Communism and Socialism megathread

[Chartist Socialist Republics]

8 million people directly and/or indirectly took part in Revolutionary Catalonian society.

The fact that such an underdeveloped area in the throes of a revolutionary war lasted for 3 years before being betrayed, speaks volumes about the success of the society. Yet you seem to think that this is an argument against it. Productivity increased by 20% in many areas, and industrialisation was accelerated in this period.

But no, obviously the bureaucratic, inefficient and authoritarian nightmares of central planning and nationalisation are the hallmarks of socialism.

You cannot test the longevity of a system with only three years.

War-torn Spain only really could've gone up.

One can certainly see an indication of the prospective success of a system in 3 years. A system that only fell, as well as in the Free Territory and Paris Commune, due to external aggression and perhaps betrayal.

Your final comment implies that anarchists had control of Catalonia following the war, rather than during it.

[Ouldale IRL Political Views]

I voted libertarian socialism, but that doesn't really explain my views very well. I more specifically support panarchism, mutualism, and market anarchism in general.

I most closely advocate the form of neo-mutualism espoused by Kevin Carson and C4SS.

I used to be an anarcho-capitalist, but alas, I was young and foolish.

[The New Sea Territory]

I voted libertarian socialism, but that doesn't really explain my views very well. I more specifically support panarchism, mutualism, and market anarchism in general.

I most closely advocate the form of neo-mutualism espoused by Kevin Carson and C4SS.

I used to be an anarcho-capitalist, but alas, I was young and foolish.

We agree very much. Very similar situations.

[Auroya]

One question I've always had about anarchism of any kind: how do anarchists purport to achieve it? How can it be done without the danger of somebody taking advantage of the transitional stage in a way that's hugely detrimental to the entire effort?

I do think that human nature is inherently good (the part that isn't environmentally-determined, anyway); but when transitioning from a capitalist society there will be at least a few people who think like that.

[Conscentia]

One question I've always had about anarchism of any kind: how do anarchists purport to achieve it? How can it be done without the danger of somebody taking advantage of the transitional stage in a way that's hugely detrimental to the entire effort?

I do think that human nature is inherently good (the part that isn't environmentally-determined, anyway); but when transitioning from a capitalist society there will be at least a few people who think like that.

Well in the past, as I understand it, the idea has been "...use a gun. And if that don't work... use more gun". (ie. Anarchism in the past has been a revolutionary movement.)

[The New Sea Territory]

One question I've always had about anarchism of any kind: how do anarchists purport to achieve it? How can it be done without the danger of somebody taking advantage of the transitional stage in a way that's hugely detrimental to the entire effort?

There are a lot of different theories regarding this...it's probably one of the most divisive conversations between anarchists.

I support a mix. Gradualism and agorism should be used until the state is weakened, then insurrection and individual revolt can be used to destroy the state. In the post-state society, syndicalism can be used to destroy capitalism (providing anarcho-capitalism exists as a de facto system).

I think this is a healthy balance between synthesist ideas and insurrectionist criticisms. However, I think platformism (the idea of anarchism being exclusively a working class struggle) should be completely abandoned.

I do think that human nature is inherently good (the part that isn't environmentally-determined, anyway); but when transitioning from a capitalist society there will be at least a few people who think like that.

Human nature is something a lot of anarchists really don't consider, because it is irrelevant. If people are good, then why is a state necessary? If people are bad, why would we let people run the state? Both can be used to justify an anarchist position.

[Auroya]

Human nature is something a lot of anarchists really don't consider, because it is irrelevant. If people are good, then why is a state necessary? If people are bad, why would we let people run the state? Both can be used to justify an anarchist position.

Human nature is relevant insofar as it should be able to tell us something about how people will behave in the transitional phase.

As for the state: well; a society in which there is no central organization at all can't actually achieve anything which requires an organized effort from multiple sectors of that society.

[Ouldale IRL Political Views]

One question I've always had about anarchism of any kind: how do anarchists purport to achieve it? How can it be done without the danger of somebody taking advantage of the transitional stage in a way that's hugely detrimental to the entire effort?

I do think that human nature is inherently good (the part that isn't environmentally-determined, anyway); but when transitioning from a capitalist society there will be at least a few people who think like that.

I support counter-economics, agorism, and civil disobedience to transform into a post-nation based society. It certainly does takes longer than a violent revolution. I certainly don't expect to see my political beliefs put unto action during my lifetime, but for it to be ever achieved, my position and beliefs need to be acted upon and spread, and continue to influence others.

Violent revolutions, on the other hand are morally objectionable in many cases and should be last case scenarios (at least to me) and have a greater probability of turning into a dictatorship. Evolutionary change has the support of (almost) the entire public rather than a fringe political group as it does now or in early 1900's Russia, for example. When a lot of radicals get together to overthrow a government, they naturally form a heirarchy, at least a vague and basic one, even in the cases of anarchist tendencies. Then Stalin becomes dictator.

[Auroya]

I support counter-economics, agorism, and civil disobedience to transform into a post-nation based society. It certainly does takes longer than a violent revolution. I certainly don't expect to see my political beliefs put unto action during my lifetime, but for it to be ever achieved, my position and beliefs need to be acted upon and spread, and continue to influence others.

Violent revolutions, on the other hand are morally objectionable in many cases and should be last case scenarios (at least to me) and have a greater probability of turning into a dictatorship. Evolutionary change has the support of (almost) the entire public rather than a fringe political group as it does now or in early 1900's Russia, for example. When a lot of radicals get together to overthrow a government, they naturally form a heirarchy, at least a vague and basic one, even in the cases of anarchist tendencies. Then Stalin becomes dictator.

Violent insurrection and overthrow of the state, and imposition of a new order, is the only real way to ensure that everything that is unwanted about the old order actually is thoroughly gotten rid of. It's quite easy for it to spring back otherwise.

[The New Sea Territory]

Human nature is relevant insofar as it should be able to tell us something about how people will behave in the transitional phase.

The actual transition would be fairly quick. The state would be very weak by the time it would actually be abolished, and due to the decentralized network of democratic assemblies and workers councils and the constant guard of insurrectionist forces, I don't think any group could take control.

We've learned the lesson that dual power is dangerous if left by itself too long (see: Russian Revolution), so, once dual power is achieved, both individuals and collectives should immediately begin to reject the authority of the state. Otherwise, we pose the risk of a Bolshevik-like revolution.

As for the state: well; a society in which there is no central organization at all can't actually achieve anything which requires an organized effort from multiple sectors of that society.

There is organization in an anarchist society, just not central organization. A federation of various communes, collectives, workers councils, etc, would be established.

[The New Sea Territory]

I support counter-economics, agorism, and civil disobedience to transform into a post-nation based society. It certainly does takes longer than a violent revolution. I certainly don't expect to see my political beliefs put unto action during my lifetime, but for it to be ever achieved, my position and beliefs need to be acted upon and spread, and continue to influence others.

Violent revolutions, on the other hand are morally objectionable in many cases and should be last case scenarios (at least to me) and have a greater probability of turning into a dictatorship. Evolutionary change has the support of (almost) the entire public rather than a fringe political group as it does now or in early 1900's Russia, for example. When a lot of radicals get together to overthrow a government, they naturally form a heirarchy, at least a vague and basic one, even in the cases of anarchist tendencies. Then Stalin becomes dictator.

Violent insurrection and overthrow of the state, and imposition of a new order, is the only real way to ensure that everything that is unwanted about the old order actually is thoroughly gotten rid of. It's quite easy for it to spring back otherwise.

Violent insurrection may or may not be necessary. depending on how the state reacts to gradualist methods of reducing state power.

[Auroya]

Violent insurrection may or may not be necessary. depending on how the state reacts to gradualist methods of reducing state power.

It's not merely the state; the state is not the entire order. There is also the capitalist system's social superstructure, which is vast and which will do a good deal towards preventing any effort at reform that goes too far. That's why revolution is necessary for properly radical change to society to take place - that superstructure can only really be disestablished reliably if it's done forcibly.

[The New Sea Territory]

Violent insurrection may or may not be necessary. depending on how the state reacts to gradualist methods of reducing state power.

It's not merely the state; the state is not the entire order. There is also the capitalist system's superstructure, which is vast and which will do a good deal towards preventing any effort at reform that goes too far. That's why revolution is necessary for properly radical change to society to take place.

First, it's an insurrection, not a revolution. A revolution is nothing more than power "revolving". Insurrection involves destroying power altogether.

Secondly, capitalism can be abolished through syndicalism in a post-state society, where there is no state to protect it's existence. I wrote a factbook on this.

[The New Sea Territory]

One question I've always had about anarchism of any kind: how do anarchists purport to achieve it? How can it be done without the danger of somebody taking advantage of the transitional stage in a way that's hugely detrimental to the entire effort?

I do think that human nature is inherently good (the part that isn't environmentally-determined, anyway); but when transitioning from a capitalist society there will be at least a few people who think like that.

I support counter-economics, agorism, and civil disobedience to transform into a post-nation based society. It certainly does takes longer than a violent revolution. I certainly don't expect to see my political beliefs put unto action during my lifetime, but for it to be ever achieved, my position and beliefs need to be acted upon and spread, and continue to influence others.

Violent revolutions, on the other hand are morally objectionable in many cases and should be last case scenarios (at least to me) and have a greater probability of turning into a dictatorship. Evolutionary change has the support of (almost) the entire public rather than a fringe political group as it does now or in early 1900's Russia, for example. When a lot of radicals get together to overthrow a government, they naturally form a heirarchy, at least a vague and basic one, even in the cases of anarchist tendencies. Then Stalin becomes dictator.

I think a synthesis of gradualism and libertarian municpalism (Proudhon and Bookchin) with civil disobedience and agorism (Thoreau and Konkin) is probably the best bet. So, again, you and I agree quite a lot.

[Auroya]

It's not merely the state; the state is not the entire order. There is also the capitalist system's superstructure, which is vast and which will do a good deal towards preventing any effort at reform that goes too far. That's why revolution is necessary for properly radical change to society to take place.

First, it's an insurrection, not a revolution. A revolution is nothing more than power "revolving". Insurrection involves destroying power altogether.

Secondly, capitalism can be abolished through syndicalism in a post-state society, where there is no state to protect it's existence. I wrote a factbook on this.

You're arguing for insurrection; I'm for revolution. I should be consistent in that.

Where does this federation of yours come from? The entire world presently practices the capitalist system; if there is anarchy, the whole anarchist world is suddenly anarcho-capitalist. There is no way for the other areas of the federation to aquire different systems. The state's power is necessary to smash the bourgeois classes, their sympathizers, and the entire system that allows them to function. That's why the state has to be seized by revolution and its power used in that way.

[The New Sea Territory]

Where does this federation of yours come from?

Established during gradualism, before dual power, through cooperation between unions, workers councils and democratic assemblies.

The entire world presently practices the capitalist system; if there is anarchy, the whole anarchist world is suddenly anarcho-capitalist. There is no way for the other areas of the federation to aquire different systems. The state's power is necessary to smash the bourgeois classes, their sympathizers, and the entire system that allows them to function. That's why the state has to be seized by revolution and its power used in that way.

First, this assumes that this is happening all over the world, which may or may not be the case.

Such an anarcho-capitalist system has zero economic regulation, including anti-union laws. Such a society would be extremely susceptible to syndicalist tactics (this is why, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, unions were crushed in America). The way other areas of a federation acquire a different system is through strike and occupation, then expropriation of the means of production. At that point, the area could democratically decide whether to practice mutualism, collectivism, communism, etc. Again, see the factbook, where I explain how this works.

The state's power perpetuates "bourgeois" power, as seen in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Albania and Vietnam. The capitalist class is merely replaced with the political class, or the "nomenklatura". The state is "the entire system that allows them to function", as evidenced by corporate welfare, the military-industrial complex and anti-union laws. You cannot use a tool of hierarchy to destroy another tool of hierarchy, as that results in merely hierarchical power "revolving", or changing hands, rather than actually being destroyed. Max Stirner and Mikhail Bakunin pointed out this (massive) flaw in Marxist theory decades before Marxism ever reached Russia.

[United Marxist Nations]

You cannot test the longevity of a system with only three years.

War-torn Spain only really could've gone up.

You can't dispel a economic system's legitimacy due to it being invaded.

Very, very, very wrong.

When the only examples we have were invaded and destroyed, it doesn't look good. Anarchists should probably stop setting up shop in active warzones.

[Ragnarheim]

Communism is a complete load of bollocks.

[The New Sea Territory]

You can't dispel a economic system's legitimacy due to it being invaded.

Very, very, very wrong.

When the only examples we have were invaded and destroyed, it doesn't look good. Anarchists should probably stop setting up shop in active warzones.

Agreed.

[United Marxist Nations]

Where does this federation of yours come from?

Established during gradualism, through cooperation between unions, workers councils and democratic assemblies.

The entire world presently practices the capitalist system; if there is anarchy, the whole anarchist world is suddenly anarcho-capitalist. There is no way for the other areas of the federation to aquire different systems. The state's power is necessary to smash the bourgeois classes, their sympathizers, and the entire system that allows them to function. That's why the state has to be seized by revolution and its power used in that way.

First, this assumes that this is happening all over the world, which may or may not be the case.

Such an anarcho-capitalist system has zero economic regulation, including anti-union laws. Such a society would be extremely susceptible to syndicalist tactics (this is why, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, unions were crushed in America). The way other areas of a federation acquire a different system is through strike and occupation, then expropriation of the means of production. At that point, the area could democratically decide whether to practice mutualism, collectivism, communism, etc. Again, see the factbook, where I explain how this works.

The state's power perpetuates "bourgeois" power, as seen in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Albania and Vietnam. The capitalist class is merely replaced with the political class, or the "nomenklatura". The state is "the entire system that allows them to function", as evidenced by corporate welfare, the military-industrial complex and anti-union laws. You cannot use a tool of hierarchy to destroy another tool of hierarchy, as that results in merely hierarchical power "revolving", or changing hands, rather than actually being destroyed. Max Stirner and Mikhail Bakunin pointed out this (massive) flaw in Marxist theory decades before Marxism ever reached Russia.

The problem is that you think Marxists don't know this. Our goal isn't to immediately destroy hierarchy; it's to make the proletariat the ruling class, then to cause class to fade away due to their being no distinction between the various groups. How you plan on getting rid of political hierarchy, I have no idea.

[Auroya]

Where does this federation of yours come from?

Established during gradualism, before dual power, through cooperation between unions, workers councils and democratic assemblies.

The entire world presently practices the capitalist system; if there is anarchy, the whole anarchist world is suddenly anarcho-capitalist. There is no way for the other areas of the federation to aquire different systems. The state's power is necessary to smash the bourgeois classes, their sympathizers, and the entire system that allows them to function. That's why the state has to be seized by revolution and its power used in that way.

First, this assumes that this is happening all over the world, which may or may not be the case.

Such an anarcho-capitalist system has zero economic regulation, including anti-union laws. Such a society would be extremely susceptible to syndicalist tactics (this is why, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, unions were crushed in America). The way other areas of a federation acquire a different system is through strike and occupation, then expropriation of the means of production. At that point, the area could democratically decide whether to practice mutualism, collectivism, communism, etc. Again, see the factbook, where I explain how this works.

The state's power perpetuates "bourgeois" power, as seen in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Albania and Vietnam. The capitalist class is merely replaced with the political class, or the "nomenklatura". The state is "the entire system that allows them to function", as evidenced by corporate welfare, the military-industrial complex and anti-union laws. You cannot use a tool of hierarchy to destroy another tool of hierarchy, as that results in merely hierarchical power "revolving", or changing hands, rather than actually being destroyed. Max Stirner and Mikhail Bakunin pointed out this (massive) flaw in Marxist theory decades before Marxism ever reached Russia.

It doesn't get rid of the cultural superstructure of capitalism. Our social norms have been set so that they perpetuate the capitalist system; there's the whole mentality that so many working-class people have that they're merely disgraced millionaires, and things like that - there's a massive array of things like this that will make it very difficult for capitalism to fall. I'm talking about cultural marxism, I guess, possibly.

That has to be torn down forcefully or it won't come down.

[The New Sea Territory]

The problem is that you think Marxists don't know this. Our goal isn't to immediately destroy hierarchy; it's to make the proletariat the ruling class, then to cause class to fade away due to their being no distinction between the various groups.

Which continues to prove Stirner's point that revolution does not destroy hierarchy, but perpetuates it. What makes the ruling "proletarians" (which, historically, Marxist political leaders have not been of the proletariat, or, when they were in power, they forgot their class in favor of political control) want to give up their power? There is a distinction between groups: the political class (vanguard party elites), the enforcement class (the military, police and various party members) and the common people.

How you plan on getting rid of political hierarchy, I have no idea.

The abolition of the state destroys any political hierarchy, as direct democratic assemblies would be the means of overthrowing the state (gradualism through libertarian municipalism).

[The New Sea Territory]

It doesn't get rid of the cultural superstructure of capitalism. Our social norms have been set so that they perpetuate the capitalist system; there's the whole mentality that so many working-class people have that they're merely disgraced millionaires, and things like that - there's a massive array of things like this that will make it very difficult for capitalism to fall. I'm talking about cultural marxism, I guess, possibly.

This is predominantly a Western, especially American, cultural position.

Still, destroying capitalist culture but replacing it with a culture of respect for a socialist state does not plant the seeds for a classless society, it just simply changes the class structure's cultural basis and justification for existing.

That has to be torn down forcefully or it won't come down.

...through a syndicalist general strike after the overthrow of the state. Without the state to crush unions, such a transition would be nearly bloodless.

[United Marxist Nations]

The problem is that you think Marxists don't know this. Our goal isn't to immediately destroy hierarchy; it's to make the proletariat the ruling class, then to cause class to fade away due to their being no distinction between the various groups.

Which continues to prove Stirner's point that revolution does not destroy hierarchy, but perpetuates it. What makes the ruling "proletarians" (which, historically, Marxist political leaders have not been of the proletariat, or, when they were in power, they forgot their class in favor of political control) want to give up their power? There is a distinction between groups: the political class (vanguard party elites), the enforcement class (the military, police and various party members) and the common people.

How you plan on getting rid of political hierarchy, I have no idea.

The abolition of the state destroys any political hierarchy, as direct democratic assemblies would be the means of overthrowing the state (gradualism through libertarian municipalism).

They don't have to give up their power. Government and state are not the same in Marxist theory. They can get elected regardless of whether there is class or not. The problem in the historical revolutionary countries is that there really wasn't a proletariat to take power. Also, most in the military in, for instance, the Soviet Union, were proletariat; the military was filled by conscription, and had many millions of members; everyone was expected to serve two years.

Until the state decides it doesn't like getting overthrown and disbands these assemblies.

[MERIZoC]

It doesn't get rid of the cultural superstructure of capitalism. Our social norms have been set so that they perpetuate the capitalist system; there's the whole mentality that so many working-class people have that they're merely disgraced millionaires, and things like that - there's a massive array of things like this that will make it very difficult for capitalism to fall. I'm talking about cultural marxism, I guess, possibly.

This is predominantly an American cultural position.

Still, destroying capitalist culture but replacing it with a culture of respect for a socialist state does not plant the seeds for a classless society, it just simply changes the class structure's cultural basis and justification for existing.

That has to be torn down forcefully or it won't come down.

...through a syndicalist general strike. Without the state to crush unions, such a transition would be nearly bloodless.

You don't need a state to do that. You can have the always-lovely private police forces do that. In an an-cap society, corporations are going to be looking out for their profits, just as they are now. If unions aren't in their interest...