NationStates Jolt Archive

Communism believes in a society where there is no ruling elite, and everybody is equal.

Fascism believes in a ruling elite.

But when you have a leader and a government you have a ruling elite!

I'd say communism was more that the general population were all equal, but the government sat above everyone. The government and the public are arguably a separate entity... they aren't really "the public"

So applying that:
Communism is where the public are equal, and is governed by blah blah blah.

Remember it's not a government style if there is no government (however small that may be).

True, true. But having that ofsets what communism is about!

Communism is not a government type. It is a way of life. The members of the government are technically no greater than the common folk.

BUt to quote George Orwell:

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

George Orwell, in Animal Farm (an attack on Josef Stalin and Communism).

Communism is not a government type. It is a way of life. The members of the government are technically no greater than the common folk.

BUt to quote George Orwell:

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

George Orwell, in Animal Farm (an attack on Josef Stalin and Communism).
I suppose then democracy doesn't count as a government type, by the same logic then.

Animal farm shows what communism is. Starts out nice, but goes horribly wrong, even worse than the previous regime [jones].

I should also say "Communism is an economic system."

Democracy IS how we have our government. Technically, it is a Republic, not a Democracy. It is also our way of life. Capitalism is also our way of life, but it is an economic system, not a government. I'm saying, you can have a Democratic Communism (like Sweden or Canada (socialism)), but you can't have a Communist Capitalism. Neither is a government.

Governments:
Democracy (Ancient Greece)
Republic (US)
Monarchy (Europe of old)
Despotism (Rome)
Fundamentalism (Iran)
Feudalism (Europe of old)
"Dictatoship of the Protelariat" (Karl Marx) (The USSR)

Economic systems:
Mercantilism (Spain in COlombus' time)
Socialism (Sweden)
Communism (USSR)
Capitalism (US)

Did you get those government types from Civ III?
By the way, most of you people have americanised point of view on politics.

'Democracy' could be implemented in two ways. Representative democracy is when you vote people into parliament to rule your lives to any extent you please (conservative/republican rule more, labour/democrats rule less). Direct democracy is when you decide on everything that concerns you and do anything you please (anarchy). Marxist communism preffer direct 'democracy'.

Despotism isn't so much of a government type, it's just another word for authoritarian, a more general term that covers fascism and absolute monarchy. Feudalism is a part/branch of monarchy just like constitutional monarchy. Republic is the opposite of monarchy and means JUST that. It means that the country does not have a monarch. It is a general term.

The USSR (under Stalin) wasn't a communist state. Its economy was under state capitalism in which the state controlled all the means of production. Similar case in North Korea. China is under private capitalism, very much the same as the US and Japan. The countries that actually practice socialism to any degree don't actually raise scarlet flags and use the hammer and sickle as their logos. Communism, the way Marx described it has never been achieved. (and it is not a type of government despite what Civ III makers say)

Communism, the way Marx described it has never been achieved. (and it is not a type of government despite what Civ III makers say)

That isn't entirely true. There were a number of anarcho-communist communities in revolutionary Spain and there have been anarcho-communist communes that have lasted for over 30 years (East Wind, Twin Oaks, Sand Hill, all members of the FEC).

I am in the middle of writing a booklet on why communism is impossible. Dimmi is right. There is no true communist society. its like.."Sir, if we are all equal, why do i only get a loaf of bread a day and you get huge meals?"

his reply. "Because I am more equal than you now shut up and sit down!"

What does exist is an authoritarian socialist society. A left wing authoritarian. They speak freedom and equal rights for the proletariat(sp) when in fact the govt. is the beurgoiuse(sp again. lol.) Going against the true beliefs of socialism and communism. They speak of a govt. being set up in the early stages but then being done away with....this is not possible due to human nature. The kind of person that takes power of a govt. like that is a person who dwells on power. And once he gets a taste of it he doesnt want to let go, meaning the govt. forever exists until it is overthrown, usually by a new cabinet, not govt. system. So in turn true communism never comes into affect. So in fact, the world has never seen an actual communist govt, just a leftist authoritarian govt. thats just my opinion on the matter.

I am in the middle of writing a booklet on why communism is impossible. Dimmi is right. There is no true communist society. its like.."Sir, if we are all equal, why do i only get a loaf of bread a day and you get huge meals?"

his reply. "Because I am more equal than you now shut up and sit down!"

What does exist is an authoritarian socialist society. A left wing authoritarian. They speak freedom and equal rights for the proletariat(sp) when in fact the govt. is the beurgoiuse(sp again. lol.) Going against the true beliefs of socialism and communism. They speak of a govt. being set up in the early stages but then being done away with....this is not possible due to human nature. The kind of person that takes power of a govt. like that is a person who dwells on power. And once he gets a taste of it he doesnt want to let go, meaning the govt. forever exists until it is overthrown, usually by a new cabinet, not govt. system. So in turn true communism never comes into affect. So in fact, the world has never seen an actual communist govt, just a leftist authoritarian govt. thats just my opinion on the matter.
Yes,

The USSR actually I believe did try to make it clear, they were not actually Communist, they were 'working towards communism' , which is infact, by its literal definition, socialism.

George Orwell, in Animal Farm (an attack on Josef Stalin and Communism).It isn't just that- that's a standard misrepresentation. One of the major attacks in the book is on the pig's deals with the farmers (who represent capitalism). The same theme (about the various systems being essentially the same) is also in 1984. For what Orwell actually believed politically read "Homage to Catalonia".

Talking about communism with americans is like talking about the jews with Ossama ben laden. He doesn't really know what the jews are but he wants to annihilate everyone of them.

Talking about communism with americans is like talking about the jews with Ossama ben laden. He doesn't really know what the jews are but he wants to annihilate everyone of them.
Not really true, there is nothing to say there cannot be American Communists, and nothing to say Americans cannot understand communism.

It isn't just that- that's a standard misrepresentation. One of the major attacks in the book is on the pig's deals with the farmers (who represent capitalism). The same theme (about the various systems being essentially the same) is also in 1984. For what Orwell actually believed politically read "Homage to Catalonia".

having never had to read animal farm for an english class, i have to wonder if that isn't the standard high school english teacher interpretation. it is just so common for people to totally miss orwell's point, even though it is plainly written into the book, that there must be more at work than simple comprehension issues.

his other writings make it all abundantly clear. orwell hated capitalism, and he hated stalinism for being ridiculously evil and for setting back the fight against capitalism.

and 'homage to catalonia' is a damn fine book.

If there were ever a truly Communist nation, there would be no government. Communism is by definition anarchistic. It has never been attempted on a national level. Although Communism is not itself a system of government, it requires anarchy as a prerequisite to existence. Democracy, Facism, and Anarchy are systems of government, Capitalism, Communism and Socialism are an economic systems. Ironically, Capitalism and Deomcracy have historically gone hand in hand, even though the ideals of Socialism are much more consisten with those of Democracy than are those of Capitalism.

BUt to quote George Orwell:

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."


Nature has a rule,doesn't it? Its "The survival of the fittest".

It may interest people to know that Orwell was, at least for a period of his life, a Trotskyist, and fought in the Spanish Civil War with the Republicans. Animal Farm was an attack on Stalinist Socialism (read: Fascism), not communist ideology.

BUt to quote George Orwell:

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Nature has a rule,doesn't it? Its "The survival of the fittest".

orwell wasn't exactly putting that forward as a good concept...

and while the fittest may pass on their genes better, fitness does not necessarily refer to being the biggest or the strongest. in social species such as ourselves evolutionary fitness is nearly completely bound up with cooperation and group living.

It may interest people to know that Orwell was, at least for a period of his life, a Trotskyist, and fought in the Spanish Civil War with the Republicans. Animal Farm was an attack on Stalinist Socialism (read: Fascism), not communist ideology.

indeed. animal farm is pretty much a straight trotskyist telling of the russian revolution. though orwell hedged a bit in other places because he disagreed with trotsky's belief in the necessity of a centralized dictatorial authority to run the revolution. i think orwell's socialism winds up fairly similar to bertrand russell's - clearly democratic, very libertarian, but not anarchistic (though certainly sympathetic).

Communism is simply collectivism, the operating belief that the part (individual) is subordinate to the whole (society) which is a "real" unit of evaluation (more real than the individual), that "The Common Good" is the standard of morality. To be effective it needs to be authoritarian, as people aren't naturally very sacrificial of themselves. So the government is the instrument of society that compels the individual sacrifices necessary for the Common Good.

There are examples of non-authoritarian collectivist societies (what I would call anarchism), but they tend to collapse or stagnate as they rely on voluntary individual sacrifice. It is possible, naturally, for this collectivist attitude to exist, but generally only on the smallest levels (family, for example).

Marxism is a whole different bag of nuts. In addition to the central tenet of collectivism you need to add for consideration the equally important tenets of historicism and economics. Historicism is the belief that there are inexorable laws of history, and that social transformations are inevitable and predictable. Economics for Marx involved his perceived struggle between collectivist classes, especially the workers/proleteriat and the bourgeousie/capitalists.

For those of us who believe that the individual is real and society is a construct the whole collectivist philosophy is, naturally, bollox.

Communism will never work!

Communism will never work!
But it's a beautiful idea. Like anarchy. But people are not ready for it and I don't think we'll ever be. And now I mean the idea of communism without authoritarian leaders. I don't think it's very nice to force people into communism, or any other lifestyle.

Communism is not a government type. It is a way of life. The members of the government are technically no greater than the common folk.

BUt to quote George Orwell:

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

George Orwell, in Animal Farm (an attack on Josef Stalin and Communism).

Interesting, you are the second I see who thinks that this book is against the USSR. I first thought that it is against the USA, but that could be because I'm not from there. ;)

Interesting, you are the second I see who thinks that this book is against the USSR. I first thought that it is against the USA, but that could be because I'm not from there. ;)
It is blatantly against the USSR, with some key communist revolutionaries (specifically Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin) directly parodied.

It may interest people to know that Orwell was, at least for a period of his life, a Trotskyist, and fought in the Spanish Civil War with the Republicans. Not quite. POUM, who Orwell fought with, had actually conclusively broken with Trotsky by that point.

It is blatantly against the USSR, with some key communist revolutionaries (specifically Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin) directly parodied.It certainly is. But that doesen't tell the whole story. As I said before, the farmers are a parody of the west and one of the main attacks on Stalin contained in the book is on his willingness to trade with them.

You are right that it is a good idea but it goes against human nature. Human nature is to rise, to better yourself. To make others subservient to you! not to be subservient to others. Also, without a ruling body it allows others to take advantage, getting rid of the equality. Thats why in my opinion I favor capitalism so much. It goes off of the basis of human nature. It allows people to make themselves better if they wish it. If they try hard enough then they will rise. Anyone can become powerful as long as they have the drive.

communism exists in the minds of men

when they try to put it into practice things go a tad pear shaped

Communism is a great ideal. But it can't be put into practice.

Orwell's book Animal Farm is excellent. When I first read it I thought it was about a group of revolutioary barmyard animals but I later found out it's true meaning which is by the way to do with Sovietism the reality not Communism the concept. Sovietism and Communism are close but not the same.

The book is railing against Stalin rather than Communism which was an idea that Orwell seemed to partly agree with.

[Communism is] a beautiful idea. Like anarchy. But people are not ready for it and I don't think we'll ever be. And now I mean the idea of communism without authoritarian leaders. I don't think it's very nice to force people into communism, or any other lifestyle.

Here, here! And Marx was a brilliant man. It's just sad that it won't work. Sad, but true.

Here, here! And Marx was a brilliant man. It's just sad that it won't work. Sad, but true.

The fundamental flaw in Marxist ideology is the belief that a socialist government will lead to a communist state. This was what led to the split between Marxist socialists and the anarchists (including Bakunin) in the First International. The anarchist position is that, if you dispose of capitalism without disposing of the state, it won't last, much the same as the argument over on the Anarchist thread - if you dispose of the state without disposing of capitalism, the state will be recreated.

Vas.

I am in the middle of writing a booklet on why communism is impossible. Dimmi is right. There is no true communist society. its like.."Sir, if we are all equal, why do i only get a loaf of bread a day and you get huge meals?"

his reply. "Because I am more equal than you now shut up and sit down!"

What does exist is an authoritarian socialist society. A left wing authoritarian.

It is normally a good idea to research before attempting to write pamphlets, because you exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of communism here. Marxism is state socialism, that which went so badly wrong in the USSR. Anarchist communism, which was outlined by Peter Kropotkin in the Conquest of Bread - http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html - and the subject of a explanatory book by Alexander Berkman - http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html - is a completely different animal and is ardently anti-authoritarian.

Marxism is state socialism, that which went so badly wrong in the USSR.That's highly arguable- on many significant points Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin went against Marx. And I don't think Bakunin's call for a secret elite to guide society was in any way anti-authortarian.

That's highly arguable- on many significant points Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin went against Marx.

That's true, however, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin perfectly personified the criticisms made of Marxism by Bakunin and Kropotkin. The fact that they diverged is the point - state socialism is unsustainable.

And I don't think Bakunin's call for a secret elite to guide society was in any way anti-authortarian.

Context, my dear friend, context. Secret societies were necessary at a time when being known as an anarchist guaranteed imprisonment. Also, Bakunin's vanguard is one to guide society into revolution, not to rule over them. It was a hot topic then, as it was when Makhno and Malatesta debated it, and remains so in relation to black bloc tactics. Should anarchists act now, or wait until everyone else catches up?

Vas.

Marxism is state socialism This is argueable; he believed that socialism would lead to communism (as said) as sort of a readying the people for communism. After this transition period, we have anti-state communism. This transition period is what makes Marxism differant from other forms of anarcho-communism.

The feud probably started in the First International when Marx seized control and had Bakunin thrown out. As consequence from his actions, anarchists labeled him as authoritarian. The fued has never quite ended, and anarchists are quick to say they are not Marxists.

Kropotkin, of another branch of anarcho-communism, is sort of an odd guy. He outlines the conditions needed for an anarchist commune to work, but from what I've seen, they never have been in place. Admittingly, I am not well versed on the successes and failures of anarchist communes, and the only two areas I know they existed were the wartorn nations of Spain and the Ukraine (although the Ukraine was under German (?) control at the time).

This is argueable; he believed that socialism would lead to communism (as said) as sort of a readying the people for communism. After this transition period, we have anti-state communism. This transition period is what makes Marxism differant from other forms of anarcho-communism.

The fundamental difference is that Marx held that you needed the socialist state to bring about communism, while anarchists from Bakunin onwards hold that the state, socialist or not, will never abolish itself and will thus destroy the revolution. A revolution needs to go all the way, remove the state rather than replacing it.

The feud probably started in the First International when Marx seized control and had Bakunin thrown out. As consequence from his actions, anarchists labeled him as authoritarian. The fued has never quite ended, and anarchists are quick to say they are not Marxists.

Pretty much, though Marx did concentrate on parliamentary methods to bring about the revolution, while Bakunin ran around looking for revolutions to join in with. Marxists believe in bringing about change through the parliamentary system, anarchists reject representative politics.

Kropotkin, of another branch of anarcho-communism, is sort of an odd guy.

I wouldn't separate Kropotkin from Bakunin too much. Bakunin didn't write down all that much of his theories, but Kropotkin never saw himself as being anything other than part of the anarchist line. He was THE theorist who distilled all that had come before him into a collection of work.

He outlines the conditions needed for an anarchist commune to work, but from what I've seen, they never have been in place. Admittingly, I am not well versed on the successes and failures of anarchist communes, and the only two areas I know they existed were the wartorn nations of Spain and the Ukraine (although the Ukraine was under German (?) control at the time).

There have been numerous small scale anarchist communes (modern Chiapas is one example), but you're right, Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War and the Ukraine during the Russian Civil War would be the main examples. At the time, the Ukraine was one of the hotspots of the war, so no one power was in control - there was a struggle between the White forces and Makhno's anarchist forces. The tragedy came after the Civil War - having protected the Red Army's flank and defeated the Whites in the Ukraine, Trotsky's thanks were to insist that Makhno's forces join the Red Army and to attack them when they refused - leaving Makhno to go into exile in Europe.

Vas.

Excuse me, but feudalism is an economic system as well as a government.

Communism believes in a society where there is no ruling elite, and everybody is equal.

Fascism believes in a ruling elite.

But when you have a leader and a government you have a ruling elite!

That's the alleged end-result of communism, after the dictatorship of the proletariat withers away and the 'new man' comes into existence. But of course, this has never happened, and thus communist countries remain locked in dictatorships. What they fail to comprehend was that Marx was a delusional moron so full of crap that he squeaked taking a left turn.

But it's a beautiful idea. Like anarchy. But people are not ready for it and I don't think we'll ever be. And now I mean the idea of communism without authoritarian leaders. I don't think it's very nice to force people into communism, or any other lifestyle.


Beautiful idea? Tell that to the 100-300 million people who were killed by it. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't agree with you.

Beautiful idea? Tell that to the 100-300 million people who were killed by it. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't agree with you.

Leninism isn't communist. It doesn't even qualify as socialist. Where is the workers' ownership and management of the means of production? The ugly truth is that the USSR was a new form of capitalism where the boss is a politician rather than a businessman.

That isn't entirely true. There were a number of anarcho-communist communities in revolutionary Spain and there have been anarcho-communist communes that have lasted for over 30 years (East Wind, Twin Oaks, Sand Hill, all members of the FEC).

I said, as Marx predicted. I think he predicted more international society that last a bit longer than a generation.

Leninism isn't communist. It doesn't even qualify as socialist. Where is the workers' ownership and management of the means of production? The ugly truth is that the USSR was a new form of capitalism where the boss is a politician rather than a businessman.

Remember Kronstadt.

Vas.

i suppose i shouldnt post to this thread since y'all obviously are way better read than i am on the topic, but here goes nothin'....

the basic underlying premise of communism is that the value of the economy comes from the labor put into creating it. (the precept of capitalism being that its the money man who counts.) thus, the worker should own the means of production.

communally so to speak.

while to ME that implies the need for a democratic government to go along with it, the countries who tried it (after a fashion) disagreed with me. its hard to know if its the communal system or the lack of democracy that caused these countries to be such a disaster for those who tried it. (although one wonders how well cuba would do without the influence of the soviet union or the US embargo)

anyway, the point i really wanted to make is that communism exists in the US. we call them COOPERATIVES and they exist and sometimes thrive within our democratic capitlalistic system.

they are most common in agriculture. Land o' Lakes is a producers cooperative for example. perhaps your city has an organic food co-op.

this is a form of communism. good old american home grown "oh no not me im not one a them pinko comies" communism.

thats all i wanted to say, thanks for reading it.

Leninism isn't communist. It doesn't even qualify as socialist. Where is the workers' ownership and management of the means of production? The ugly truth is that the USSR was a new form of capitalism where the boss is a politician rather than a businessman.

That's not what socialism is. Socialism is when the government controls all that stuff, not the workers.

That's not what socialism is. Socialism is when the government controls all that stuff, not the workers.

Then what is it called?

Then what is it called?

What is what called?

Communism is a great ideal. But it can't be put into practice.

Communism is an aweful idea! Why would anyone seek to assimilate everyone, whether they wish to have it or not, and force them to be 'equal' in the eyes of a totalitarian state? Why would anyone seek to force me to relinquish my private property? Moreover, Communism pyshically cannot work....while people are allowed to think it's a great idea, (and who am I to stop them?), I'm allowed to think the exact opposite....

Me!

Communism is an aweful idea! Why would anyone seek to assimilate everyone, whether they wish to have it or not, and force them to be 'equal' in the eyes of a totalitarian state? Why would anyone seek to force me to relinquish my private property? Moreover, Communism pyshically cannot work....while people are allowed to think it's a great idea, (and who am I to stop them?), I'm allowed to think the exact opposite....

Me!

Agreed, agreed! (Commence applauding now)

Communism is an aweful idea! Why would anyone seek to assimilate everyone, whether they wish to have it or not, and force them to be 'equal' in the eyes of a totalitarian state? Why would anyone seek to force me to relinquish my private property? Moreover, Communism pyshically cannot work....while people are allowed to think it's a great idea, (and who am I to stop them?), I'm allowed to think the exact opposite....

Do you know anything about communism? Apparently not. That sounds more like a corporation.

What is what called?

Socialism.

Do you know anything about communism? Apparently not. That sounds more like a corporation.


Yes, I know a great deal about Communism. I've read much of Marx and Engel's work.....(had to investigate the theory first-hand..) Communism is the opposite of nearly everything I stand for...though, you (and probably several others here) would find me to be on the fringe of the right-wing....(the party I'm closest associated to is the Constitutionalists....check out the site at http://www.constitutionparty.org....

Communism seeks to make everyone equal. To remove all barriers of difference between people in a society. Which is pyshically impossible. There's never been a communist nation where it hasn't turned tyrannical. And there never will be.....it may look great on paper, but it remains a theory.....

Me!

Do you know anything about communism? Apparently not. That sounds more like a corporation.



Socialism.

Well, he apparently knows a hell of a lot more about communism than you do.

Communism seeks to make everyone equal. To remove all barriers of difference between people in a society. Which is pyshically impossible. There's never been a communist nation where it hasn't turned tyrannical. And there never will be.....it may look great on paper, but it remains a theory.....

You should read up on libertarian communism (anarchism). Marx isn't representative of all forms of socialism.

Well, he apparently knows a hell of a lot more about communism than you do.

Has he read What is Communist Anarchism? Has he read The Conquest of Bread? I suggest he does if he wants to seriously critique anarcho-communism.

That's not what socialism is. Socialism is when the government controls all that stuff, not the workers.

No, that's STATE socialism, libertarian socialism is where the workers control the means of production. Socialism is an economic theory, not a political one.

Vas.

You should read up on libertarian communism (anarchism). Marx isn't representative of all forms of socialism.



Has he read What is Communist Anarchism? Has he read The Conquest of Bread? I suggest he does if he wants to seriously critique anarcho-communism.

When I said, "probably knows a hell of a lot more about it than you do," I probably sounded like a rude, prudish ass. My apologies, Letila.

You should read up on libertarian communism (anarchism). Marx isn't representative of all forms of socialism.

I have, albeit a small amount...

Has he read What is Communist Anarchism? Has he read The Conquest of Bread? I suggest he does if he wants to seriously critique anarcho-communism.

Admittedly, no I have not read either of those works. I do have much experience in debating with Anarcho-Communists, though......(there's a frequent troll on another board I attend who is one...or at least he claims he is one....) I encourage all people of the NS boards, who want to debate politics, to join the ProtestWarrior forum (http://forum.protestwarrior.com[/url), of which I'm a member of...great site...great forum filled with scores of intelligent posters, on both the right and the left....

Me!

Yes, I know a great deal about Communism. I've read much of Marx and Engel's work.....(had to investigate the theory first-hand..) Communism is the opposite of nearly everything I stand for...though, you (and probably several others here) would find me to be on the fringe of the right-wing....(the party I'm closest associated to is the Constitutionalists....check out the site at http://www.constitutionparty.org....

The tragedy of American politics that so-called defenders of the constitution claim that one of the world's greatest secularist documents is Xtian. Once upon a time, those who defended the freedoms of the constitution stood alongside Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman.

Vas.

I find this conflict strange as because many of you who say Communism is bad don't really think about what a Democracy means.

In theory, a Communist state is where everybody is equal physically. If not then another person makes up that loss. This is how Marx, the creator of Communism or Marxism, puts it,"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." So on paper it looks very good but it is unachievable. Also during the Cold war we degraded it as evil. To a Marxist, communism has solved the enigma of history. Communism is defined as a movement and consciousness of movement advancing towards the highest form of social organization. It settles the question of men and nature, existence and essence, freedom and necessity, individual and collectiveness. In theory and practice it solves all these questions and it is mindful that it solves them. With its criticism of oppression and expectations of a better world, Marxist communism started as a rational eschatology, in many ways akin to restoration prophetic ideals. With the appearance of Soviet communism, however, the rational and eschatological setting was discarded and only tyranny and atheism remained.

In theory, a Democracy is a place where the people vote on everything or on people who then vote on things. For this though, to be possible, everyone must be equal socially. This has not yet been achieved. For this to be possible, everyone must have equal rights and equal abilities of power.

So you see, neither of the two have yet been achieved, although us Americans say we are a Democratic Republic and China says they are Communists. America degrades Communism while in truth it is a good ideal.

So you see, neither of the two have yet been achieved, although us Americans say we are a Democratic Republic and China says they are Communists. America degrades Communism while in truth it is a good ideal.

America is not a Democratic Republic, we are a Constitutional Republic. We were founded with the principles of democracy in mind, but we are not a democracy. Just because I have an ass, doesn't make me an ass...again, though...Communism can look as good as anyone wants it to on paper, but it still can never work.....

Me!

Then may I ask, what exactly is a Constitutional Republic. Isn't it a government based on the ideals of their Constitution or basis of laws. Because our Constitution tells us our rights and responsibilities. But then, for it to be a true Constitutional Republic everyone must keep up to those responsibilities. Not everyone does. Therefore we are not a true Constitutional Republic because not everyone follows the responsibilities that are in there. The way I see it. There is no such thing as a true type of any government. They are all incomplete. In a monarchy, the king or queen does not have all the power because people can revolt. In Anarchy, there will always be someone who takes lead in doing things. TRrue govenments of any types are impossible. We only have partial forms of what we want.

Then may I ask, what exactly is a Constitutional Republic. Isn't it a government based on the ideals of their Constitution or basis of laws. Because our Constitution tells us our rights and responsibilities. But then, for it to be a true Constitutional Republic everyone must keep up to those responsibilities. Not everyone does. Therefore we are not a true Constitutional Republic because not everyone follows the responsibilities that are in there. The way I see it. There is no such thing as a true type of any government. They are all incomplete. In a monarchy, the king or queen does not have all the power because people can revolt. In Anarchy, there will always be someone who takes lead in doing things. TRrue govenments of any types are impossible. We only have partial forms of what we want.

That's an illogical arguement, my young 'o'friend. We are a Republic which is governed by the law of the land, our Constitution. The Constitution is the very basis of our gov't. It outlines our rights as Americans. And it is not a "flexible, breathing document" contrary to what a lot of Lefties will tell you....in a monarchy, like you set as an example, the king/queen do have the all the legal power.....if the people revolt, they're breaking the laws of the land....and thusly, the king/queen would punish them......(assuming the revolution fails.)

An anarchy gov't is an oxymoron. Technically, anarchy is an oxymoron. Humans cannot just go solo. We have the habit of banding together to ensure our survival....be it in families, communities, cities, our national governments....

Me!

A Constitutional Republic is a government in which you follow the rights and RESPONSIBILITIES stated in the Constitution. Not many people follow the responsibility of voting. In fact only a minority of the people actually vote on issues. That doesn't sound like many people are following the Constitution. That is like having a Dictatorship where the people vote on what the people want. It doesn't work. If there is a Constitutional Republic then the people must follow both sides of it. You cannot have a CR where the people don't follow the Constitution.

A Constitutional Republic is a government in which you follow the rights and RESPONSIBILITIES stated in the Constitution. Not many people follow the responsibility of voting. In fact only a minority of the people actually vote on issues. That doesn't sound like many people are following the Constitution. That is like having a Dictatorship where the people vote on what the people want. It doesn't work. If there is a Constitutional Republic then the people must follow both sides of it. You cannot have a CR where the people don't follow the Constitution.

That is not true. The Constitution does not force anyone to vote -- that would be absurd. You don't have to vote if you don't want to, but those who don't vote, do not deserve to complain about the results. A republic is where we elect people to represent us and make laws and decisions that are supposed to represent the common majority. A Constitutional Republic is a republic where our elected representatives follow guidlines set for them and all of us by the Constitution. They cannot break the Constitution, as it is the ultimate law of the land.....

Me!

An anarchy gov't is an oxymoron. Technically, anarchy is an oxymoron. Humans cannot just go solo. We have the habit of banding together to ensure our survival....be it in families, communities, cities, our national governments....

And? Anarchism is fundamentally based on voluntary co-operation. Anarchy is not chaos, it's not people going their own way and ignoring others, it's society based on solidarity and co-operation without coercion or hierarchy.

Vas.

That is not true. The Constitution does not force anyone to vote -- that would be absurd. You don't have to vote if you don't want to, but those who don't vote, do not deserve to complain about the results. A republic is where we elect people to represent us and make laws and decisions that are supposed to represent the common majority. A Constitutional Republic is a republic where our elected representatives follow guidlines set for them and all of us by the Constitution. They cannot break the Constitution, as it is the ultimate law of the land.....

Me!


Then why is it that so many people do break the Costitution. Also, we elect representitives that vote for things, some of thopse issues the majority of the people want differently then what the representitive is saying. So many people have broken the Constitution and continue to do that. One more thing, weren't we talking about Communism. Maybe we should get back on track but if you want to argue then its Ok by me. And why do you end everything with me.

Then why is it that so many people do break the Costitution. Also, we elect representitives that vote for things, some of thopse issues the majority of the people want differently then what the representitive is saying. So many people have broken the Constitution and continue to do that. One more thing, weren't we talking about Communism. Maybe we should get back on track but if you want to argue then its Ok by me. And why do you end everything with me.

A: We are a Constitutional Republic as defined by the nature of our government and as defined by the words of our Founders....

B: Yes, we were talking about Communism. I'm not exactly sure where it switched-off, but we should probably return this thread to its original topic....

C: I end everything with "Me!" because I'm too lazy to type out "Colerica." I feel the need to sign my posts, no matter what forum I'm on.....

Me!

And? Anarchism is fundamentally based on voluntary co-operation. Anarchy is not chaos, it's not people going their own way and ignoring others, it's society based on solidarity and co-operation without coercion or hierarchy.

Vas.

Again, that cannot happen. Perhaps 'oxymoron' was the wrong word for me to use. More like a theory. A theory that can never be tested because it cannot work. You cannot have humans co-exist together without forming some type of hierarchy or leadership. It simply cannot happen. It's part of our natural instincts. The urge to have leadership is a natural instinct found in many animals. It doesn't matter if you're talking about humans, lions, or wolves. It's all the same....

Me!

I believe that there are two things in which you will most likely never convert a person on(I have no idea if that made sense), polittics and religion. I see that Colerica is a very intelligent person who knows what s/he(sorry I don't know your gender) is talking about. Although that is true I still believe things that others don't and that will be very hard to change.

Again, that cannot happen. Perhaps 'oxymoron' was the wrong word for me to use. More like a theory. A theory that can never be tested because it cannot work. You cannot have humans co-exist together without forming some type of hierarchy or leadership. It simply cannot happen. It's part of our natural instincts. The urge to have leadership is a natural instinct found in many animals. It doesn't matter if you're talking about humans, lions, or wolves. It's all the same....

Don't you also believe that it is human nature to be violent and kill? If so, than don't we suppress that?

Don't you also believe that it is human nature to be violent and kill? If so, than don't we suppress that?

we do supress it, yet people still murder.

there is only so much supression you can enforce. and in anarchy just who would be willing to supress other peoples bad tendencies? and who is gonna punish those who are unable to control themselves?

we do supress it, yet people still murder.

there is only so much supression you can enforce. and in anarchy just who would be willing to supress other peoples bad tendencies? and who is gonna punish those who are unable to control themselves?

The theory of anarchy relies on a very optomistic view of human nature. Anarchists believe in absolute freedom without hierarchy, and expect that human beings will be able to suppress their desire to rule over each other. The flaw in anarchic belief is that their society would have to consist solely of other anarchists. If there was a massive anarchist takeover in a country, then all of the non-anarchists would be very quick to start ruling over their anarchist countrymen, making said revolution worthless. The same goes for crimes in an anarchist society. They expect that people will not murder for the good of society, when it happens every day. No matter the punishments or incentives not to do something, people will always find a way to justify it.

The theory of anarchy relies on a very optomistic view of human nature. Anarchists believe in absolute freedom without hierarchy, and expect that human beings will be able to suppress their desire to rule over each other. The flaw in anarchic belief is that their society would have to consist solely of other anarchists. If there was a massive anarchist takeover in a country, then all of the non-anarchists would be very quick to start ruling over their anarchist countrymen, making said revolution worthless. The same goes for crimes in an anarchist society. They expect that people will not murder for the good of society, when it happens every day. No matter the punishments or incentives not to do something, people will always find a way to justify it.

Actually, the hierarchies of modern capitalist society are not in any way universal. Many hunter-gatherer societies, while far from perfect, were pretty close to anarchism in many ways. They had no true social classes outside of age or sex and only ceremonial leaders, if that.

Again, that cannot happen. Perhaps 'oxymoron' was the wrong word for me to use. More like a theory. A theory that can never be tested because it cannot work. You cannot have humans co-exist together without forming some type of hierarchy or leadership. It simply cannot happen. It's part of our natural instincts. The urge to have leadership is a natural instinct found in many animals. It doesn't matter if you're talking about humans, lions, or wolves. It's all the same...


If this were true, there would be no need for the police or laws. As Oscar Wilde put it in "the soul of man under socialism", "Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." People do not naturally accept hierarchies - how many people like their boss and accept his right to tell them what to do? Hierarchies are enforced, societies are twisted to retain hierarchies, police and courts lock people up to defend hierarchies. The only reason hierarchies persist is because people believe There Is No Alternative (TINA). And that's where anarchists come in...

Vas.

What's with all these people saying "Communism is a nice idea but it won't work"? Not only will it not work, it's not even a nice idea!

Communism rests on the concept that the individual is subordinate to the collective. This is simply despicable. No rational, decent person can be a collectivist. It's simply impossible.

I'm sorry but no. It rests on the foundation that all are equal physically and that people will make upp the work that others physically can't do. Tjis is what our government has taught us, that other governments are bad . I fact, Communism isn't a type of government, it's a type of economy.

Communism rests on the concept that the individual is subordinate to the collective. This is simply despicable. No rational, decent person can be a collectivist. It's simply impossible.

Not true. Read up on communism. The USSR isn't communist.

Not true. Read up on communism. The USSR isn't communist.
He didn't say anything about the USSR. Communism is a horrible and corrupt philosophy, not a "beautiful" one. It treats people like cattle, espousing the glory of the herd. That's all well and good for cows, but not for Man.

He didn't say anything about the USSR. Communism is a horrible and corrupt philosophy, not a "beautiful" one. It treats people like cattle, espousing the glory of the herd. That's all well and good for cows, but not for Man.
It takes away the basic freedoms we as modern western society take for granted, freedom of religion, speach, etc...

That's true, however, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin perfectly personified the criticisms made of Marxism by Bakunin and Kropotkin. The fact that they diverged is the point - state socialism is unsustainable.
Firstly, you need to recognise that Marx's views vary- he was essentially a social scientist. In particular read the works on the Paris Commune. It strikes me that it suits your purposes to converge Leninism and Marxism as political viewpoints. And to ignore libertarian Marxists like Ruhle and Gorter as they don't suit your analysis. A bit like claiming the Unabomber as the main representive of anarchism. And I'd argue that the dispute between Marx and Bakunin was less political then you're suggesting. Libertarian Marxists and anarchists have been able to work together sucessfully. POUM and the Friends of Durretti are one example. The membership of the British group Class War are another. I'd argue that the split was much more about a) the fact that egos as large as Bakunin and Marx were never going to be able to co-exist for a long time together and b) Bakunin's anti-semitism.


Context, my dear friend, context. Secret societies were necessary at a time when being known as an anarchist guaranteed imprisonment. Also, Bakunin's vanguard is one to guide society into revolution, not to rule over them. Considering what Bakunin was teaching about the necessary sacrifices of morals, family etc I think you're being over charitable about Bakunin's motives. Maybe it was his social class shining through?It was a hot topic then, as it was when Makhno and Malatesta debated it, and remains so in relation to black bloc tactics. Should anarchists act now, or wait until everyone else catches up?

There's a more pressing topic for the anarchist 'movement' today. We both know that a large majority of the 'movement' come from relativly priviledged backgrounds. Anarchism hasn't had real roots in the working class since Spain. And anarchists seem to shy away from doing the hard slog of unglamorous community work, instead prefering to set up "social centres" and concentrate on the next big ritualised confrontation with the state. Anarchists need to lose their arrogance and realise that they have as much lost touch with the working class as the Trots have. That, by the by, is the main reason I left the 'movement'.

It takes away the basic freedoms we as modern western society take for granted, freedom of religion, speach, etc...

Nope. Communism glorifies these freedoms. Its means are equality. It is like Democracy only with no govn't. There has been no Communist state. They're all Socialist.

Nope. Communism glorifies these freedoms. Its means are equality. It is like Democracy only with no govn't. There has been no Communist state. They're all Socialist.

Nope. Communism glorifies the subordination of the collective to the individual. It glorifies self-immolation over individualism. Communism is nothing more than the slavery of one to all--rather than being allowed to work for his own sake, he is required to work for the sake of his "brother men". I can't think of anything more sickening.

Firstly, you need to recognise that Marx's views vary- he was essentially a social scientist. In particular read the works on the Paris Commune. It strikes me that it suits your purposes to converge Leninism and Marxism as political viewpoints.

Firstly, Marx was not a Marxist.

And to ignore libertarian Marxists like Ruhle and Gorter as they don't suit your analysis. A bit like claiming the Unabomber as the main representive of anarchism.

I'm sorry, it's nothing like it. The Unabomber is one individual, the entire history of Marxism in practice is that it creates authoritarian states.

And I'd argue that the dispute between Marx and Bakunin was less political then you're suggesting.

The personification of history? Surely not. It was not just a split between Marx and Bakunin, it was as much a split between all of those on either side of the state/no state debate.

Libertarian Marxists and anarchists have been able to work together sucessfully. POUM and the Friends of Durretti are one example. The membership of the British group Class War are another.

This is a very different question. The flaw in Marxism is at the point of taking control - Marxists believe the continuation of the state is necessary, which has historically led to abuses, while anarchists believe in the complete abolition of the state. It's a very fundamental question, but one that does not prevent anarchists and Marxists working together when they have a common enemy.

I'd argue that the split was much more about a) the fact that egos as large as Bakunin and Marx were never going to be able to co-exist for a long time together and b) Bakunin's anti-semitism.

While these were doubtless motivating factors in the personal split between the two men, the ideological split goes to the core of both ideologies. We have the revolution, what next?

Considering what Bakunin was teaching about the necessary sacrifices of morals, family etc I think you're being over charitable about Bakunin's motives. Maybe it was his social class shining through?

That's a different thing, the revolutionary vanguard secret society was, at the time, essential to survival in large parts of Europe, particularly Russia. I recommend you read Kropotkin's "Memoirs of a Revolutionist", if you haven't already, for an insight into revolutionary activity under extreme government oppression. However, this is beside the point. Anarchists, unlike Marxists, do not deify theorists. All of them were delightfully flawed and none of them created doctrine. Both Proudhon and Bakunin was shameless bigots, a fact recognised by all anarchists. But they had some good ideas, ideas that have been of use to anarchists, some accepted by all, others completely rejected. Doctrine is alien to anarchy, the book will be written by humanity and not by a few dead white males.

There's a more pressing topic for the anarchist 'movement' today. We both know that a large majority of the 'movement' come from relativly priviledged backgrounds. Anarchism hasn't had real roots in the working class since Spain.

Dunno where you are, but I'm from Dublin, where that is clearly not the case.

And anarchists seem to shy away from doing the hard slog of unglamorous community work, instead prefering to set up "social centres" and concentrate on the next big ritualised confrontation with the state.

This debate is currently ongoing http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=65803.

Anarchists need to lose their arrogance and realise that they have as much lost touch with the working class as the Trots have. That, by the by, is the main reason I left the 'movement'.

That's rather sad. Unlike the Trots, there is no party line in anarchism. If you disagree with the way others do things, go and set up elsewhere. Or try and change things from within. Either one is, or is not, an anarchist, the actions of others shouldn't have an impact.

Vas.

Firstly, Marx was not a Marxist. Define Marxist for me.

I'm sorry, it's nothing like it. The Unabomber is one individual, the entire history of Marxism in practice is that it creates authoritarian states.
But you've provided no examples of genuine Marxism (instead of Leninism) doing that.

The personification of history? Surely not. It was not just a split between Marx and Bakunin, it was as much a split between all of those on either side of the state/no state debate.It's not as clearcut as that. There were major personality cults surrounding both men.


This is a very different question. The flaw in Marxism is at the point of taking control - Marxists believe the continuation of the state is necessary, which has historically led to abuses, while anarchists believe in the complete abolition of the state. It's a very fundamental question, but one that does not prevent anarchists and Marxists working together when they have a common enemy.
It's not as clearcut as you suggest. William Morris is a very good example of the kind of figure I'm talking about that has elements of both viewpoints. And at the moment it's a matter of tactics more then anything. The question of whether it's acceptable to stand in local elections being a major issue.


While these were doubtless motivating factors in the personal split between the two men, the ideological split goes to the core of both ideologies. We have the revolution, what next? Again, at the moment, that's utterly irrelevant. We are not in a pre-revolutionary situation, by any stretch of the imagination. And certain anarchist's refusal to adapt to that fact reminds me of fundamentalist Christians waiting for the rapture.



That's a different thing, the revolutionary vanguard secret society was, at the time, essential to survival in large parts of Europe, particularly Russia. I recommend you read Kropotkin's "Memoirs of a Revolutionist", if you haven't already, for an insight into revolutionary activity under extreme government oppression. However, this is beside the point. Anarchists, unlike Marxists, do not deify theorists. All of them were delightfully flawed and none of them created doctrine. Both Proudhon and Bakunin was shameless bigots, a fact recognised by all anarchists. But they had some good ideas, ideas that have been of use to anarchists, some accepted by all, others completely rejected. Doctrine is alien to anarchy, the book will be written by humanity and not by a few dead white males. I read about theory. He spouts doctrine. They regurgitate propaganda. I've always found the pseudo anti-intellectualism of the movement one of its least convincing components. I'd strongly question whether Marx has been deified outside the Leninists. Apart from that, we're generally in agreement. I see Marx as a political theorist that contains some useful ideas. I certainly don't think he can be taken as some sort of blueprint for the class struggle. Ideas need to be examined, discarded where necessary, and revised to take into account current reality when not.

Dunno where you are, but I'm from Dublin, where that is clearly not the case.
Really? What real links do the Dublin anarchists have to the working class. In England certainly the anarchist movement is riddled with ex-public school boys and middle class hippy lifestylists. I don't hate people for their class background, but I do believe that a working class movement needs to be largely made up of people who are, well, working class.


This debate is currently ongoing http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=65803.It's been ongoing for years, but it never gets anywhere. To be blunt, fighting with the cops feels a lot more heroic, macho and glamorous (and much less hard work) then a campaign for traffic lights where there's been a lot of local traffic accidents.



That's rather sad. Unlike the Trots, there is no party line in anarchism. If you disagree with the way others do things, go and set up elsewhere. Or try and change things from within. Either one is, or is not, an anarchist, the actions of others shouldn't have an impact.

Vas.
That's a bit unfair on the Trots. They don't have one party line, they've got hundreds.:D Seriously though, anarchism suffers from the same problem that the rest of the Last Century Left does. It's refusal to accept reality. Revolution is not currently possible. Defensive militancy is the only feasible option. In terms of going and doing something else I have done. I'm a member of the I.W.C.A. (www.iwca.info) And it's my honest viewpoint that what we do is more use then anything I did while within the "'movement' (with the sole exception of AFA).

Communism is a pooling of resouces, means of production and labour for the whole community. There have been odd examples of communist such as in early Christianity and more artifically in 1960s communes. But these have been pockets within another economic system.

Anarchists believe that revolution should lead directly from capitalism to communism but Marxist think that it will take a long hard struggle first to defend the revolution with a dictatorship of the proletariat (USSR, Cuba, etc.) and then after capitalism if destroyed globally the state aparatus will begin to crumble and we will enter the stage of communism.

So communism does not exist....
....but it will!
Socialism or Barbarism!
Communism or Death!

G Chicherin

When the Soviet Union collapsed, was that actually the transition point from State Socialism to Communism, but it was halted by the US Government intentionally before it could develop?

When the Soviet Union collapsed, was that actually the transition point from State Socialism to Communism, but it was halted by the US Government intentionally before it could develop?

I blame the KGB (look who's now President).

Vas.

My question was: Do you believe that was the transition point?

Define Marxist for me.

Someone who believes in Marxist dogma.

But you've provided no examples of genuine Marxism (instead of Leninism) doing that.

OK, I'll grant you that, but, then again, I can't think of any examples of non-Leninist (and I'm including Maoist in there too) Marxists who have achieved power. Unless, of course, you mean social democrats, who have, quite simply, rejected most revolutionary elements of Marxism.

It's not as clearcut as that. There were major personality cults surrounding both men.

That may be true, but it's simply not the case that it was their personalities alone caused the split. There were other serious thinkers on either side whom history (with its tendency towards personification) would rather ignore. It's the classic "one, two, many" form of counting. There is a fundamental policy difference.

It's not as clearcut as you suggest. William Morris is a very good example of the kind of figure I'm talking about that has elements of both viewpoints. And at the moment it's a matter of tactics more then anything.

That's fine, personally, my biggest issue with the main Marxist groups is their tendency to take over organisations and turn them into fronts. The fundamental ideological difference shouldn't necessarily make a difference, but when the tactics do affect the others, that does.

The question of whether it's acceptable to stand in local elections being a major issue.

I'd read what Murray Bookchin has to say on that. There is no anarchist party line, on this or anything else.

Again, at the moment, that's utterly irrelevant. We are not in a pre-revolutionary situation, by any stretch of the imagination. And certain anarchist's refusal to adapt to that fact reminds me of fundamentalist Christians waiting for the rapture.

But that's up to them. The actions of others, anarchist or not, does not change my own personal views.

I read about theory. He spouts doctrine. They regurgitate propaganda. I've always found the pseudo anti-intellectualism of the movement one of its least convincing components. I'd strongly question whether Marx has been deified outside the Leninists.

Then why do others call themselves Marxists?

Really? What real links do the Dublin anarchists have to the working class.

http://www.struggle.ws/ - currently primarily the anti-bin tax campaign, Irish anarchists are very strongly grassroots based.

In England certainly the anarchist movement is riddled with ex-public school boys and middle class hippy lifestylists. I don't hate people for their class background, but I do believe that a working class movement needs to be largely made up of people who are, well, working class.

Firstly, I'd reject the contention that anarchism is a "working class movement", it's an anti-class movement. But, other than that, I don't disagree hugely. I'm not all that involved in the London "scene", my activism is mainly based in unions and human rights work, though I do plan to link up with some anarcho-syndicalists. I'm not a vanguardist, I believe in bringing anarchist ideas into other spheres.

It's been ongoing for years, but it never gets anywhere. To be blunt, fighting with the cops feels a lot more heroic, macho and glamorous (and much less hard work) then a campaign for traffic lights where there's been a lot of local traffic accidents.

I don't disagree at all. But that's a problem with anarchists, not with anarchism.

That's a bit unfair on the Trots. They don't have one party line, they've got hundreds.:D Seriously though, anarchism suffers from the same problem that the rest of the Last Century Left does. It's refusal to accept reality. Revolution is not currently possible. Defensive militancy is the only feasible option. In terms of going and doing something else I have done. I'm a member of the I.W.C.A. (www.iwca.info) And it's my honest viewpoint that what we do is more use then anything I did while within the "'movement' (with the sole exception of AFA).

We're largely on the same page here, just that I don't define my ideas by the actions of others.

Vas.

I should also say "Communism is an economic system."

Democracy IS how we have our government. Technically, it is a Republic, not a Democracy. It is also our way of life. Capitalism is also our way of life, but it is an economic system, not a government. I'm saying, you can have a Democratic Communism (like Sweden or Canada (socialism)), but you can't have a Communist Capitalism. Neither is a government.

Governments:
Democracy (Ancient Greece)
Republic (US)
Monarchy (Europe of old)
Despotism (Rome)
Fundamentalism (Iran)
Feudalism (Europe of old)
"Dictatoship of the Protelariat" (Karl Marx) (The USSR)

Economic systems:
Mercantilism (Spain in COlombus' time)
Socialism (Sweden)
Communism (USSR)
Capitalism (US)
Actually, the United States isn't just a Republic. Officially, it was founded to be a Federal Constitutional Republic (but as time went on, and the education system and government got worse, people began to think of it as a republic, and now as a democracy...) A Republic would be what Rome was before and during Caesar's time.

Someone who believes in Marxist dogma. And dogma is any political ideology apart from anarchism in your eyes? Marxism is merely a system of political and economic analysis. Nothing more, nothing less.


OK, I'll grant you that, but, then again, I can't think of any examples of non-Leninist (and I'm including Maoist in there too) Marxists who have achieved power. Unless, of course, you mean social democrats, who have, quite simply, rejected most revolutionary elements of Marxism.Social fucking democrats? Now you're taking the piss. ;) I could say the same of anarchism, neither Spain nor the first Russian Revolution (pre the Bolshevik counter-revolution) were entirely organised or run on anarchist doctrine.



That may be true, but it's simply not the case that it was their personalities alone caused the split. There were other serious thinkers on either side whom history (with its tendency towards personification) would rather ignore. It's the classic "one, two, many" form of counting. There is a fundamental policy difference.There were differences certainly. But it is still my belief that with different leaders of the respective factions, there might have been the chance of some accomdation without the various temper tantrums on both sides. I suspect we may need to agree to disagree there. TBH, it hardly seems relevant anymore anyway.



That's fine, personally, my biggest issue with the main Marxist groups is their tendency to take over organisations and turn them into fronts. The fundamental ideological difference shouldn't necessarily make a difference, but when the tactics do affect the others, that does.

I suspect that's a reference to the SWP. If so, Leninists again. It's never been my experience of working with non Leninist Marxists. I see no evidence that Red Action tried to take over AFA and I see no evidence that they have any intention of turning the IWCA into a front. Ditto the Marxists in Class War.

I'd read what Murray Bookchin has to say on that. There is no anarchist party line, on this or anything else. Have you got a link?



But that's up to them. The actions of others, anarchist or not, does not change my own personal views.But if you believe in taking action with others in order to achieve your objectives, then that type does effect you, because to be blunt, they make anarchism seem laughable to ordinary people.


Then why do others call themselves Marxists?
The personification of history. :D


http://www.struggle.ws/ - currently primarily the anti-bin tax campaign, Irish anarchists are very strongly grassroots based.
What happens if local communities want to run the campaign in a way that you consider against anarchist principles?


Firstly, I'd reject the contention that anarchism is a "working class movement", it's an anti-class movement. But, other than that, I don't disagree hugely. I'm not all that involved in the London "scene", my activism is mainly based in unions and human rights work, though I do plan to link up with some anarcho-syndicalists. I'm not a vanguardist, I believe in bringing anarchist ideas into other spheres.
*Sectarian Northerner Alert* Personally, I'd advise avoiding the London "scene" like the fucking plague. I don't believe that any movement can afford to ignore the reality of class. While a classless society may be your aim, we're nowhere there there yet. And bitter experience has taught me that 'anti-class' movements end up being largely dominated by middle class 'wadicals'.


I don't disagree at all. But that's a problem with anarchists, not with anarchism.But surely any political movement is made up of people first and foremost. You can't separate them.



We're largely on the same page here, just that I don't define my ideas by the actions of others.

Vas.I largely agree. I think my politics are certainly closer to yours then to a lot of anarchists. Although I would say you seem to judge all Marxists by the actions of the Leninists. But even if you don't define your politics by the actions of others 'normal' people will. And most of the 'movement' are part of the problem, not the solution.