Communists?

[jack]

-Had to rewrite

There is a such thing as market socialism, whether you agree with it or not. You're confusing socialism with communism.

You're confusing socialism with capitalism.

Having been a Leftist for most of my politically concious life, I think I know the difference by now.

[BillyWitchDr.]

While communism is compatible with anarchism I do not think Marxism is. Marx wanted state means for anarchist (communist) ends. He was for a dictatorship of the proletariat. Why else did Bakunin and Kropotkin take such issue with him? There are numerous quotes of them both criticizing Marx for this position.

[marxist]

While communism is compatible with anarchism I do not think Marxism is. Marx wanted state means for anarchist (communist) ends. He was for a dictatorship of the proletariat. Why else did Bakunin and Kropotkin take such issue with him? There are numerous quotes of them both criticizing Marx for this position.

Nonsense. Marx wrote repeatedly about overthrowing the state and "dictatorship of the proletariat" means the proletariat are the government. It's a poorly chosen phrase (maybe dictatorship of the proletariat instead?) that is easily misunderstood and Bakunin jumped at this opportunity to strawman Marx. Essentially they both argued the same thing but anarchists have perpetuated this strawman ever since. Why? I can only guess that anarchists, having borrowed most of their ideas from marxism, needed something to set themselves apart (ie. bankrupt ideology) so ended up creating a non-existant libertarian/authoritarian dichotomy within socialism. I imagine this is especially true now after the disaster of the Soviet Union.
On the Soviet Union, anarchists use this as an example of Bakunin's predictions about Marxism being correct. Firstly the Soviet Union was never Marxist, it was Lenninist then Stalinist, so is yet another strawman but more importantly since Marx and Bakunin advocated the same organisational structures surely the same critique/prediction applies with equal force to anarchism.

Read this. There really is no difference between state socialism and anarchist socialism.

[patrickhenry]

Firstly the Soviet Union was never Marxist, it was Lenninist then Stalinist, so is yet another strawman

Yes he had been dead for almost 30 years How convenient

You marxists are awful sensitive to any critique of marx or his theories. If I were that confident in my beliefs I wouldn't be so defensive Your kinda like christians whom blindly defend their gospel without question. I find that trait admirable but ultimately destructive.

[Snowdrop]

While communism is compatible with anarchism I do not think Marxism is.

I think it is the other way around for semantic reasons. When someone says Marxism, I think Das Kapital, which is mainly a critique of capitalism, making it compatible with anarchism. When someone says communism I think the manifesto and the 10 planks (centralize this and that at the hands of the state), which is obviously incompatible with anarchism.

Nonsense. Marx wrote repeatedly about overthrowing the state and "dictatorship of the proletariat" means the proletariat are the government.

Bakunin didn't strawman Marx. Bakunin fully understood the proletarian dictatorship. It is basically a direct democracy. Direct democracy is dangerous; the rights of individuals (not limited to property) can be set aside to fulfill the desires of the so-called proletarian state. That is why I am a consensus democrat: every individual has a say in things in proportion to how much they are affected.
But it does not even matter how a direct democracy turns out: the state/government can never be handed over to the proletariat; for the same logic and reason that the KKK *spits on the ground* cannot be handed over to the democratic control of african-americans.
Marx himself said that the state is a tool used by one class to oppress another; it does not matter whether bourgeois is oppressing proletarian or the other way around, oppression is always oppression.

Plus if the bourgoisie are so vile and disgusting (which they are), why waste our, or the workers' time oppressing them? We've got better things to do!

Read this: http://antiacademic.blogspot.com/2009/04/marx-and-bakunin-argue.html

[jack]

God you're an idiot.

I think it is the other way around for semantic reasons. When someone says Marxism, I think Das Kapital, which is mainly a critique of capitalism, making it compatible with anarchism. When someone says communism I think the manifesto and the 10 planks (centralize this and that at the hands of the state), which is obviously incompatible with anarchism.

See above. Communism is STATELESS and CLASSLESS, ugh.

Bakunin didn't strawman Marx. Bakunin fully understood the proletarian dictatorship. It is basically a direct democracy. Direct democracy is dangerous; the rights of individuals (not limited to property) can be set aside to fulfill the desires of the so-called proletarian state. That is why I am a consensus democrat: every individual has a say in things in proportion to how much they are affected.

See above again. Direct democracy is not "dangerous" and it's fucking disguisting that you see it that way. Democracy is the ONLY way to repress capitalism, and is the ONLY logical conclusion of anarchism.As far as "consensus democrat", that's stupid because there's no way of judging how much or little a person would be affected by something.

But it does not even matter how a direct democracy turns out: the state/government can never be handed over to the proletariat; for the same logic and reason that the KKK *spits on the ground* cannot be handed over to the democratic control of african-americans.
Marx himself said that the state is a tool used by one class to oppress another; it does not matter whether bourgeois is oppressing proletarian or the other way around, oppression is always oppression.

At first I was like "hm, something we agree on", then you went and killed it. I don't give a fuck about the bourgeoisie, they should be oppressed just as a slave owner or king should. I don't get your little KKK analogy.

Plus if the bourgoisie are so vile and disgusting (which they are), why waste our, or the workers' time oppressing them? We've got better things to do!

A: Admit you don't beleive that and are only trying to impress us or something.
B: That's fucking stupid, seriously. You really just expect them to go away and that we would be "wasting our time" making sure they're neutralized?

[Snowdrop]

God you're an idiot.
Yes he is, we can agree on that!
See above. Communism is STATELESS and CLASSLESS, ugh.
It's only SUPPOSED to be; the ten planks prevent that

See above again. Direct democracy is not "dangerous" and it's fucking disguisting that you see it that way. Democracy is the ONLY way to repress capitalism, and is the ONLY logical conclusion of anarchism.As far as "consensus democrat", that's stupid because there's no way of judging how much or little a person would be affected by something.
That judgement depends on the person being affected. Where does direct democracy stop? We are obviously not going to have a majority vote on what I am going to wear, or the picture I want to put on my desk... There has to be a limit, and that limit is a consensus.

At first I was like "hm, something we agree on", then you went and killed it. I don't give a fuck about the bourgeoisie, they should be oppressed just as a slave owner or king should. I don't get your little KKK analogy.
What good is that? What kind of an anarchist society allows for oppression? In your Union of Soviet Anarchist Democracies, I can point at you and present false evidence about you being bourgeois or slave owner, and next thing you know we are having a vote on the color of your noose. Of course you don't get my KKK analogy; it takes logic and reason to understand...

A: Admit you don't beleive that and are only trying to impress us or something.
B: That's fucking stupid, seriously. You really just expect them to go away and that we would be "wasting our time" making sure they're neutralized?
Once their legitimacy is gone, they will no longer be a threat. Their legitimacy depends on the ignorance and desperation of the masses, not their own existence. We must turn the bourgoise into workers, not slaves. Oppressing them means we feel exactly what they want us to feel: fear. For what other reasons are we to oppress them other than fear and revenge, both promising no good ends.

[jack]

It's only SUPPOSED to be; the ten planks prevent that
...
....
...
You're a fucking idiot.

That judgement depends on the person being affected. Where does direct democracy stop? We are obviously not going to have a majority vote on what I am going to wear, or the picture I want to put on my desk... There has to be a limit, and that limit is a consensus.

Strawman.

What good is that? What kind of an anarchist society allows for oppression? In your Union of Soviet Anarchist Democracies, I can point at you and present false evidence about you being bourgeois or slave owner, and next thing you know we are having a vote on the color of your noose. Of course you don't get my KKK analogy; it takes logic and reason to understand...

If you actually fucking knew what a Soviet was....But I digress, yes the USAD will be fucking awesome, thank you. And again, strawman.

Once their legitimacy is gone, they will no longer be a threat. Their legitimacy depends on the ignorance and desperation of the masses, not their own existence. We must turn the bourgoise into workers, not slaves. Oppressing them means we feel exactly what they want us to feel: fear. For what other reasons are we to oppress them other than fear and revenge, both promising no good ends.

Yeah that's really lame an a poor attempt at populism. We repress them because they're fucking reactionaries, enemies of the revolution, and exploiters of the people. We will treat them the same way we would a any other peice of shit.

[Snowdrop]

It's only SUPPOSED to be; the ten planks prevent that
...
....
...
You're a fucking idiot.
Yes you are!

That judgement depends on the person being affected. Where does direct democracy stop? We are obviously not going to have a majority vote on what I am going to wear, or the picture I want to put on my desk... There has to be a limit, and that limit is a consensus.

Strawman.
Crying strawman doesn't make any real argument.

What good is that? What kind of an anarchist society allows for oppression? In your Union of Soviet Anarchist Democracies, I can point at you and present false evidence about you being bourgeois or slave owner, and next thing you know we are having a vote on the color of your noose. Of course you don't get my KKK analogy; it takes logic and reason to understand...

If you actually fucking knew what a Soviet was....But I digress, yes the USAD will be fucking awesome, thank you. And again, strawman.
Soviets: workers' councils created during the russian revolution, intended to represent the working classes, and they did their job well; unfortunately overthrown/infiltrated by the bolsheviks... And again, 'strawman' doesn't mean anything.

Once their legitimacy is gone, they will no longer be a threat. Their legitimacy depends on the ignorance and desperation of the masses, not their own existence. We must turn the bourgoise into workers, not slaves. Oppressing them means we feel exactly what they want us to feel: fear. For what other reasons are we to oppress them other than fear and revenge, both promising no good ends.

Yeah that's really lame an a poor attempt at populism. We repress them because they're fucking reactionaries, enemies of the revolution, and exploiters of the people. We will treat them the same way we would a any other peice of shit.
Obviously you and your glorious revolutionaries don't and can't know who is really an enemy of the revolution or a piece of shit. Stalin was an enemy of the revolution; no one repressed him. And again, who is to stop the person willing to present false evidence about innocent people? There is not need for repression! The only way the bourgeoisie can came back to power after being overthrown is if legitimacy is projected on their authority. Are you to suggest that the working classes are stupid enough to make that same mistake again. After the bourgeoisie are overthrown, no one will trust them. They can't come back, they have no legitimacy anymore and we will not fall for their tricks again. If we do, then we were not ready for a revolution

[Guest]

Anyone who tells me that it's "dangerous" for me to have a say in decisions, commensurate to the degree that I am impacted by them, and that I need to be "checked" and "balanced" so that I and my fellow slavering wolves don't devour the quivering sheep, is (a) my enemy, and (b) an idiot who doesn't understand that the very notion of "having a say in decisions, commensurate to the degree that we are impacted by them" stands in absolute contradiction to the notion of defenseless sheep being devoured by wolves (the sheep being impacted most of all!). Whether you realize it or not, you are arguing the bourgeois line.

Before universal suffrage, before newspapers, when political discourse was restricted to an aristocratic elite, all politically educated men knew that democracy was dangerous, probably the worst fate that could befall a state. It meant rule by the mob, the plebs, the villains or, if you knew your Aristotle, "rule by the poor." It was the tyranny of the majority, rule by mass meetings that could ride roughshod over the law, where neither person nor property was safe.

A republic stood, by contrast, for sound government. Rome, the original republic, renowned for martial prowess and sagacious laws, remained its lasting epitome. The ideal constitution, it secured for the wealthy the enjoyment of their estates, secure from the depredations of tyranny or the rapine of the mob. To the plebs it gave citizenship, the right to elect their tribunes and above all the right to bear arms and fight for the glory of the republic. Legislation and executive power, in contrast, were the preserve of a political elite -- the senate.

When the slaveholders and bourgeoisie of the American colonies rebelled against the crown, relying as they did on an army of free citizens, and being at the same time desirous of securing their properties, they settled upon the republican form of government that had so well served their ancient forebears. By this act they formed the die from which modern republics and republicanism have been cast.

Its keystone was election, both of the legislature and the magistracy -- presidents, governors, judges. Until the early 19th century, the idea of a "democratic republic" was a self-evident contradiction. A republic was the means by which the state could be secured against the danger of democracy. For democracy, it was understood, used not elections but the "chaotic" and "anarchic" institutions of the mass assembly or selection of officials and legislatures by lot.

Pre-bourgeois political theorists from Aristotle to Machiavelli knew its function -- to give the masses the illusion of power, whilst ensuring that it remained, in reality, in the hands of the upper classes. Any person has the right to stand for election, but if a poor tradesman stands in election against a sophisticated and urbane lawyer, nine times out of ten the lawyer wins. Freely elected legislatures are almost devoid of poor men, and totally devoid of poor women. But bourgeois theorists could not be so frank. They thus retained the republican form of government, whilst telling the people "this is democracy." There is no such thing as bourgeois democracy. What they call democracy is nothing of the sort -- it is oligarchy, rule by the few, rule by the rich.

The real meaning of democracy was thus forgotten, and for over a century those believing themselves to be democratic radicals have struggled for its practical antithesis -- the republic.

[AndyMalroes]

Yes you are!

Nice come back! how about you throw a "yo mamma" joke in too!

Crying strawman doesn't make any real argument.

And neither does presenting a strawman

The only way the bourgeoisie can came back to power after being overthrown is if legitimacy is projected on their authority. Are you to suggest that the working classes are stupid enough to make that same mistake again. After the bourgeoisie are overthrown, no one will trust them. They can't come back, they have no legitimacy anymore and we will not fall for their tricks again. If we do, then we were not ready for a revolution

Or you know, the bourgeoisie could just have a counter-revolution with the help of existing states.

[Snowdrop]

Anyone who tells me that it's "dangerous" for me to have a say in decisions, commensurate to the degree that I am impacted by them, and that I need to be "checked" and "balanced" so that I and my fellow slavering wolves don't devour the quivering sheep, is (a) my enemy, and (b) an idiot who doesn't understand that the very notion of "having a say in decisions, commensurate to the degree that we are impacted by them" stands in absolute contradiction to the notion of defenseless sheep being devoured by wolves (the sheep being impacted most of all!). Whether you realize it or not, you are arguing the bourgeois line.

If you look back, I called myself a consensus democrat and defined consensus democracy as "having a say in decisions, commensurate to the degree that we are impacted by them" (replace commenstruate with "in porportion to" and impacted with "affected"). Obviously this is all based on semantics, and leaving semantics behind, we both agree with eech other!

Yes you are!

Nice come back! how about you throw a "yo mamma" joke in too!
Because jack never did...

Crying strawman doesn't make any real argument.

And neither does presenting a strawman
What strawman? Direct democracy's only logical definitions are majority rule, or supermajoritarian rule. Any other definition puts DD in line with a consensus democracy, and seeing as jack dismissed CD as stupid, I believe he does not have a consensus-friendly definition of Direct democracy.

The only way the bourgeoisie can came back to power after being overthrown is if legitimacy is projected on their authority. Are you to suggest that the working classes are stupid enough to make that same mistake again. After the bourgeoisie are overthrown, no one will trust them. They can't come back, they have no legitimacy anymore and we will not fall for their tricks again. If we do, then we were not ready for a revolution

Or you know, the bourgeoisie could just have a counter-revolution with the help of existing states.
Do the terms "world revolution" and "socialism in one country" ring a bell? We tried one of them: obviously it will not work. We've got only one other option.
Not to mention a few facts here: 1.All states are dependent on their armies. 2.The only way the state can be overthrown by revolution is if said revolution gains the support of the arm(y/ies).
Conclusion: The only way for a proletarian revolution to came anywhere close to success is if the proletariat gain support from the military (what happened in Russia, before bolshevik takeover). So long as the military is either dismantled or remains under direct control (both offer advantages and disadvantages) by the proletariat, bourgeois/fascist/stalinist counter-revolutions are futile.

[AndyMalroes]

Obviously it will be a stggered world revolution with some countries making more progress than others, some may have failed revolutions and will thus still have countries hell bent on retaining control, I think its perfectly reasonable to suspect counter-revolutions will happen.

[Snowdrop]

Obviously it will be a stggered world revolution with some countries making more progress than others, some may have failed revolutions and will thus still have countries hell bent on retaining control, I think its perfectly reasonable to suspect counter-revolutions will happen.

And what's your solution? Repress anyone who is suspected of being bourgeois? Throw them in labor-camps? Vanguards? These never did anything...

And one would assume that a world revolution occurs when and because the vast majority of people have seen through the lies of bourgeois propaganda. Counter-revolutionaries will not get much support from the masses. The counter revolutions would fail to revert 'society' back to the way it was; the bourgoisie would become what even they themselves see as violent tyrants. The counter-revolution would then collapse at another attempt at revolution by the masses.

[Guest]

more uninformed marx-bashing. the '10 planks' were intended as suggestions for advanced capitalist states. suggestions, not a definitive program to be fought for, verbatim; and not suggested for all places at all times under all conditions.

marx also drew a distinction between the state as such and the state apparatus. he'd have seen much of the apparatus smashed, such as the bourgeois military (warrior class, always at the ready to crush popular uprisings at home, just as well as battling other capitalists over resources abroad), and replacing it with people's militias. this is one of those areas where the line blurs between marxists (that's marxists, not leninists) and anarchists. a 'state as such' which looks like a bunch of people running their own lives, having smashed all the illegitimate apparatus, is probably not one an anarchist would want to smash further.

btw i'm missing zazaban right now. he held sensible views on this issue.