was now to be transformed into an institution. The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.

The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.

Instead of continuing to be the agent of the Central Government, the police was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workman's wage. The vested interests and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves. Public functions ceased to be the private property of the tools of the Central Government. Not only municipal administration, but the whole initiative hitherto exercised by the state was laid into the hands of the Commune.

Having once got rid of the standing army and the police — the physical force elements of the old government — the Commune was anxious to break the spiritual force of repression, the "parson-power", by the disestablishment and disendowment of all churches as proprietary bodies. The priests were sent back to the recesses of private life, there to feed upon the alms of the faithful in imitation of their predecessors, the apostles.

The whole of the educational institutions were opened to the people gratuitously, and at the same time cleared of all interference of church and state. Thus, not only was education made accessible to all, but science itself freed from the fetters which class prejudice and governmental force had imposed upon it.

The judicial functionaries were to be divested of that sham independence which had but served to mask their abject subserviency to all succeeding governments to which, in turn, they had taken, and broken, the oaths of allegiance. Like the rest of public servants, magistrates and judges were to be elective, responsible, and revocable.

The Paris Commune was, of course, to serve as a model to all the great industrial centres of France. The communal regime once established in Paris and the secondary centres, the old centralized government would in the provinces, too, have to give way to the self-government of the producers.

In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents. The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and thereafter responsible agents.

The unity of the nation was not to be broken, but, on the contrary, to be organized by Communal Constitution, and to become a reality by the destruction of the state power which claimed to be the embodiment of that unity independent of, and superior to, the nation itself, from which it was but a parasitic excresence.

While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over society itself, and restored to the responsible agents of society. Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, constituted in Communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for the workmen and managers in his business. And it is well-known that companies, like individuals, in matters of real business generally know how to put the right man in the right place, and, if they for once make a mistake, to redress it promptly. On the other hand, nothing could be more foreign to the spirit of the Commune than to supercede universal suffrage by hierarchical investiture.

This was the actual, existing thing that Marx analysed, termed the dictatorship of the proletariat and which essence he said would be, in different forms, repeated in every successive workers' dictatorship until the establishment of world socialism. Even in its imperfect form this dictatorship created by the workers themselves is clearly superior to anything dreamed up by a eager forumgoer. It should clear out many misconceptions.

The next form of proletarian dictatorship was the Soviets. For a quick introduction to how they worked, read some John Reed. As he describes inSoviets In Action

"No political body more sensitive and responsive to the popular will was ever invented. And this was necessary, for in time of revolution the popular will changes with great rapidity. For example, during the first week of December 1917, there were parades and demonstrations in favour of a Constituent Assembly —that is to say, against the Soviet power. One of these parades was fired on by some irresponsible Red Guards, and several people killed. The reaction to this stupid violence was immediate. Within twelve hours the complexion of the Petrograd Soviet changed. More than a dozen Bolshevik deputies were withdrawn, and replaced by Mensheviki. And it was three weeks before public sentiment subsided — before the Mensheviki were retired one by one and the Bolsheviki sent back."