Can anarchy work?

I think communism can only work after socialism so class antagonisms can be eliminated.

I would say no. Not because I think a stateless society is "against human nature" but because history has proven that all revolutions (be them bourgeois, proletarian or otherwise) need to defend themselves. The Paris commune showed what happens when proletarian revolutions fail to do so.

But one can extend to this a other points in history as well. For example, if the United States had not kept the continental marines after the Revolutionary War of 1775, they would definitely have been overrun by the British in the war of 1812 (as it stands, they almost were anyways).

Quote :

history has proven that all revolutions (be them bourgeois, proletarian or otherwise) need to defend themselves.

True. So you voted "after socialism communism can work" That's what I voted.
The Paris Commune was doomed to fail because it's like socialism in one country but it's socialism in one commune.

Communism can work if all threats to the revolution are are destroeyed during socialism but pure Anarchy can not work.

Anarchy would only work for a little while. Eventually someone will promise to cease the confusion and raise to power.

for some time but humanaty might die out nefore that happens.

no because you will always need to organize in order to produce enough for all.

Anarchy is inherently based on competition...

MarxistFreeman wrote:

no because you will always need to organize in order to produce enough for all.

Anarchy is inherently based on competition...

yeah you'll make your own stuff.

mattabesta wrote:

MarxistFreeman wrote:

no because you will always need to organize in order to produce enough for all.

Anarchy is inherently based on competition...

yeah you'll make your own stuff.

what does that even mean

cause one man can create everything that he could possibly want alone

I voted yes. Just because it's anarchy, it doesn't naturally follow that it cannot defend itself from the forces of reaction.

Quote :

The Paris Commune was doomed to fail because it's like socialism in one country but it's socialism in one commune.

The Paris commune was doomed to fail due to its own apathy towards the government. They didn't even try to dismantle the government 'post-revolution'.

And let's not forget that socialism has failed just as much as anarchy.

MarxistFreeman wrote:

cause one man can create everything that he could possibly want alone

yeah, I just want pitsa, coke and ps3.

so that's 3000 chemicals, easy

Quote :

I voted yes. Just because it's anarchy, it doesn't naturally follow that it cannot defend itself from the forces of reaction.

That is the same argument I used when I was an anarchist. You are forgetting that the Marxist definiition of state is very different. The "government" in socialism will be very decentralized and democratic. However, we call it a state because our definition of state is not centralized hierarchy, it is an instrument of class oppression. If the "anarchy" is suppressing the bourgeoisie, then in marxist terms it would be considered a state.

This is why you should read "State and revolution by lenin"

The state is armed bodies of men that exist to deal with class antagonisms.

A Capitalist state defends private property
A Worker's states defends worker's property and rights

So long as class antagonisms exist, a state will exist.
But as we move closer and closer to a classless society in a state of abundance the state will whither away.

I'll quote the book later. I've got the section about this highlighted ^^

I've actually read it before. Well, more like skimmed through chapters with interesting titles. But NJNP should definitely read it. IF you are not a Marxist, the only reason can be because you do not completely understand class struggle. BUt that's okay. I used to be an anarchist also.

FINISH FINISH FINISH

some parts are slow but as you finish and look back...IT'LL BLOW YOUR FUCKING HEAD OFF!!!!

Can anarchism work ?

If by 'work' you mean - ' everyone joins a tribe and war ensues causing destruction and death for the next 9000 years'


well then yea sure anarchism can work no prob

inkus2000 wrote:

Can anarchism work ?

If by 'work' you mean - ' everyone joins a tribe and war ensues causing destruction and death for the next 9000 years'


well then yea sure anarchism can work no prob

epic win

If the world went anarchy: Weak people would die
Strong people would live.
Strong people will work together
Strong people will rule weak people
No more anarchy!

said no. people need someone to tell them what to do or they will do nothing.

i don't think they will do nothing i just think it will inherently lead to competition and then capitalism all over again

OH NO! Not CAPITALISM! Not the economic system that is used by ALMOST EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD! Damn damn damn! We need a system that failed several times and was used in China before they switched to capitalism! This... this capitalism... no no I don't like it at all. It's... Un-American!

Pannekoek wrote:

That is the same argument I used when I was an anarchist. You are forgetting that the Marxist definiition of state is very different. The "government" in socialism will be very decentralized and democratic. However, we call it a state because our definition of state is not centralized hierarchy, it is an instrument of class oppression. If the "anarchy" is suppressing the bourgeoisie, then in marxist terms it would be considered a state.

... I said nothing of the "state". And just because Marx uses it one way, doesn't mean that everyone must conform to the definition; that's dogmatic.

And none of your argument attests to why anarchy isn't workable, but rather why it isn't marxist.

And yes, i've read "state and revolution". Just because someone is anarchist (which i never claimed to be), doesn't mean they limit themselves to just anarchist literature.

Make less assumptions about me in the future.

Quote :

OH NO! Not CAPITALISM! Not the economic system that is used by ALMOST EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD! Damn damn damn! We need a system that failed several times and was used in China before they switched to capitalism! This... this capitalism... no no I don't like it at all. It's... Un-American!

This is hardly worthy of a response; it contains but one legitimate fact, and is almost utterly nonsensical.

Quote :

... I said nothing of the "state". And just because Marx uses it one way, doesn't mean that everyone must conform to the definition; that's dogmatic.

And none of your argument attests to why anarchy isn't workable, but rather why it isn't marxist.

I don't think you have to use that definition but I use it. So the only reason you are not a Marxist is you define state differently.

^^ No, the reason i'm not a marxist is because i'm anti-labelist. I'm also not a marxist because i deny the need for the state as transition. I also am not marxist because i deny any state's ability to dissolve itself.

Quote :

I don't think you have to use that definition but I use it. So the only reason you are not a Marxist is you define state differently.

Then keep it for yourself. Don't tell me i don't understand something just because i might define it differently than you. I do, indeed, understand the marxist definition of state.

And don't act like you're enlightened because you choose another socialist ideology that is "correct"; and don't act like i'm naive because i'm "anarchist" (again, i don't make such a claim).