Can Anarchism work?

Hi

So what are the functions of Government? In what way is it different from any other firm?

Love

LR

The most obvious answer that comes to mind is why? If governance is control and domination, always by necessity at the behest of a system of private gain then you have to presume that these are a major characteristic of the human being, that as individuals we require to be ruled by others. In our own lives and communities we (that is anarchists but infact everybody) can see that is a lie. Rule does not, and can never, benefit us -subjectively and collectively. It is irrational and illogical and has only arisen through violence and coercion that flies in the face of the happiness of everyone. And the same follows for capitalism, libertarian communists don't direct our attack specifically against government, and the state, we have to include them within our critique as anti-capitalists...against hierarchy and for the empowerment of people.

You're using the exact same presumption as every other defender of the status quo; that we need government for "Order". But this isn't order for anyone but those who wish to extract, manipulate and control the resources and the many for their themselves. Necessary, only for the ruling class and the class system as a whole.

You're a "Socialist" not a communist, and by that meaning the traditional orthodox Marxist interpretation which, I must say, is an abstraction that cannot exist. The theory of the transitional period is at first flawed theoretically (it assumes pre-defined stages, and yet ironically lacks any analysis of limitations beyond hypothetical musings...) and in practice if state socialism has existed it leads only to a transition "back" to state capitalism not to any egalitarian society. And you're at odds with Lenin completely, because although he was a statist anti-communist he atleast believed he wasn't and would've attacked anyone that thought "Socialism" was an adequate final stage.

No, if you want a scientific definition of it then it would have to be far wider than that - ie. the hierarchy of representatives, parties (nearly always), leaders, the apparatus which all this is part of. Different from the state but dependent upon it. And that's all tied up with class stratification.

It is true that you don't have to believe that the state will 'wither away' to be a socialist. You do need to believe that though to be a communist, that a stateless and classless society can exist, and that it's existence is desirable is precisely the definition of a communist. Furthermore it is impossible to be a Marxist without being a communist, a socialist Marxist (in the sense of socialist vis a vis communist) is a contradiction. Since you have made it very clear that you're not a communist and do not stand in the tradition of Marxism (Marx, Engels, Trotsky and Lenin all profoundly disagreeing with you) you are, amusingly enough, a social democratic.

It is also simply untrue to state that belief in a stateless society was something exclusive to Engel, as someone who patronisingly claims to know more about Marxist theory than many here, you should be fully aware that a stateless society was exactly Marx's stated goal.

Your definition of government is absurb - it excludes any dictatorship for starters.

So how do you see the transition from socialism to communism occuring? Since one involves a state and one doesn't the state has to be gotten rid of somehow. You don't appear to believe that this will happen by the state 'withering away' so does this mean you forsee a second revolution to get rid of the socialist state?

So you think you can believe in Marxism whilst disagreeing with the object of Marxism? Marxism isn't some abstract set of political writings, but (if we're generous to it) a set of analytic tools to help us understand capitalism and destroy capitalism so we can replace it with a communist society. When Marx said "the philosophers have only described the world, in various ways, the point is to change it" the change he was speaking of was to a communist society.

That isn't true. Take the Autonomists for instance, definetly communists but definetly disagree with that.

anarchoneilist:

'As far as I'm concerned you need

a large organisation to either

run industry or at least to run

the banks/finances democratically

as part of a anarchist

free market (for example,

benefits could be alocated

by giving non-earners

a large intrest rate when in

credit but low on funds,

and negative interest when

overdrawn) and communes

or whatever can draq up their

own social contracts.'

With all respect surely there is no such thing as 'a anarchist free market'. At least not under socialist anarchism or libertarian communism. Why punish people for being overdrawn? In my view there would be no reason for anyone to be overdrawn in a true socialist society. Certainly there's nothing desirable about punitive measures for people being so, that's capitalist.

So how will the state disappear? Since it's an instrument of class oppression, I'd imagine it'll disappear sooner or later. Maybe, since a socialist state is possible, and socialism isn't that different from communism, there'll still be a communist state?

On BBC news, earthquake reported in North London, centering on borough of Highgate.

I've split the discussion between Anarchonelist/mix, revol and John. to a new thread in general.

http://www.libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6918

What is the difference between the socialist party ad the swp there all trots arn't they

Hi

Trotsky wasn't all bad, but the Trotskyist Left are a hindrance to working class emancipation.

Programme First!

LR

This is potentially an important discussion – essentially, a variant of what is communism and how do we get there. A big problem with it so far from our point of view is that the ‘marxist’ standpoint has been defended by hammerandsickle, a member of the Socialist Party - not the SPGB (which does have some understanding of what socialism is) but the Trotskyist Socialist Party, which for decades was buried in the Labour Party. Trotskyism – in all its varieties – has been part of the left wing of capital since it abandoned internationalism in 1939-45. Its economic programme is a form of state capitalism. Hence its calls for the nationalisation of the economy (which it supports even under the existing state machine), and its defence of the USSR, China, Cuba etc as degenerated or deformed ‘workers’ states’.

Of course Trotskyists can quote Marx and Engels at great length, especially on general historical questions. In this discussion hammerandsickle has not argued openly in favour of the nationalisation of the economy under a Labour government or other aspects of his group’s state capitalist programme. He has argued ‘correctly’ for the marxist position that the working class has to destroy the capitalist state and replace it with a completely different kind of power. But some of the points he has raised still reflect the Trotskyist vision. For example, this constant insistence on the difference between socialism and communism. Marx and Engels never made much of this. Marx talked about the lower and higher phases of communism – which implies a movement that begins as soon as the proletariat has taken power, rather than a series of rigid stages. But the real problem with this ‘distinction’ is that the Russian revolution showed the danger of confusing socialism with state control of the economy. This was an error which existed in the whole marxist movement up to a certain point, although the premises for criticising it were already there in Marx and Engel’s writings, in the work of Bebel, William Morris, and others. And in the light of the degeneration and defeat of the Russian revolution, the left communists in Russia, Germany and Italy argued more and more that this was a truly dangerous confusion.

Closely linked to this issue is hammerandsickle’s bizarre idea that communism doesn’t necessarily mean the abolition of the state. Unlike the anarchists, marxists accept that there will be a transitional state after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. But again the experience of the Russian revolution showed that even this new and ‘improved’ semi-state (which shouldn’t be mixed up with the autonomous organs of the working class, such as factory committees and workers’ councils, or with the party) was the main focus for the capitalist counter-revolution. To a large extent the progress of the revolution can be measured by the degree to which the state ‘withers away’ and the organs of proletarian self-activity more and more encompass the whole of society. By the same token, the more the state tends to perpetuate and strengthen itself, the more the revolution is stagnating and the counter-revolution growing. In Russia, the factory committees, the workers’ militias, the councils and the Bolshevik party itself were all, in their different ways, swallowed up by this re-born Leviathan.

This post is already too long and has certainly let some of the anarchists off the hook. For example, we would like to come back to those libertarians who have openly argued on other threads in favour of ‘market socialism’, instead of recognising that communism is a necessity because commodity production has become a noose hanging round humanity’s neck. But that is for another time.

Meanwhile,admin edit - please stop posting self-promotory links in almost every post, your account should have your homepage attached to it

Im pretty sure the SWP did condem Russia as state capilalism early on.

dom, I think wld_rvn is talking about the Socialist Party (ex-Militant) - which is a different organisation to the SWP.

Hi

The SWP/Trotskyist analysis of the Eastern Bloc was always “degenerated workers state”. I doubt they were, or are, politically sophisticated enough to understand the notion of State Capitalism.

It’s a more important point than it looks, because a number of important flawed notions of party and state flow from the profound ideological weakness incurred by not recognising the regime as capitalist.

The Soviet Union’s State Capitalism was in many ways a higher form of capitalism than that of “the West”. Over time the two systems converged. The end of the cold war does not mark the “defeat of Communism” but the point at which two competing forms of capitalism ceased to be separate.

Love

LR

Nah UK SWP's Cliffism calls it state capitalist. don't know much about the specifics of cliffism's theory, but it appears to be one that isn't much of a break with "degenerated workers state". It's State Capitalist nonetheless.

Hi

Oh dear, you're quite right. Where on earth did I pick that up from? I seem to have invented a memory of self-proclaimed Cliffites denouncing State Capitalist analysis and returning to their pre-1950's Degenerated Workers State notions. That's crack for you.

Sorry, and thanks for setting me straight.

Love

LR

Hi

That rattled me a little bit, it would seem that I'm not losing my mind after all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Cliff

Still, fair enough.

Love

LR

Sorry if the quoting is done wrong, new here.

If you have as little faith in Humanity then why don't you become religious? It would solve a lot of your problems, I would suggest the solution in "The Grand Inquisitor" (Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov)

If you don't believe people 'deserve' freedom then wy fuck about talking about it.

I'm a bit short on theory but it seems to me that any exercise of power of others is dangerous, especially this socialist 'for their own good' stuff.

What is needed is self-discipline.

The biggest problem with forming an anarchist or communist society (which in the end should be fairly similar) is that the people in that society must be anarchos or comms, which is why a lot of comms (esp leninists) need that transitory phase to establish control which always turns out to be permanent and never allows itself to be withered away.

I do think its a bit odd H & S, how you posed some fairly reasonable questions then began spouting dogma. Is this a double game or were you in that much need of guidance that you latched on to some vanguardists?

If its the latter I'd suggest that you ignore these "comrades" for at least a few weeks pm someone here who is reasonable (not me I don't know shit and put too much in brackets) and have a little bit of a think about the world in general. Otherwise you'll end up blaming people for their own misfortune and you'll be bitter and reading the ICC newspaper or the Daily Mail before you know it.

"Anarchism won't work simply because, sadly, humanity will always require a form of government"

Yet just a page ago this knob was lecturing people about their understanding of Marx.