Anarchism vs. Communism: Ramo's Opportunity

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Boshko
There's che. I don't know what label he slaps on himself but he's definately plenty fond of Lenin.

Che would call what I described Stalinist, but I'm not much more fond of Lenin than I am of Stalin.

Originally posted by Boshko
That's not necessarily the difference. For another example, communists seem to care much more about income distribution (surplus value and all that), while anarchists seem to care much more about distribution of power. Communists don't seem to care as much about the workers having real power (Leninist talk of labor armies and suchlike) as long as the capitalists are getting smacked down.

I agree, but very few communists today argue for centralized decision making.

Originally posted by Boshko
The other main difference is that for communists, power is channelled through a central state, while for anarchists power is taken directly and on a more local level through cooperatives, local unions and what have you.

But do anarchists believe in any central coordination, or any power to a central govt?

[Ramo]

Well Kid, I'm not yet sure how exactly our views disagree (anarchism and communism have traditionally had a great deal of overlap) as I don't advocate absolute freedom either. In fact, I don't think such a thing exists since people are always constrained - even in the absence of human interaction (one may argue otherwise - that freedom is the freedom to make contracts, but then one falls into the depths of libertarian capitalist fallacy).

What I do believe is that freedom (I'm generalizing here, meaning freedom from a vast range of things including prisons, ignorance, starvation, disease, even things not generally associated with freedom like gravity) ought to be maximized. That's not really orthodox anarchism (I've noticed that classical political philosophers are generally pretty weak on the logical sides of their arguments), but I've never cared much for orthodoxy anyways. But anyways, back to this maximization; how one creates this metric for freedom is completely subjective of course, but I'd generally say that it's fairly standard at least among radicals.

Why do I believe this? Well, it's mostly based on personal motivation, I've done a lot of introspection, and I think that my primary motivation is freedom. It's also based on the observation that this is what other people are ultimately after as well. Obviously, this isn't as firm a belief I have as my personal feelings, but I think that there's evidence to suggest that this is true. If it weren't, of course, my philosophy would be totally unworkable, but I don't think that's the case. Which leads me to my next point.

The problem is creating this free society. There is a major historical trend I've noticed: political freedom (that is, freedom from the state, what I'd call "libertarianism") and an egalitarian economy (which is mitigated by economic democracy, worker control of the means of production, etc., what I'd call "socialism") are intrinsically linked and are mutally-reinforcing.

For, if the economy is inegalitarian but the state is libertarian, either the rich will subvert the libertarian state and get it to enforce these inequalities through breaking strikes, crushing unions, subsidizing big business, massive prisons, etc., or the poor will subvert the libertarian state by trying to bridge the inequality through welfare and the like. Both processes are clearly applicable to virtually any capitalist society (in the US for example, we have Taft-Hartley on one hand and social security on the other hand).

On the other hand, if the economy is egalitarian but the state is unlibertarian, the "red bureaucracy," to borrow Bakunin's phrase, will be able to subvert this egalitarianism and turning themselves into the economic elite. Likewise, this is demonstrated by virtually any communist society. Take Russia, for instance. After the revolution, there was a great deal of worker control of the means of production, but in the following years Lenin was able to systematically break any sort of worker autonomy and reduce them to state subservience. This is even common in social democratic societies, such as Mexico. After Cardenas passed his land reform program in the 30's, the following governments were able to destroy it through denying peasants loans and using their money to subsidize corporate agriculture as well as industry. After all, if the state grants the people equality, the state has been given implicit moral authority to take it away.

So, libertarian socialist (i.e. anarchist) societies don't have to worry about these sorts of instabilities. There aren't many examples I can point to regarding anarchist societies, but there are enough to make my point. The first obvious example would be the society of the hunter-gatherer. Typically, these societies were very libertarian and very egalitarian. Then you get various pre-industrial societies which include what one doesn't generally think of such as medieval Iceland and parts of the early US, to overtly anarchist socities like the Makhnovists of the Ukraine and the Zapatistas of the Yucatan penninsula. Libertarian and egalitarian in each case, though like the h-g's susceptible to instabilities due to technolgical changes. Finally, you've got an industrialized society, parts of Eastern and Southern Spain (particularly Barcelona) during the Spanish Civil War. This particular form of anarchism is the syndicalist variant, where trade unions were the basis for the revolution and the basis for the new society (unfortunately, this first modern experiment in anarchism was cut short due to Stalinist back-stabbing).

My personal views are close to that form, that is syndicalism. I think it facilitates the emergence of a libertarian state (Kropotkin believed that the Russian Revolution ultimately failed because it wasn't syndicalist). I also disagree with many anarchists in that I don't have any inherent opposition to police and prisons. This view was formed when these institutions were far, far worse than they are in today's socities. However, I think that in the vast majority of cases, their use is abusive, and the problems they're trying to fix could be remedied through psychological counciling, better attempts at poverty reduction, and more freedom in their lives in general.

Well, I've blathered enough for now. I've got 2 tests to study for.

[Bosh]

Che would call what I described Stalinist, but I'm not much more fond of Lenin than I am of Stalin.

Good to hear it. I never could understand che's liking for Lenin, he seems relatively reasonable otherwise...

I agree, but very few communists today argue for centralized decision making.

I'm not too up on my Modern Communist Theory (every modern communist group I've run into has been pretty much sectarian loons who only care about badmouthing each other so I haven't taken too much interest) but would this mean Municipal Socialism, Federated Communes or what?

But do anarchists believe in any central coordination, or any power to a central govt?

There's a lot of different types of anarchists who believe a lot of different things. I'm a very moderate one (lots of anarchists would probably disown me) and I'm for a more gradual course in which you see how far the withering of the state can go (for example if workers owned companies or Unions were powerful and quasi-Anarchist you wouldn't need much of a Welfare State etc. etc. etc. etc.). I differ from Communists in thinking that once you've got a Communist system set up its going to be self-perpetuating and never wither (or revert to Capitalism) and differ from many Anarchists in thinking that going directly from current society to Anarchism is completely unworkable.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
Well, I've blathered enough for now. I've got 2 tests to study for.

Woh! Sorry to call you out tonight.

Anyway, we seem to agree on much, and I really appreciate you taking the time to write such a terrific post.

[Bosh]

One more thing. The way I see things, "lets go in this general direction" is a much better way of looking at things than "lets go to this destination" so for any given current situation there's always a way to move things forward a bit, which is much better than mouthing about utopias.

What I do believe is that freedom (I'm generalizing here, meaning freedom from a vast range of things including prisons, ignorance, starvation, disease, even things not generally associated with freedom like gravity) ought to be maximized.

I'm mostly with Ramo here, but place a bit more emphasis on breaking down hierarchies and making power a bit more equal (which leads to move freedom).

There is a major historical trend I've noticed: political freedom (that is, freedom from the state, what I'd call "libertarianism") and an egalitarian economy (which is mitigated by economic democracy, worker control of the means of production, etc., what I'd call "socialism") are intrinsically linked and are mutally-reinforcing.

Exactly. I've started a few threads on this point over the years (and have yet to get a real responce from 'poly's Libertarians ).

There aren't many examples I can point to regarding anarchist societies, but there are enough to make my point.

Or too look at any agricultural society the bigger the Yeomanry (ie the bigger the economic equality) the more politically "libertarian" things generally were.

Basically I agree with 99% of what Ramo said, although he's a shade more radical than me.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Boshko
I'm not too up on my Modern Communist Theory (every modern communist group I've run into has been pretty much sectarian loons who only care about badmouthing each other so I haven't taken too much interest) but would this mean Municipal Socialism, Federated Communes or what?

I'm not part of a communist group or sect. In fact, I don't know what the terms Municipal Socialism and Federated Communes really mean. A federation of communes sounds like something I would support though, maybe even a confederation.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm not part of a communist group or sect. In fact, I don't know what the terms Municipat Socialism and Federated Communes really mean. A federation of communes sounds like something I would support though, maybe even a confederation.

Municipal Socialism is basically State Socialism where everything gets controlled on the Municipal rather than the National level.

Federated Communues is what one commie I knew in college liked. Basically you get small communistic mostly self-sufficient communities of 700ish and then loosely federate them but keep them basically independent.

I don't much care for either.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Boshko

Municipal Socialism is basically State Socialism where everything gets controlled on the Municipal rather than the National level.

Federated Communues is what one commie I knew in college liked. Basically you get small communistic mostly self-sufficient communities of 700ish and then loosely federate them but keep them basically independent.

I don't much care for either.

I'm more concerned with power being distributed efficiently within the autonomous communes than the commune size.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious


But do anarchists believe in any central coordination, or any power to a central govt?

Have you ever read 'The Dispossessed' by Ursula K. Le Guin?

It's a stimulating analysis of the way an avowedly anarchist society could start to stagnate.

The problem with any centralization of power is that power tends to inhere towards a centre anyway, and that once you start to centralize power, you make the creation of a power elite, or group of powerful individuals almost inevitable, even when there aren't dedicated power structures already in existence.

Even if there were simply a distributive or coordinating committee, the fact that they would have the power to control who gets what, could lead to the pursuit of power for its own sake.

Eternal vigilance is even more necessary for an ideal anarchist society to flourish.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom
The problem with any centralization of power is that power tends to inhere towards a centre anyway, and that once you start to centralize power, you make the creation of a power elite, or group of powerful individuals almost inevitable, even when there aren't dedicated power structures already in existence.

True, assuming that we agree that some central power is needed. How do we prevent it from taking power that would lead to tyranny? Vigilance is a good answer, but I think we need a good structure also. Would a traditional system of checks and balances work?

Originally posted by molly bloom
Even if there were simply a distributive or coordinating committee, the fact that they would have the power to control who gets what, could lead to the pursuit of power for its own sake.

Certainly there will be those who will see govt as a way to seize power but do you think that a more democratic society would prevent such a thing of contribute to its likelihood?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious

True, assuming that we agree that some central power is needed. How do we prevent it from taking power that would lead to tyranny? Vigilance is a good answer, but I think we need a good structure also. Would a traditional system of checks and balances work?

Certainly there will be those who will see govt as a way to seize power but do you think that a more democratic society would prevent such a thing of contribute to its likelihood?

It's a very good question- one which Le Guin addresses in her book. Creeping centralization has led to the establishment of a kind of under the counter orthodoxy, a power elite created almost by accident or stealth.

I think the main problem that such an ideal society faces is human nature, and unlearning traits. We've all met people who we might consider natural born leaders, even those whose capabilities don't match their responsibilities, but who have come to enjoy power for its own sake. I always think of Margaret Thatcher's last term in office as a a good indicator of a case where someone has fallen in love with the trappings of power to the extent that she was blind to voices of criticism and dissent, even from within her own party (or perhaps especially within her own party).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Capitalism is brilliant because it is a self-organizing system that is fundamentally meritocratic

There's nothing in capitalism that makes it meritocratic.

[monkspider]

I'm an anarcho-Communist type, FWIW.

[Bosh]

I'm more concerned with power being distributed efficiently within the autonomous communes than the commune size.

What do you mean by "efficienty"?
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.

Have you ever read 'The Dispossessed' by Ursula K. Le Guin?

One of my favorite books, I've got it siting on my bookshelf right next to me atm.

It's a stimulating analysis of the way an avowedly anarchist society could start to stagnate.

Exactly, anarchism with a realistic human face in which things sometimes go wrong. But still I'd take Anarres over just about any other society I could think of (which the exception of the problem of the lack of luxuries that I'm used to). The basic message that I got out of it was, "here's a really realistic anarchist society and the only that's fundamentally wrong with it is that it isn't anarchistic enough."

Eternal vigilance is even more necessary for an ideal anarchist society to flourish.

That and a the proper social framework.

Would a traditional system of checks and balances work?

You'd need a long long process of trial and error to get things right.

Certainly there will be those who will see govt as a way to seize power but do you think that a more democratic society would prevent such a thing of contribute to its likelihood?

Hopefully they'll realize that its more fun to just stay home and play CIV XXX

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


There's nothing in capitalism that makes it meritocratic.

People pay more for more valuable labor. That and patent laws.

[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

[Kidicious]

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]

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

ME!!!!!!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Quote:

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. )