If anarchism and communism are the same as radical graffiti claims says why did Marx find Bakunin so tiresome and move the First Internatiinal out of his reach?
If anarchism and communism are the same as radical graffiti claims says why did Marx find Bakunin so tiresome and move the First Internatiinal out of his reach?
Aw come off it Jojo, you can't argue with such a comprehensive answer as RGs.
If anarchism and communism are the same as radical graffiti claims says why did Marx find Bakunin so tiresome and move the First Internatiinal out of his reach?
Aw come off it Jojo, you can't argue with such a comprehensive answer as RGs.
Sleeper, I dare say my view isn't technically is incorrect and if so the Libcom clever clogs will soon put me straight but to me anarchism is the means and strategies by which we create communism. It is about organising in the workplace and around various issues of social and financial oppression. Importantly, whatever the issue and whatever the method of organising it MUST be non hierarchical.
Hopefully somebody with greater knowledge and greater ability at explaining things will pick up the ball.
Hi Noah, love your forum name, and I think we would probably agree about a lot of the important stuff in life. But, and there had to be a but, I think anarchism is far more important than marxism or overused words like socialism and communism.
I agree anarchism is non hierarchical. Isn't it also self organisation/self management to create communities and workplaces that meet our needs and interests.
By that I mean there could be for example a noisy community where the residents like to make lots of noise and shout a lot. Then there could be a quiet community where residents like to read and maybe have a little chat sometime, or maybe not.
How these communities, and workplaces, organise themselves will be up to those involved and how they want to do things. Not communist, not anything prescribed or imposed, something that grows from the grassroots with time :-)
Noah Fence
Sleeper, I dare say my view isn't technically is incorrect and if so the Libcom clever clogs will soon put me straight but to me anarchism is the means and strategies by which we create communism. It is about organising in the workplace and around various issues of social and financial oppression. Importantly, whatever the issue and whatever the method of organising it MUST be non hierarchical.
Hopefully somebody with greater knowledge and greater ability at explaining things will pick up the ball.
What I mean by ‘anarchism’ is anarchist-communism. Or to put it another way, ‘social-anarchism’.
This is important to me as the anarchist component means the communism is free and not imposed. The communist component is essential to differentiate this form of anarchism from individualism and extreme liberalism, which permeates some anarchist ideas. Communism seeks to replace capitalism with a classless society based on common ownership and anarchism seeks to build this society on mutual aid. There is no contradiction unless one views ‘anarchism’ as some new kind of ‘market economy’ (which implies private property leading to all the same sick contradictions we have today).
Any anarchist, who rejects communist common ownership, must explain the economic basis of their dream world.
Are anarchist communism and social anarchism the same thing?
As I've said before we probably agree on lots of things as well. However you have failed to mention voluntary cooperation. Now this is a vital part of anarchism along with mutual aid. The reason being that if it's not voluntary then it's imposed, and authoritarian.
Auld-bod
What I mean by ‘anarchism’ is anarchist-communism. Or to put it another way, ‘social-anarchism’.
This is important to me as the anarchist component means the communism is free and not imposed. The communist component is essential to differentiate this form of anarchism from individualism and extreme liberalism, which permeates some anarchist ideas. Communism seeks to replace capitalism with a classless society based on common ownership and anarchism seeks to build this society on mutual aid. There is no contradiction unless one views ‘anarchism’ as some new kind of ‘market economy’ (which implies private property leading to all the same sick contradictions we have today).
Any anarchist, who rejects communist common ownership, must explain the economic basis of their dream world.
Sleeper - it's not really appropriate to talk about failing to mention certain things. These are brief comments on a forum, not a detailed analysis of anarchism. For more detailed pieces there are the Introductory Guides and for a greater depth, if you've got a few years spare there are the Anarchist FAQs.
Also, I kind of took your question in a personal sense, as in 'What does anarchism mean TO YOU?'. I answered on that basis. If that wasn't what you meant then fair enough. That's the Internet for you, eh?!!!
Sleeper #12 ‘Are anarchist communism and social anarchism the same thing?’
Well that always depends on who you’re talking to, usually I ask people to define their terms, which stops us arguing at cross purposes. To me ‘free communism’ and ‘socialism’ as defined by say, the SPGB, are in theory virtually interchangeable with the ends of revolutionary anarchism (in the case of the SPGB I stress the ends rather than the means as they have their own idiosyncratic ideas on the means).
I say ‘virtually’ as no one can see the future and organise it in advance. A common denominator is a desire for direct democracy and free distribution of goods and services (I do not see this desire as in any sense authoritarian). I’ve found more fundamental differences with anarchists, who reject the importance of social class and economic exploitation as the basis of capitalism and see anarchism as a means to expand their individual need to express themselves. These philosophical anarchists and life stylists are not revolutionaries, but radical liberals.
If anarchism and communism are the same as radical graffiti claims says why did Marx find Bakunin so tiresome and move the First Internatiinal out of his reach?
Marx and Bukunin do not personify anarchism and communism, so i dont see how this is relevant
If anarchism and communism are the same as radical graffiti claims says why did Marx find Bakunin so tiresome and move the First Internatiinal out of his reach?
Because they had a strategic disagreement about whether or not to work within parliament?
The older I get the more I realise why anarchists should have ditched Marx a long time ago. I still think Engels had something important to say, and it still has relevance.
I consider myself to be an anarchist, a working class revolutionary, not a socialist or communist or anything else the capitalists have recouped.
I want communities created from the grassroots up and working together cooperatively and in a voluntary federative structure that meets the needs of all those involved.
If some peoples needs can't be met for whatever reason, then it should be discussed and if need be a new community created that does meet their needs.
If capitalists or other authoritarians try to organise within our communities, they will of course be met with the full force of working class resistance.
Auld-bod
Noah #13
I agree with you.
Sleeper #12 ‘Are anarchist communism and social anarchism the same thing?’
Well that always depends on who you’re talking to, usually I ask people to define their terms, which stops us arguing at cross purposes. To me ‘free communism’ and ‘socialism’ as defined by say, the SPGB, are in theory virtually interchangeable with the ends of revolutionary anarchism (in the case of the SPGB I stress the ends rather than the means as they have their own idiosyncratic ideas on the means).
I say ‘virtually’ as no one can see the future and organise it in advance. A common denominator is a desire for direct democracy and free distribution of goods and services (I do not see this desire as in any sense authoritarian). I’ve found more fundamental differences with anarchists, who reject the importance of social class and economic exploitation as the basis of capitalism and see anarchism as a means to expand their individual need to express themselves. These philosophical anarchists and life stylists are not revolutionaries, but radical liberals.
I do not consider myself a Marxist, so what is your point?
Nothing you have described as your future society differs from my idea - or does it?
You appear interested in sticking labels on stuff as if your meanings are transparent, or are you just being slippery?
I'm just explaining my position. Perhaps you could allow me the space to do that without making it all about you. Can you do that?
Auld-bod
I do not consider myself a Marxist, so what is your point?
Nothing you have described as your future society differs from my idea - or does it?
You appear interested in sticking labels on stuff as if your meanings are transparent, or are you just being slippery?
No you are not, as you say nothing about how needs can be met.
You evade questions.
Perhaps your vision requires no economics, in other words your 'politics' are simply wind and piss.
No you are not, as you say nothing about how needs can be met.
You evade questions.
Perhaps your vision requires no economics, in other words your 'politics' are simply wind and piss.
Sleeper, I dare say my view [#2] isn't technically correct and if so the Libcom clever clogs will soon put me straight but to me anarchism is the means and strategies by which we create communism.
I preferred your first answer, Noah.
what you envisage an anarchist society to be?
Personally, I envision the future 'anarchist society' to be very primitive in comparison to the world we live in today. The physical barriers will be removed. There will be no division between Man and nature.
"For the party of anarchy, of socialism, of communism!"
Sleeper, I dare say my view isn't technically correct and if so the Libcom clever clogs will soon put me straight but to me anarchism is the means and strategies by which we create communism.
I preferred your first answer, Noah.
For the party of anarchy against the Party of Order!
I believe that Comrade Macbryde is fucking with us. I can't figure if this splendid fellow has a point to make or is just freestylin'. I strongly suspect that any appeals for clarification will lead to further confusion. And so yet more mystery in this most mysterious of universes.
I simply said I agreed with your first answer, 'communism', and not with your second. By this I mean how can distinguish between communism and anarchism.
Blimey, that's not very friendly. The reason I suggested a certain playfulness was exuding from you is because you keep changing your post #26 and I was genuinely confused. Come on man, lighten up already.
By the way, it was Radical Graffiti's post that said communism, not mine. Further reason for my confusion.
I consider myself to be an anarchist, a working class revolutionary,
so your for workers taking control of the means of production, abolishing the state and doing away with oppressions like racism, sexism, homophobia etc etc and general you want to maximize every ones freedom and ability to realise there potential
then you say
Sleeper
not a socialist or communist or anything else the capitalists have recouped.
so your opposed to workers taking control of the means of production, abolishing the state and doing away with oppressions like racism, sexism, homophobia etc etc and general you don't want to maximize every ones freedom and ability to realise there potential
which is it?
Sleeper
want communities created from the grassroots up and working together cooperatively and in a voluntary federative structure that meets the needs of all those involved.
If some peoples needs can't be met for whatever reason, then it should be discussed and if need be a new community created that does meet their needs.
so what exactly does this mean? given your history of calling opposition to oppressions like homophobia 'distractions' have to wonder if you aren't plaining for a situation where rather than combating things like racism, sexism, homophobia etc in society people who aren't happy with the status quo are told to fuck off and start their own communities.
I believe that Comrade Macbryde is fucking with us.
Yeah, he's not really worth engaging with. There was a poster on here a long time ago (Lazy Riser) that sort of had the same schitck, but s/he actually had a point with the fuckery that usually took some time sinking in. Macbryde's nonsense usually stays a turd.
I have explained the structures I envisage as an anarchist. That is what I prefer. How people decided to organise for themselves is for them, not me. I am not evading anything. Nor am I seeking to impose anything. I don't believe in politics, I believe in working class self management.
Auld-bod
Sleeper #19 'I'm just explaining my position.'
No you are not, as you say nothing about how needs can be met.
You evade questions.
Perhaps your vision requires no economics, in other words your 'politics' are simply wind and piss.
You seem angered by this idea while I find it liberating.
Surely the ability to create new communities as and when we need them is essential to any kind of anarchism? Do you disagree?
radicalgraffiti
so you say this
Sleeper
I consider myself to be an anarchist, a working class revolutionary,
so your for workers taking control of the means of production, abolishing the state and doing away with oppressions like racism, sexism, homophobia etc etc and general you want to maximize every ones freedom and ability to realise there potential
then you say
Sleeper
not a socialist or communist or anything else the capitalists have recouped.
so your opposed to workers taking control of the means of production, abolishing the state and doing away with oppressions like racism, sexism, homophobia etc etc and general you don't want to maximize every ones freedom and ability to realise there potential
which is it?
Sleeper
want communities created from the grassroots up and working together cooperatively and in a voluntary federative structure that meets the needs of all those involved.
If some peoples needs can't be met for whatever reason, then it should be discussed and if need be a new community created that does meet their needs.
so what exactly does this mean? given your history of calling opposition to oppressions like homophobia 'distractions' have to wonder if you aren't plaining for a situation where rather than combating things like racism, sexism, homophobia etc in society people who aren't happy with the status quo are told to fuck off and start their own communities.
What people mean by these rather unspecific terms can vary from person to person. Maoists mean something different when they say "Marxism" then left-communists and Syndicalists means something different when they say "Anarchism" then post-leftists do. Ultimately I think if we want to ascertain the meaning of Anarchism we have to look both at it's history as a political orientation and at it's contemporary status in politics. This is what Anarchism implies to me.
Historically and even currently Anarchism is a diverse movement with the label itself being even more diversely used. In my opinion the historical and contemporary place of the Anarchist movement is this:
Anarchism has always and today situates itself as a current within the worker's movement which holds the concept of "liberty" for all people in high esteem and seeks to perpetuate that form of thought in the worker's movement. Anarchism is categorized by an economic and political analysis that holds the system of capitalism and the system of class society in general to be based on the oppression of the many by the few. Anarchism holds that the only way to create a force which destroys this social arrangement and sets up a new one that promotes human liberty, for all people, is to stage a "social revolution". The content of which is the forcible overthrow of the existing ruling classes and the institutions which allow class society to exist by the oppressed "masses" and the institution of a new way of life based on the common control of social spheres and the equitable distribution of society's resources. This social situation that the social revolution sets up my also be called "socialism". This current oppose social structures like the state which in the Anarchist assessment are used to maintain the aforementioned system of class society and in specifically capitalist society the aforementioned system of capitalism.
‘This social situation that the social revolution sets up my also be called "socialism".’
This social situation that the social revolution sets up may also be called “socialism’. (my =may ?)
The above post seems to me good set of ideas.
With worker’s control, class society disappears along with private property. We share a common wealth, through international solidarity and not as isolated communes. In this non-competitive world, human potential can be realised in all its individual forms and cultures. (Free) communism will promote this diversity as it will have shed the dead weight of its Leninist past.
Yes I don't have to be tied to old terms like socialist and communist, because I'm an anarchist. The hijacking of the 1st International by Marx and his cronies set the scene for the terrible anti-working crimes that have been inflicted upon peasants and the working class in the name of Marx, socialism and communism.
As for us anarchists, well, according to their propaganda all we managed to do was assasinate a few of them and create a fear within the rulling class that exists to this day.
radicalgraffiti
so you say this
Sleeper
I consider myself to be an anarchist, a working class revolutionary,
so your for workers taking control of the means of production, abolishing the state and doing away with oppressions like racism, sexism, homophobia etc etc and general you want to maximize every ones freedom and ability to realise there potential
then you say
Sleeper
not a socialist or communist or anything else the capitalists have recouped.
so your opposed to workers taking control of the means of production, abolishing the state and doing away with oppressions like racism, sexism, homophobia etc etc and general you don't want to maximize every ones freedom and ability to realise there potential
which is it?
Sleeper
want communities created from the grassroots up and working together cooperatively and in a voluntary federative structure that meets the needs of all those involved.
If some peoples needs can't be met for whatever reason, then it should be discussed and if need be a new community created that does meet their needs.
so what exactly does this mean? given your history of calling opposition to oppressions like homophobia 'distractions' have to wonder if you aren't plaining for a situation where rather than combating things like racism, sexism, homophobia etc in society people who aren't happy with the status quo are told to fuck off and start their own communities.
I believe that working class resistance, class resistance, is essential right now. The ruling class are destroying us and we need to resist and force them on their backfoot. It's not that that I don't believe in liberation for us all, I do, but right now don't play their game, play our game and resist anything and everything they try to offer us. What matters is all working class people regardless of anything else.
You sound like that dude who writes reviews of Das Kapital on amazon.com
Edit:
I believe that working class resistance, class resistance, is essential right now. The ruling class are destroying us and we need to resist and force them on their backfoot. It's not that that I don't believe in liberation for us all, I do, but right now don't play their game, play our game and resist anything and everything they try to offer us. What matters is all working class people regardless of anything else.
And this sounds a lot like what the SWP would conclude with after a lengthy analysis of Palestine or Iraq; empty rhetoric.
Yes I don't have to be tied to old terms like socialist and communist, because I'm an anarchist.
anarchist is also an old term, one that by its self explains nothing
Sleeper
The hijacking of the 1st International by Marx and his cronies set the scene for the terrible anti-working crimes that have been inflicted upon peasants and the working class in the name of Marx, socialism and communism.
we fuck working tbh. but you are aware that the leninsts claimed that what they did was for working class revolution, something you quite happy to claim to support.
Sleeper
As for us anarchists, well, according to their propaganda all we managed to do was assasinate a few of them and create a fear within the rulling class that exists to this day.
the ruling class is not afraid of anarchists and hasn't been for some decades, assassination of members of the ruling class was in every way a failure. capital is a social relationship
Sleeper
I believe that working class resistance, class resistance, is essential right now. The ruling class are destroying us and we need to resist and force them on their backfoot. It's not that that I don't believe in liberation for us all, I do, but right now don't play their game, play our game and resist anything and everything they try to offer us. What matters is all working class people regardless of anything else.
what the fuck is this? ". It's not that that I don't believe in liberation for us all, I do, but right now don't play their game, play our game and resist anything and everything they try to offer us."
so your basically telling everyone to wait to improve their lives till after the revolution. the same argument could be used against work place organising, which after all only achieves improvements within capitalism.
"all working class people regardless of anything else"
unless there are black or gay or women in which case they are a distraction
You seem angered by this idea while I find it liberating.
i'm not surprised a bigot like you would like the idea that they shouldn't need to consider other people
Sleeper
Surely the ability to create new communities as and when we need them is essential to any kind of anarchism? Do you disagree?
communities don't exist in isolation for each other. abolishing hierarchical forms of social organisation is fundamental to anarchism, just go and form your own community is the logic of capitalism, and we see how that works out.
I have explained the structures I envisage as an anarchist. That is what I prefer. How people decided to organise for themselves is for them, not me. I am not evading anything. Nor am I seeking to impose anything. I don't believe in politics, I believe in working class self management.
you don't believe in politics but you believe in the political idea of working class self management?
you claim to have nothing to say about how people organise, but you say the working class should self manage?
Of course I believe in working class self management, I'm working class. What do you believe in, and why?
radicalgraffiti
Sleeper
I have explained the structures I envisage as an anarchist. That is what I prefer. How people decided to organise for themselves is for them, not me. I am not evading anything. Nor am I seeking to impose anything. I don't believe in politics, I believe in working class self management.
you don't believe in politics but you believe in the political idea of working class self management?
you claim to have nothing to say about how people organise, but you say the working class should self manage?
And you and your little sidekick sound like why I've never wanted to visit America and probably never will.
I know there's arguments for keeping certain channels open but we should get back what libraries belong in the UK then fuck these arseholes off because they are poison.
Khawaga
You sound like that dude who writes reviews of Das Kapital on amazon.com
Edit:
I believe that working class resistance, class resistance, is essential right now. The ruling class are destroying us and we need to resist and force them on their backfoot. It's not that that I don't believe in liberation for us all, I do, but right now don't play their game, play our game and resist anything and everything they try to offer us. What matters is all working class people regardless of anything else.
And this sounds a lot like what the SWP would conclude with after a lengthy analysis of Palestine or Iraq; empty rhetoric.
And you and your little sidekick sound like why I've never wanted to visit America and probably never will.
I know there's arguments for keeping certain channels open but we should get back what libraries belong in the UK then fuck these arseholes off because they are poison.
I see you're still struggling with that whole workers of the world unite bit. I guess it's not really surprising to see nationalism mixed in with your other more colourful views. Though it does make your repeated prolier than thou attitudes about Class organisation and class identity seem even more disingenuous than previously.
RG is British, Sleeper old chap. So what's with the anti Americanism? I mean, bringing up people's nationality isn't just stupid, it's also pretty fucking offensive. You've expose yourself more with every post. Just continue your creep towards the right and eventually you'll find yourself at Britain First. Maybe you'll feel more at home there?
I think I've been slow on the uptake. Is sleeper the poster (had a different user name before) that argued fighting any form of oppression is a diversion from the class struggle?
Show me where I have supported anything other than anarchism and working class self management.
radicalgraffiti
Sleeper
Yes I don't have to be tied to old terms like socialist and communist, because I'm an anarchist.
anarchist is also an old term, one that by its self explains nothing
Sleeper
The hijacking of the 1st International by Marx and his cronies set the scene for the terrible anti-working crimes that have been inflicted upon peasants and the working class in the name of Marx, socialism and communism.
we fuck working tbh. but you are aware that the leninsts claimed that what they did was for working class revolution, something you quite happy to claim to support.
Sleeper
As for us anarchists, well, according to their propaganda all we managed to do was assasinate a few of them and create a fear within the rulling class that exists to this day.
the ruling class is not afraid of anarchists and hasn't been for some decades, assassination of members of the ruling class was in every way a failure. capital is a social relationship
Sleeper
I believe that working class resistance, class resistance, is essential right now. The ruling class are destroying us and we need to resist and force them on their backfoot. It's not that that I don't believe in liberation for us all, I do, but right now don't play their game, play our game and resist anything and everything they try to offer us. What matters is all working class people regardless of anything else.
what the fuck is this? ". It's not that that I don't believe in liberation for us all, I do, but right now don't play their game, play our game and resist anything and everything they try to offer us."
so your basically telling everyone to wait to improve their lives till after the revolution. the same argument could be used against work place organising, which after all only achieves improvements within capitalism.
"all working class people regardless of anything else"
unless there are black or gay or women in which case they are a distraction
I consider myself to be an anarchist, a working class revolutionary,
so your for workers taking control of the means of production, abolishing the state and doing away with oppressions like racism, sexism, homophobia etc etc and general you want to maximize every ones freedom and ability to realise there potential
then you say
Sleeper
not a socialist or communist or anything else the capitalists have recouped.
so your opposed to workers taking control of the means of production, abolishing the state and doing away with oppressions like racism, sexism, homophobia etc etc and general you don't want to maximize every ones freedom and ability to realise there potential
which is it?
Sleeper
want communities created from the grassroots up and working together cooperatively and in a voluntary federative structure that meets the needs of all those involved.
If some peoples needs can't be met for whatever reason, then it should be discussed and if need be a new community created that does meet their needs.
so what exactly does this mean? given your history of calling opposition to oppressions like homophobia 'distractions' have to wonder if you aren't plaining for a situation where rather than combating things like racism, sexism, homophobia etc in society people who aren't happy with the status quo are told to fuck off and start their own communities.
Has it occurred to you that the reason people are suggesting that your views are bigoted is that your views are, well, bigoted or that at the very least you are expressing your views in a way that gives the impression that you're a bigot? You're looking very much like one of the many people that come to Libcom and exhibit an unyielding inflexibility which inevitably results in them bailing out and missing out on the many great things that Libcom offers. It's a shame it happens so often and it would be a shame if it happened with you.
Looking around I think you have to realise that it would be Libcom missing out on what I have to offer. Your loss not mine.
Noah Fence
Has it occurred to you that the reason people are suggesting that your views are bigoted is that your views are, well, bigoted or that at the very least you are expressing your views in a way that gives the impression that you're a bigot? You're looking very much like one of the many people that come to Libcom and exhibit an unyielding inflexibility which inevitably results in them bailing out and missing out on the many great things that Libcom offers. It's a shame it happens so often and it would be a shame if it happened with you.
Communism is the collectivisation of the economy, as a solution to the greed inherent in capitalism
Anarchism is a utopian vision of a society where everyone is free to act without outside pressures asserting on them.
Anarchist Communism is a utopian vision of society, where every individual freely chooses to work together for the common good of society.
Social Anarchism is a movement dedicated to increasing individual liberty by creating a culture of mutual aid, where people freely support each other in their individual pursuits.
a social movement that seeks liberation from oppressive systems of control including but not limited to the state, capitalism, racism, sexism, speciesism, and religion.
You're looking very much like one of the many people that come to Libcom and exhibit an unyielding inflexibility which inevitably results in them bailing out and missing out on the many great things that Libcom offers. It's a shame it happens so often and it would be a shame if it happened with you.
It is a shame when people turn up with poorly thought-out ideas then defends them bitterly until giving up. I think it's a symptom of desperation mixed up with youthful hubris.
Yep I agree, but where I think there's going to be a problem is with the politicos, those who think they know better, and expect to be the boss whatever the situation.
Fuck them and whatever donkey they rode in on...
red and black riot
Anarchism to me means a stateless society without hierarchy, best blended with communism which is the sharing of resources.
a system of social organization in which hierarchical structures are reduced, as far as practicible, towards zero. or, stated in positive terms, a system of social organization which begins from horizontal/egalitarian premises.
communism
communism
Intro guides are always a
Intro guides are always a good place to start:
http://libcom.org/library/libertarian-communism-introduction
If anarchism and communism
If anarchism and communism are the same as radical graffiti claims says why did Marx find Bakunin so tiresome and move the First Internatiinal out of his reach?
jojo wrote: If anarchism and
jojo
Aw come off it Jojo, you can't argue with such a comprehensive answer as RGs.
Noah Fence wrote: jojo
Noah Fence
Or such a daft answer as mine!
Sleeper, I dare say my view
Sleeper, I dare say my view isn't technically is incorrect and if so the Libcom clever clogs will soon put me straight but to me anarchism is the means and strategies by which we create communism. It is about organising in the workplace and around various issues of social and financial oppression. Importantly, whatever the issue and whatever the method of organising it MUST be non hierarchical.
Hopefully somebody with greater knowledge and greater ability at explaining things will pick up the ball.
Anarchism ultimately is
Anarchism ultimately is unadulterated communism and communism in its truest form.
In addition to Chilli Sauce's
In addition to Chilli Sauce's link, I would also add:
Anarcho-syndicalism - an introduction
Anarchist communism - an introduction
There are also the related reading guides linked to on those pages..
And obviously there's also the Anarchist FAQ for basically any other question you might have! :)
EDIT TO ADD: Which doesn't mean if you don't have questions that you can't ask them here! Please feel free to!
Hi Noah, love your forum
Hi Noah, love your forum name, and I think we would probably agree about a lot of the important stuff in life. But, and there had to be a but, I think anarchism is far more important than marxism or overused words like socialism and communism.
I agree anarchism is non hierarchical. Isn't it also self organisation/self management to create communities and workplaces that meet our needs and interests.
By that I mean there could be for example a noisy community where the residents like to make lots of noise and shout a lot. Then there could be a quiet community where residents like to read and maybe have a little chat sometime, or maybe not.
How these communities, and workplaces, organise themselves will be up to those involved and how they want to do things. Not communist, not anything prescribed or imposed, something that grows from the grassroots with time :-)
Noah Fence
What I mean by ‘anarchism’ is
What I mean by ‘anarchism’ is anarchist-communism. Or to put it another way, ‘social-anarchism’.
This is important to me as the anarchist component means the communism is free and not imposed. The communist component is essential to differentiate this form of anarchism from individualism and extreme liberalism, which permeates some anarchist ideas. Communism seeks to replace capitalism with a classless society based on common ownership and anarchism seeks to build this society on mutual aid. There is no contradiction unless one views ‘anarchism’ as some new kind of ‘market economy’ (which implies private property leading to all the same sick contradictions we have today).
Any anarchist, who rejects communist common ownership, must explain the economic basis of their dream world.
Are anarchist communism and
Are anarchist communism and social anarchism the same thing?
As I've said before we probably agree on lots of things as well. However you have failed to mention voluntary cooperation. Now this is a vital part of anarchism along with mutual aid. The reason being that if it's not voluntary then it's imposed, and authoritarian.
Auld-bod
Sleeper - it's not really
Sleeper - it's not really appropriate to talk about failing to mention certain things. These are brief comments on a forum, not a detailed analysis of anarchism. For more detailed pieces there are the Introductory Guides and for a greater depth, if you've got a few years spare there are the Anarchist FAQs.
Also, I kind of took your question in a personal sense, as in 'What does anarchism mean TO YOU?'. I answered on that basis. If that wasn't what you meant then fair enough. That's the Internet for you, eh?!!!
Noah #13 I agree with
Noah #13
I agree with you.
Sleeper #12
‘Are anarchist communism and social anarchism the same thing?’
Well that always depends on who you’re talking to, usually I ask people to define their terms, which stops us arguing at cross purposes. To me ‘free communism’ and ‘socialism’ as defined by say, the SPGB, are in theory virtually interchangeable with the ends of revolutionary anarchism (in the case of the SPGB I stress the ends rather than the means as they have their own idiosyncratic ideas on the means).
I say ‘virtually’ as no one can see the future and organise it in advance. A common denominator is a desire for direct democracy and free distribution of goods and services (I do not see this desire as in any sense authoritarian). I’ve found more fundamental differences with anarchists, who reject the importance of social class and economic exploitation as the basis of capitalism and see anarchism as a means to expand their individual need to express themselves. These philosophical anarchists and life stylists are not revolutionaries, but radical liberals.
jojo wrote: If anarchism and
jojo
Marx and Bukunin do not personify anarchism and communism, so i dont see how this is relevant
jojo wrote: If anarchism and
jojo
Because they had a strategic disagreement about whether or not to work within parliament?
The older I get the more I
The older I get the more I realise why anarchists should have ditched Marx a long time ago. I still think Engels had something important to say, and it still has relevance.
I consider myself to be an anarchist, a working class revolutionary, not a socialist or communist or anything else the capitalists have recouped.
I want communities created from the grassroots up and working together cooperatively and in a voluntary federative structure that meets the needs of all those involved.
If some peoples needs can't be met for whatever reason, then it should be discussed and if need be a new community created that does meet their needs.
If capitalists or other authoritarians try to organise within our communities, they will of course be met with the full force of working class resistance.
Auld-bod
I do not consider myself a
I do not consider myself a Marxist, so what is your point?
Nothing you have described as your future society differs from my idea - or does it?
You appear interested in sticking labels on stuff as if your meanings are transparent, or are you just being slippery?
I'm just explaining my
I'm just explaining my position. Perhaps you could allow me the space to do that without making it all about you. Can you do that?
Auld-bod
Oh gawd.
Oh gawd.
Sleeper #19 'I'm just
Sleeper #19
'I'm just explaining my position.'
No you are not, as you say nothing about how needs can be met.
You evade questions.
Perhaps your vision requires no economics, in other words your 'politics' are simply wind and piss.
Auld-bod wrote: Sleeper
Auld-bod
Easy tiger!
Noah #22 Och, you're right. I
Noah #22
Och, you're right. I should not post before I've had my bowl of porridge.
Quote: Sleeper, I dare say my
I preferred your first answer, Noah.
Personally, I envision the future 'anarchist society' to be very primitive in comparison to the world we live in today. The physical barriers will be removed. There will be no division between Man and nature.
"For the party of anarchy, of socialism, of communism!"
James MacBryde
James MacBryde
???
What?
What?
WTF?
WTF?
I believe that Comrade
I believe that Comrade Macbryde is fucking with us. I can't figure if this splendid fellow has a point to make or is just freestylin'. I strongly suspect that any appeals for clarification will lead to further confusion. And so yet more mystery in this most mysterious of universes.
When did I say I was your
When did I say I was your fucking comrade?
I simply said I agreed with your first answer, 'communism', and not with your second. By this I mean how can distinguish between communism and anarchism.
Blimey, that's not very
Blimey, that's not very friendly. The reason I suggested a certain playfulness was exuding from you is because you keep changing your post #26 and I was genuinely confused. Come on man, lighten up already.
By the way, it was Radical Graffiti's post that said communism, not mine. Further reason for my confusion.
so you say this Sleeper
so you say this
Sleeper
so your for workers taking control of the means of production, abolishing the state and doing away with oppressions like racism, sexism, homophobia etc etc and general you want to maximize every ones freedom and ability to realise there potential
then you say
Sleeper
so your opposed to workers taking control of the means of production, abolishing the state and doing away with oppressions like racism, sexism, homophobia etc etc and general you don't want to maximize every ones freedom and ability to realise there potential
which is it?
Sleeper
so what exactly does this mean? given your history of calling opposition to oppressions like homophobia 'distractions' have to wonder if you aren't plaining for a situation where rather than combating things like racism, sexism, homophobia etc in society people who aren't happy with the status quo are told to fuck off and start their own communities.
Quote: I believe that Comrade
Yeah, he's not really worth engaging with. There was a poster on here a long time ago (Lazy Riser) that sort of had the same schitck, but s/he actually had a point with the fuckery that usually took some time sinking in. Macbryde's nonsense usually stays a turd.
James MacBryde wrote: The
James MacBryde
This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. I really try not to be so dismissive usually, but wtf???
I have explained the
I have explained the structures I envisage as an anarchist. That is what I prefer. How people decided to organise for themselves is for them, not me. I am not evading anything. Nor am I seeking to impose anything. I don't believe in politics, I believe in working class self management.
Auld-bod
You seem angered by this idea
You seem angered by this idea while I find it liberating.
Surely the ability to create new communities as and when we need them is essential to any kind of anarchism? Do you disagree?
radicalgraffiti
What people mean by these
What people mean by these rather unspecific terms can vary from person to person. Maoists mean something different when they say "Marxism" then left-communists and Syndicalists means something different when they say "Anarchism" then post-leftists do. Ultimately I think if we want to ascertain the meaning of Anarchism we have to look both at it's history as a political orientation and at it's contemporary status in politics. This is what Anarchism implies to me.
Historically and even currently Anarchism is a diverse movement with the label itself being even more diversely used. In my opinion the historical and contemporary place of the Anarchist movement is this:
Anarchism has always and today situates itself as a current within the worker's movement which holds the concept of "liberty" for all people in high esteem and seeks to perpetuate that form of thought in the worker's movement. Anarchism is categorized by an economic and political analysis that holds the system of capitalism and the system of class society in general to be based on the oppression of the many by the few. Anarchism holds that the only way to create a force which destroys this social arrangement and sets up a new one that promotes human liberty, for all people, is to stage a "social revolution". The content of which is the forcible overthrow of the existing ruling classes and the institutions which allow class society to exist by the oppressed "masses" and the institution of a new way of life based on the common control of social spheres and the equitable distribution of society's resources. This social situation that the social revolution sets up my also be called "socialism". This current oppose social structures like the state which in the Anarchist assessment are used to maintain the aforementioned system of class society and in specifically capitalist society the aforementioned system of capitalism.
dsc #36 ‘This social
dsc #36
‘This social situation that the social revolution sets up my also be called "socialism".’
This social situation that the social revolution sets up may also be called “socialism’. (my =may ?)
The above post seems to me good set of ideas.
With worker’s control, class society disappears along with private property. We share a common wealth, through international solidarity and not as isolated communes. In this non-competitive world, human potential can be realised in all its individual forms and cultures. (Free) communism will promote this diversity as it will have shed the dead weight of its Leninist past.
I meant may, for some reason
I meant may, for some reason I have a huge problem with typos on these forums.
Yes I don't have to be tied
Yes I don't have to be tied to old terms like socialist and communist, because I'm an anarchist. The hijacking of the 1st International by Marx and his cronies set the scene for the terrible anti-working crimes that have been inflicted upon peasants and the working class in the name of Marx, socialism and communism.
As for us anarchists, well, according to their propaganda all we managed to do was assasinate a few of them and create a fear within the rulling class that exists to this day.
radicalgraffiti
I believe that working class resistance, class resistance, is essential right now. The ruling class are destroying us and we need to resist and force them on their backfoot. It's not that that I don't believe in liberation for us all, I do, but right now don't play their game, play our game and resist anything and everything they try to offer us. What matters is all working class people regardless of anything else.
You sound like that dude who
You sound like that dude who writes reviews of Das Kapital on amazon.com
Edit:
And this sounds a lot like what the SWP would conclude with after a lengthy analysis of Palestine or Iraq; empty rhetoric.
Sleeper wrote: Yes I don't
Sleeper
anarchist is also an old term, one that by its self explains nothing
Sleeper
we fuck working tbh. but you are aware that the leninsts claimed that what they did was for working class revolution, something you quite happy to claim to support.
Sleeper
the ruling class is not afraid of anarchists and hasn't been for some decades, assassination of members of the ruling class was in every way a failure. capital is a social relationship
Sleeper
what the fuck is this? ". It's not that that I don't believe in liberation for us all, I do, but right now don't play their game, play our game and resist anything and everything they try to offer us."
so your basically telling everyone to wait to improve their lives till after the revolution. the same argument could be used against work place organising, which after all only achieves improvements within capitalism.
"all working class people regardless of anything else"
unless there are black or gay or women in which case they are a distraction
Sleeper wrote: You seem
Sleeper
i'm not surprised a bigot like you would like the idea that they shouldn't need to consider other people
Sleeper
communities don't exist in isolation for each other. abolishing hierarchical forms of social organisation is fundamental to anarchism, just go and form your own community is the logic of capitalism, and we see how that works out.
Sleeper wrote: I have
Sleeper
you don't believe in politics but you believe in the political idea of working class self management?
you claim to have nothing to say about how people organise, but you say the working class should self manage?
Of course I believe in
Of course I believe in working class self management, I'm working class. What do you believe in, and why?
radicalgraffiti
And you and your little
And you and your little sidekick sound like why I've never wanted to visit America and probably never will.
I know there's arguments for keeping certain channels open but we should get back what libraries belong in the UK then fuck these arseholes off because they are poison.
Khawaga
Too bad that I'm very
Too bad that I'm very European. So what's your point? Nothing as usual.
Sleeper wrote: And you and
Sleeper
I see you're still struggling with that whole workers of the world unite bit. I guess it's not really surprising to see nationalism mixed in with your other more colourful views. Though it does make your repeated prolier than thou attitudes about Class organisation and class identity seem even more disingenuous than previously.
RG is British, Sleeper old
RG is British, Sleeper old chap. So what's with the anti Americanism? I mean, bringing up people's nationality isn't just stupid, it's also pretty fucking offensive. You've expose yourself more with every post. Just continue your creep towards the right and eventually you'll find yourself at Britain First. Maybe you'll feel more at home there?
I imagine hearing Sleeper
I imagine hearing Sleeper singing, ‘I’m an anarchist and I’m okay’, to the tune of ‘I’m a lumberjack’.
I think I've been slow on the
I think I've been slow on the uptake. Is sleeper the poster (had a different user name before) that argued fighting any form of oppression is a diversion from the class struggle?
Yes he was user Fai1937 with
Yes he was user Fai1937 with a black flag avatar.
Reddebrek wrote: Yes he was
Reddebrek
Aha! Is that for def! I was sure I knew him from somewhere.
Noah Fence wrote: Reddebrek
Noah Fence
Pretty much, http://libcom.org/forums/theory/pro-working-class-11112015
Oh yeah, Sleeper do you care
Oh yeah, Sleeper do you care to finally give a definitive answer to the very simple question I asked you in that thread? Still waiting...
Show me where I have
Show me where I have supported anything other than anarchism and working class self management.
radicalgraffiti
Auld-bod wrote: I imagine
:-)
Auld-bod
People change their user
People change their user names for good reasons stupid.
Reddebrek
You're advocating self
You're advocating self organization for white heterosrxual working class men.
Work it out for yourself you
Work it out for yourself you bellend.
radicalgraffiti
See what I did there.
See what I did there.
Has it occurred to you that
Has it occurred to you that the reason people are suggesting that your views are bigoted is that your views are, well, bigoted or that at the very least you are expressing your views in a way that gives the impression that you're a bigot? You're looking very much like one of the many people that come to Libcom and exhibit an unyielding inflexibility which inevitably results in them bailing out and missing out on the many great things that Libcom offers. It's a shame it happens so often and it would be a shame if it happened with you.
Looking around I think you
Looking around I think you have to realise that it would be Libcom missing out on what I have to offer. Your loss not mine.
Noah Fence
Oh dear.
Oh dear.
That says a lot about
That says a lot about sleeper's personalty.
Quote: Looking around I think
Wow.
my oh my what would we do
my oh my what would we do without a bigot on this forum!? Really guys, its our loss... :(
Communism is the
Communism is the collectivisation of the economy, as a solution to the greed inherent in capitalism
Anarchism is a utopian vision of a society where everyone is free to act without outside pressures asserting on them.
Anarchist Communism is a utopian vision of society, where every individual freely chooses to work together for the common good of society.
Social Anarchism is a movement dedicated to increasing individual liberty by creating a culture of mutual aid, where people freely support each other in their individual pursuits.
Anarchism to me means a
Anarchism to me means a stateless society without hierarchy, best blended with communism which is the sharing of resources.
a social movement that seeks
a social movement that seeks liberation from oppressive systems of control including but not limited to the state, capitalism, racism, sexism, speciesism, and religion.
Against all authority
Noah Fence wrote: You're
Noah Fence
It is a shame when people turn up with poorly thought-out ideas then defends them bitterly until giving up. I think it's a symptom of desperation mixed up with youthful hubris.
Yep I agree, but where I
Yep I agree, but where I think there's going to be a problem is with the politicos, those who think they know better, and expect to be the boss whatever the situation.
Fuck them and whatever donkey they rode in on...
red and black riot
a system of social
a system of social organization in which hierarchical structures are reduced, as far as practicible, towards zero. or, stated in positive terms, a system of social organization which begins from horizontal/egalitarian premises.