Short Definition Of Anarchism, By Axel Persson

I'm going to make this as short as possible because I feel like wasting time rehashing the basics.

What is the difference etween Socialism and Communism?

Due to the capitalist media and the western educational system, most, as you from what I can see, have a perverted understanding of the words "socialism" and "communism". The so-called "socialist" parties of today ( ex : PS in france ) are nothing of the sort, and "communism" has nothing to do with the stalinist perversion that emerged after 1924.

Scialism is a transitional phase between the exploitative capitalist system of private property of the means of production - which is different from private possession - and the classless society of communism we seek to build.

A communist society is a society where the means of production are under the collective ownership and control of the workers themselves, rather than a tiny percentage of capitalist parasites, and where the economical production is organised and planned according to the social needs and in the interests of all workers, rather than the insane lust for profits.

Capitalism does not satisfy the social needs - we see that everyday.

Between these phases of human social development lies the transitional period of socialism.

Anarchists practically believe the state can be abolished overnight as soon as the Revolution occurs. We Marxists-Leninist however fight for the establishement of the dictatorship of the proletariat. All governments are merely tools at the disposal of the ruling class used to oppress and exploit another. The dictatorship of the proletariat is different however, because the proletariat ( the workers ) represents the extreme vast majority of the population in any given society. Anyone.

The dictatorship of the proletariat aims at bringing all sectors of society under the democratic control of the working masses and sabotage the strongholds of the bourgeoisie. The dictatorship of the proletariat is infinitely more democratic than any given bourgeois democratic republic. The Paris Commune of 1871 was the first example. The Soviet democracy - prior to the stalinist degeneration - as established in 1917 is the best example. Take note of the fact that the Soviets were not the invention of the Bolsheviks, but the workers, peasants and soldiers themselves.

The construction of the socialist order is to begin under the dictatorship of the proletariat once it has been established. It's aim is to organise the economical production, the redistribution of ressources and to bring all levels of society under the democratic control of the working masses. That will allow for us to focus on thing such as giving basic life necessities to everyone, fighting and abolishing unemployment, provide free, quality healthcare, education, housing etc..etc..

Once the state is run in the interests of the majority, then the need for it's repressive bodies, such as the police, military etc... will gradually disappear along with the inequality and oppression inherent to the capitalist system. The workers may then strive to replace it completely by the democratic administration of things in the interests of everyone : that is Communism.

Communism - a classless society - makes the state repression appartus absolutely unnecessary, for there is no class to be suppressed. Of course, that does not mean to deny the inevitability of excesses on the part of individuals. Those will unfortunately, always exist and will need to be stopped. That can be handled by the democratic organs of the workers themselves. However, no special and standing permanent machine, no permanent apparatus of suppression, is needed to handle this type of problems.

I find all of that fine (when taken on as a global state propective), all well and good. Some minor questions of abolishment of police type roles, as said we cannot deny human nature, crime will still occur so it seems logical that a permanent police type service will still exist in some form or another?

Heh why do I always find terms like "democratic organ" and "state repression apparatus" to be far to generalised for my liking? Its like every state function is seperated into black and white, even the military has some very unique roles that make it worth retaining in some way or another.....

This post has been edited by Revolutionary Masses on Jun 2, 2006, 10:01 AM

I'd prefer to not think of myself as much of a follower at all...
while bob and jason have some interesting notions and are good at expressing certain complex conceptions about work and some other ideas in an accessible fashion which i've read of theirs and discussed with them... they do seem to be contructing a false presentation of an anti-ideology ideology which they label post-leftism.
If you must pigeonhole me into being a "follower" of our contemporaries I'd probably say I have more in common with the Wolfi Landstreicher and Gilles Dauve "crap".

heh no worries. I say 'follower" only because a lot of posties take bob and jason's words as god. Frankly, I think they're a couple of self important jack offs. Dauve is cool imo.

Anarchism is the total absence of authority, stemming from the belief that no man is fit to command another. That is the root of anarchism. However, such absence of authority is not practical, at least in the conventional way of thinking.

Hey, what do you fake socialist think about Nepal? Do you condemn their revolution too?

Some of us are marxist-leninists who actually use Marxist Analysis and don't think condemning a leader has any critical marxist thought. Its a bourgeiois way of dealing with problems. Long Live marxism-leninism! Death to Revisionism! Death to "Red" Factions!

Bolivar why are you such a jackhole?

An excellent question. I"d like to know as well.

To be honest, I have always wondered about the position of the Creative Arts within the Communist society. Would they still exist at all? Would music, drama, poetry, painting etc. be considered something neede by society still? Would it be purposefully scrapped in favour of everyone working to grow food/run factories/whatever or would it wither naturally due to lack of conflict? Or would it remain important and cherished?

On the Crime thing RM, I have been led to understand that most crime is caused because of the way society, rather than the individual is conditioned. Even in cases like Rape, it's more about possession than lust, and it has been noted in some societies where the concept of ownership is not recognized, there are no cases of Rape and such like. Anyway point is, with the whole of the society philosophy changed, so will the culture and the individuals under it.