Anarchism vs. Communism: Ramo's Opportunity

[PeteH]

I think trying to fit anarchists within civilization is always going to produce less than desirable results. If you are going to try and maintain 'civilized life' then it requires institutions which require heirarchy.

I think trying to design an 'anarchist community' in the current world framework is just asking for frustration. Remove the framework, and you will have what you are looking for without any planning

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Boshko
What do you mean by "efficienty"?

A distribution of power that produces justice and happiness.

Originally posted by Boshko
And I don't see the point of communes really, I'd rather have a whole lot of different administrative structures (ie work, housing, banking, sports league, whatever) than having everything tied up in one structure, more potential of abuse of power that way.

First I would like to say that banks would definitely be out for me. Also, any of these administrative structures that you mention that had the legal right to compete with other administrative structures would also be out. That's why I think we need some centralization. Justice requires law and order. That being said, the 'efficient' decision making process should be democratic and should involve many different institutions.

edit: substitute the word compete with exploit. I actually like the idea of small groups competing with each other, but in a way that impoves conditions for the larger group and in a way that is just.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Anarchism vs. Communism: Ramo's Opportunity

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't think there are any Leninists here at Poly,

ME!!!!!!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kucinich

And here, it is whether daddy is rich.

Not really, no. Look at someone like Bill Gates.

The child of millionaires who got his interview with IBM because his mother sat on the board of an institution with the head of IBM and who made his OS ubiquitous through illegal business deals. This is meritorious how?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
He believes that means of production should be collectively owned, which makes him a communist. Spiffor is not a social-democrat.

On the spanking issue, he definitely proved that flexibility can be part of a serious communist system. There are plenty of free markets in the world enforced by dictators. Trust me, those are not really flexible.

To be fair, Kucinich and I exposed our ideal systems. Mine was a form of flexible socialism: that is real socialism involving collective ownership -more accurately, collective management (I am toying with the idea that companies should not be "owned" at all, just like people are not "owned" at all)- of the means of production.

I feel myself like a Socialist in the real meaning of demanding an economy different from capitalism, that relies on collective "ownership". However, I do not believe in ever reaching the blissful and authority-less situation of "communism" as dreamt by Marx; which I find suspiciouly close to Smith's dream. I am "Communist" only in that I belong to the French Communist Party.

But if someone ever advocates Marx's communism, it's more self-adapting than Schmooism will ever be: since there is no authority, people decide by themselves even moreso than in a capitalist society.

[Sava]

Chegitz, do you want there to be only one political party: i.e. communists? or are you more of the "government isn't needed" type?

[Az]

I think there must be plenty of parties: Socialist, Social democrat, communist, anarchist.

Why I am against syndicalism/anarchism, etc. :anarchism is basically capitalism in disguise, and I'll explain. So, you'll have companies, and corporations, with the main difference is that they're democratic, and their shares are equally distributed between the workers in one way or another. This doesn't in any way destroy the current profit system under which the profit is the sole goal of a company, and not just a tool to measure it's efficiency. Therefore, there is nothing keeping those same corporations committing the same wrongdoing they do under the current system. Under such a system, I am not also sure how restructuring of a company, firing, and as such will be commited.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sava
Chegitz, do you want there to be only one political party: i.e. communists? or are you more of the "government isn't needed" type?

For us ortho-Trots, there are two stages of communism, vulgarly refered to as socialism and communism. Stage 2, i.e., communism, is functionally anarchism.

The major difference between anarchists and communists is how to achive this society. Communists believe we have to engage society politically, overthrow the government, and establish a proletarian state to prevent retrograde factions of society from re-establishing control. As these classes disappear, the need for a state disappears, and the repressive aspects of the state (police, army, etc) whither away. The state ceases to be a states. Anarchists want to skip all these steps and jump straight to communism.

In capitalist society there are practical differences between anarchists an communists as well. Anarchists frequently eschew workers struggles for better wages, job saftey, etc., decalring that we should not be struggling to gild our cages, but rather for the end of cages. They tend to oppose practicale political struggles, such as civil rights, labor rights etc. Working within the system is perpetuating the system. Individual anarchists may vary, however, and calling one's self an anarchist is no guarantee the person knows that much about anarchism (or anything else for that matter --of course, the same is frequently true of revolutionary socialists/communists)

As for Sava's question about political parties, I think in a post-revolutionary state, there should be a place for all socialist parties at the table, including social-democrats and anarchists. I do think, however, that bourgeois parties should be excluded from political power. If they are to be allowed, they would have to accept the validity of working class rule, socialism, and the revolution.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boshko
I never could understand che's liking for Lenin,

. . .

I'm not too up on my Modern Communist Theory

The latter explains the former. You don't understand Lenin, so you can't understand why I'm a student of Lenin.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kucinich
People pay more for more valuable labor.

This cannot explain why an excutive makes several magnitudes more than an engineer.

Originally posted by Kucinich
That and patent laws.

Patent laws? They do not necessarily protect the inventor, esp. when that person's working for a company. Besides, existing patent laws are a joke.

[Arrian]

I do think, however, that bourgeois parties should be excluded from political power.

Which, more than any other reason, is a reason for me to oppose you.

As for the rest, an interesting read. Do continue.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
Which, more than any other reason, is a reason for me to oppose you.

I can understand your concern, but ask yourself if the United States would have allowed monarchists in the government in 1789. That is, if they hadn't all been chased to Canada. No revolution lets the previous ruling class have a voice. Their time is over. Their place is in the history books.

[The Mad Viking]

Boshko -
I am having a hard time imagining how Anarchy could even begin to function. I suppose it is some sort of idealized state where "power" is equitably distributed to all. It just seems illogical.

You would need to have a system to ensure power does not concentrate, and a means to re-allocate that power, essentially removing it by force from those who have accumulated it. Or restricting them from engaging in actions which tend to accumulate power, again, ultimately requiring some sort of force or punishment.

Finally, you will need to set up and interpret rules, and adjudicate disputes. Whoever does this has an unequal power, and it seems to me to be contrary to anarchism.



kidicious-

Okay, so you want Anarchy and no banks, so freedom does not include the freedom of individuals to pool their money collectively.

[Shi Huangdi]

And, so, chegitz, if after the revolution a majority of the population decides they don't like it and wants to vote the old system back in, they shouldn't be allowed to?

If that's the case, you don't believe in Democracy at all.

[Az]

Shi, Dude, do you know what a constitution is? It's to protect the form of government against random swings of opinion. You have one that protects captialism. Why can't we have one that protects socialism?

(and our is more ethical than yours. )