Discussion:
Anarchism vis-a-vis Marxism
(too old to reply)
Visual Purple
2007-10-23 05:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Even otherwise erudite non-Leftists often equate Anarchism with
Marxism.

That error was cultivated by the Marxists who arrogated the
terminology and suggestions for the organization of society of the
Anarchists, distorted them and then applied them in a way we
Anarchists never intended and are beyond sickened by.

The piece to which I am providing the link is an excellent explication
of Anarchism vis-a-vis Marxism.

Before turning the reader over to the fine article, the text of which
is unfortunately vitiated by numerous typos, yet is worthwhile reading
for the thesis and information all the same; I should like to recall a
remarkable historical event.

I refer to the creation of an Anarcho-Syndicalist society, which
developed in many parts of the country into an Anarcho-Communist
society, in Spain in the 1930s. It is important to note that this
utterly amazingly successful endeavor was found to be a threat to the
Spanish (Fascist) Nationalists, Republican Democrats (the British),
The Nazis (not your garden variety Fascists) and the Bolsheviks alike.
Sworn mutual enemies all, they were yet more than willing and able to
act in collaboration and precision concert to crush the fledgling
Anarchist endeavor in Spain.

We Anarchists must be doing something right if every totalitarian and
semi-totalitarian regime on earth was willing to join forces aganst
us.

Think Yin-Yang. Or, as we Jews say: The more something is holy the
more unholiness will be drawn to it and will attempt to destroy it and/
or create 'klippot' (shells) around it.

I hope it is clear that I am an Anarchist, not a Marxist. It is mutual
aid and a federation of workers' councils and direct democracy in the
form of face-to-face meetings that I should like to see in Israel, not
a dictatorship of statist capitalism, which is what Marxism is.

Here, then, is the article:

http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/talks/marxism.html

Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
***@gmail.com
Topaz
2007-10-24 00:38:42 UTC
Permalink
March 14, 2005 Issue
by Robert Locke

libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole
rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a
clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make
more money, have more sex, or take more drugs...
The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple:
freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in
life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is
not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected
to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the
same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian
tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things
imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations
that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen,
entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice.
But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness
for most real people and the principal issues that concern
governments...
Furthermore, the reduction of all goods to individual choices
presupposes that all goods are individual. But some, like national
security, clean air, or a healthy culture, are inherently collective.
It may be possible to privatize some, but only some, and the efforts
can be comically inefficient. Do you really want to trace every
pollutant in the air back to the factory that emitted it and sue?
the libertarian principle of "an it harm none, do as thou wilt"...
Consider pornography:
libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn't
like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can't do is choose
not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it...
Libertarians need to be asked some hard questions. What if a free
society needed to draft its citizens in order to remain free?...
Libertarianism's abstract and absolutist view of freedom leads to
bizarre conclusions. Like slavery, libertarianism would have to allow
one to sell oneself into it. (It has been possible at certain times in
history to do just that by assuming debts one could not repay.) And
libertarianism degenerates into outright idiocy when confronted with
the problem of children, whom it treats like adults, supporting the
abolition of compulsory education and all child-specific laws, like
those against child labor and child sex. It likewise cannot handle the
insane and the senile.
Libertarians argue that radical permissiveness, like legalizing drugs,
would not shred a libertarian society because drug users who caused
trouble would be disciplined by the threat of losing their jobs or
homes if current laws that make it difficult to fire or evict people
were abolished. They claim a "natural order" of reasonable behavior
would emerge. But there is no actual empirical proof that this would
happen...
And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative
consequences of some of their free choices? While it is obviously fair
to let people enjoy the benefits of their wise choices and suffer the
costs of their stupid ones, decent societies set limits on both these
outcomes. People are allowed to become millionaires, but they are
taxed. They are allowed to go broke, but they are not then forced to
starve. They are deprived of the most extreme benefits of freedom in
order to spare us the most extreme costs. The libertopian alternative
would be perhaps a more glittering society, but also a crueler one.
Empirically, most people don't actually want absolute freedom, which
is why democracies don't elect libertarian governments. Irony of
ironies, people don't choose absolute freedom. But this refutes
libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good
as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. Paradoxically,
people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.
The political corollary of this is that since no electorate will
support libertarianism, a libertarian government could never be
achieved democratically but would have to be imposed by some kind of
authoritarian state, which rather puts the lie to libertarians' claim
that under any other philosophy, busybodies who claim to know what's
best for other people impose their values on the rest of us.
Libertarianism itself is based on the conviction that it is the one
true political philosophy and all others are false. It entails
imposing a certain kind of society, with all its attendant pluses and
minuses, which the inhabitants thereof will not be free to opt out of
except by leaving.
And if libertarians ever do acquire power, we may expect a farrago of
bizarre policies. Many support abolition of government-issued money in
favor of that minted by private banks. But this has already been
tried, in various epochs, and doesn't lead to any wonderful paradise
of freedom but only to an explosion of fraud and currency debasement
followed by the concentration of financial power in those few banks
that survive the inevitable shaking-out. Many other libertarian
schemes similarly founder on the empirical record.
A major reason for this is that libertarianism has a naïve view of
economics that seems to have stopped paying attention to the actual
history of capitalism around 1880. There is not the space here to
refute simplistic laissez faire, but note for now that the
second-richest nation in the world, Japan, has one of the most
regulated economies, while nations in which government has essentially
lost control over economic life, like Russia, are hardly economic
paradises. Legitimate criticism of over-regulation does not entail
going to the opposite extreme.
Libertarian naïveté extends to politics. They often confuse the
absence of government impingement upon freedom with freedom as such.
But without a sufficiently strong state, individual freedom falls prey
to other more powerful individuals. A weak state and a
freedom-respecting state are not the same thing, as shown by many a
chaotic Third-World tyranny.
Libertarians are also naïve about the range and perversity of human
desires they propose to unleash. They can imagine nothing more
threatening than a bit of Sunday-afternoon sadomasochism, followed by
some recreational drug use and work on Monday. They assume that if
people are given freedom, they will gravitate towards essentially
bourgeois lives, but this takes for granted things like the deferral
of gratification that were pounded into them as children without their
being free to refuse. They forget that for much of the population,
preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs,
failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock. Society is
dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into
barbarism, and libertarians attack this self-restraint. Ironically,
this often results in internal restraints being replaced by the
external restraints of police and prison, resulting in less freedom,
not more...
libertarianism is philosophically incapable of evolving a theory of
how to use freedom well because of its root dogma that all free
choices are equal, which it cannot abandon except at the cost of
admitting that there are other goods than freedom. Conservatives
should know better.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Ron Allen
2007-10-28 16:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Visual Purple
Even otherwise erudite non-Leftists often equate
Anarchism with Marxism.
Ron Allen answers:
Although there were and are differences between
the anarchists and the marxists, nevertheless the
libertarian marxists believe that the possible,
anticipated future they both desire and demand
will be an anarchist future, not an authoritarian
future. The hope that the state will wither away
is a marxist hope, and the will to abolish the
state is an anarchist will.
Post by Visual Purple
That error was cultivated by the Marxists who
arrogated the terminology and suggestions for
the organization of society of the Anarchists,
distorted them and then applied them in a way we
Anarchists never intended and are beyond
sickened by.
Ron Allen answers:
Did the marxists simply arrogate the language of
the anarchists, or did the marxists find some of
what they believed and advocated in the ideas and
ideals of the anarchists? Is it covert or cryptic
arrogation if the marxists made as clear as they
possibly could the differences between their two
philosophical proposals and practical projects?
Post by Visual Purple
The piece to which I am providing the link is an
excellent explication of Anarchism vis-a-vis
Marxism.
Before turning the reader over to the fine
article, the text of which is unfortunately
vitiated by numerous typos, yet is worthwhile
reading for the thesis and information all the
same; I should like to recall a remarkable
historical event.
I refer to the creation of an Anarcho-
Syndicalist society, which developed in many
parts of the country into an Anarcho-Communist
society, in Spain in the 1930s. It is important
to note that this utterly amazingly successful
endeavor was found to be a threat to the Spanish
(Fascist) Nationalists, Republican Democrats
(the British), The Nazis (not your garden
variety Fascists) and the Bolsheviks alike.
Sworn mutual enemies all, they were yet more
than willing and able to act in collaboration
and precision concert to crush the fledgling
Anarchist endeavor in Spain.
Ron Allen answers:
The Bolshevik party betrayed marxism. The
authoritarian Bolsheviks broke faith with the
libertarian sentiments of the marxists.
Post by Visual Purple
We Anarchists must be doing something right if
every totalitarian and semi-totalitarian regime
on earth was willing to join forces against us.
Ron Allen answers:
Anarchism is the morally best proposal. However,
anarchists can make mistakes in what they do in
order bring anarchism about.
Post by Visual Purple
Think Yin-Yang. Or, as we Jews say: The more
something is holy the more unholiness will be
drawn to it and will attempt to destroy it and/
or create 'klippot' (shells) around it.
Ron Allen answers:
The same can be said about marxism. Look at all
the "unholiness" that was drawn to it.
Post by Visual Purple
I hope it is clear that I am an Anarchist, not a
Marxist. It is mutual aid and a federation of
workers' councils and direct democracy in the
form of face-to-face meetings that I should like
to see in Israel, not a dictatorship of statist
capitalism, which is what Marxism is.
Ron Allen answers:
Are you clear about the differences between
anarchism and marxism? Are you clear about the
differences within anarchism, and within marxism?
There are unconscious, instinctive authoritarians
in every organized libertarian party. There are
secret authoritarians positioned and stationed in
every established anarchist association, in every
institutional anarchist movement.

There are authoritarian marxists, and there are
libertarian marxists. Because we are all born and
raised within an authoritarian life-context it is
always an inevitable and distinct possibility that
some of our anarchist comrades will capitulate and
succumb to the seductive and persuasive
temptations of the authoritarian mentality, the
statist outlook. Each one of us must recognize
this authoritarian tendency within each and every
one of us. Self-criticism is as important as the
criticism of others.
http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/talks/marxism.html



<><><><><><><><><>


"Oil companies can and do cut refining capacity in
order to increase oil prices, in order to increase
oil profits. This is an example of the law of
supply and demand. This is an example of the
reality of artificially reduced supplies meeting
and answering demand. This law can be easily
controlled and managed by the proprietors. The
law of supply and demand can always be organized
and regulated by the profiteers, and for the good
of the profiteers."
-- Ron Allen
Michael Price
2007-10-30 09:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Allen
Post by Visual Purple
Even otherwise erudite non-Leftists often equate
Anarchism with Marxism.
Although there were and are differences between
the anarchists and the marxists, nevertheless the
libertarian marxists believe that the possible,
anticipated future they both desire and demand
will be an anarchist future, not an authoritarian
future. The hope that the state will wither away
is a marxist hope, and the will to abolish the
state is an anarchist will.
And yet they espouse a program that increases State
power and have no actual procedure to "wither" the State.
Bakuin was right to ridicule this absurdity. The State doesn't
wither, it must be starved or shot.
Post by Ron Allen
Post by Visual Purple
That error was cultivated by the Marxists who
arrogated the terminology and suggestions for
the organization of society of the Anarchists,
distorted them and then applied them in a way we
Anarchists never intended and are beyond
sickened by.
Did the marxists simply arrogate the language of
the anarchists, or did the marxists find some of
what they believed and advocated in the ideas and
ideals of the anarchists?
No they simply arrogated it.
Post by Ron Allen
Is it covert or cryptic
arrogation if the marxists made as clear as they
possibly could the differences between their two
philosophical proposals and practical projects?
They tried to claim that they were against State
power, this is as covert as you can get.
Post by Ron Allen
Post by Visual Purple
The piece to which I am providing the link is an
excellent explication of Anarchism vis-a-vis
Marxism.
Before turning the reader over to the fine
article, the text of which is unfortunately
vitiated by numerous typos, yet is worthwhile
reading for the thesis and information all the
same; I should like to recall a remarkable
historical event.
I refer to the creation of an Anarcho-
Syndicalist society, which developed in many
parts of the country into an Anarcho-Communist
society, in Spain in the 1930s. It is important
to note that this utterly amazingly successful
endeavor was found to be a threat to the Spanish
(Fascist) Nationalists, Republican Democrats
(the British), The Nazis (not your garden
variety Fascists) and the Bolsheviks alike.
Sworn mutual enemies all, they were yet more
than willing and able to act in collaboration
and precision concert to crush the fledgling
Anarchist endeavor in Spain.
The Bolshevik party betrayed marxism. The
authoritarian Bolsheviks broke faith with the
libertarian sentiments of the marxists.
Utter rubbish, the marxists were never libertarian and
supported the authoritarian program. If you give up
power to the government in return for vague promises
that eventually go away it's because you don't like freedom.
Post by Ron Allen
Post by Visual Purple
We Anarchists must be doing something right if
every totalitarian and semi-totalitarian regime
on earth was willing to join forces against us.
Anarchism is the morally best proposal. However,
anarchists can make mistakes in what they do in
order bring anarchism about.
Post by Visual Purple
Think Yin-Yang. Or, as we Jews say: The more
something is holy the more unholiness will be
drawn to it and will attempt to destroy it and/
or create 'klippot' (shells) around it.
The same can be said about marxism. Look at all
the "unholiness" that was drawn to it.
It was unholy.
Post by Ron Allen
Post by Visual Purple
I hope it is clear that I am an Anarchist, not a
Marxist. It is mutual aid and a federation of
workers' councils and direct democracy in the
form of face-to-face meetings that I should like
to see in Israel, not a dictatorship of statist
capitalism, which is what Marxism is.
Are you clear about the differences between
anarchism and marxism? Are you clear about the
differences within anarchism, and within marxism?
There are unconscious, instinctive authoritarians
in every organized libertarian party. There are
secret authoritarians positioned and stationed in
every established anarchist association, in every
institutional anarchist movement.
There are authoritarian marxists, and there are
libertarian marxists. Because we are all born and
raised within an authoritarian life-context it is
always an inevitable and distinct possibility that
some of our anarchist comrades will capitulate and
succumb to the seductive and persuasive
temptations of the authoritarian mentality, the
statist outlook. Each one of us must recognize
this authoritarian tendency within each and every
one of us. Self-criticism is as important as the
criticism of others.
http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/talks/marxism.html
<><><><><><><><><>
"Oil companies can and do cut refining capacity in
order to increase oil prices, in order to increase
oil profits. This is an example of the law of
supply and demand.
Actually it's not you ignorant boob, the law of supply
says supply will increase in response to high prices
not that supply will be restricted to promote high
prices.
Post by Ron Allen
This is an example of the
reality of artificially reduced supplies meeting
and answering demand. This law can be easily
controlled and managed by the proprietors. The
law of supply and demand can always be organized
and regulated by the profiteers, and for the good
of the profiteers."
-- Ron Allen
No it can't as any businessman or bankrupt can tell you.
Ron Allen
2007-12-03 00:32:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Visual Purple
Even otherwise erudite non-Leftists often equate
Anarchism with Marxism.
Although there were and are differences between
the anarchists and the marxists, nevertheless
the libertarian marxists believe that the
possible, anticipated future they both desire
and demand will be an anarchist future, not an
authoritarian future. The hope that the state
will wither away is a marxist hope, and the will
to abolish the state is an anarchist will.
And yet they espouse a program that increases
State power and have no actual procedure to
"wither" the State. Bakuin was right to
ridicule this absurdity. The State doesn't
wither, it must be starved or shot.
Ron Allen answers:
Marxism espouses a program that replaces the
modern liberal-capitalist state with a post-
revolutionary socialist-democratic state, and
it is this socialist-democratic state which will
wither away. A socialist-democratic state is
a natural, reasonable and logical state for
withering away. If by the withering away of the
socialist-democratic state is meant the eventual
anarchization of society, then the marxists
believe that this withering away of the state is
a spontaneous, natural and organic advancement
from statism to anarchism. The marxists believe
that the existence of the modern authoritarian
state constrains the transformation of society
from existing statism to a future anarchism.
It is because of the existence of the modern state
that the marxists believe that only an alternative
social-democratic state can be strong enough
overthrow the liberal-capitalist state. The
marxists have always doubted the ability of people
to overthrow the existing state without a
revolutionary state to replace it, an emergency
state to serve as a transitional mechanism between
capitalism and communism. In other words, the
capitalist state does not wither away; but, the
marxists believe that a transitional state will
wither away.



<><><><><><><><>


"Force has no place where there is need of skill."
-- Herodotus
J.H.Boersema
2007-12-03 09:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Allen
Post by Visual Purple
Even otherwise erudite non-Leftists often equate
Anarchism with Marxism.
Although there were and are differences between
the anarchists and the marxists, nevertheless
the libertarian marxists believe that the
possible, anticipated future they both desire
and demand will be an anarchist future, not an
authoritarian future. The hope that the state
will wither away is a marxist hope, and the will
to abolish the state is an anarchist will.
And yet they espouse a program that increases
State power and have no actual procedure to
"wither" the State. Bakuin was right to
ridicule this absurdity. The State doesn't
wither, it must be starved or shot.
I have a procedure that will `wither' an otherwise
unused & unnecessary part of Government. This procedure
is /a law/. Anarchists & Marxists have made a fatal mistake,
not realizing the importance and power of law. For this
reason all their grand visions are not rooted in reality,
and will hardly work, be a continuous struggle.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/constitution-short.html#end.of.reign

Note that this "King Elect" position is carefully constructed.
This King has no overwhelming power of any kind, unless the state
is ``in chaos'' (see laws Chapter 1 Articles 4). It is a King that has
a gas pedal: need it more, then it is more; need it less, it is less;
need it not, it is gone; need it back, get it back.

The rest of my Government design is dynamic: people group (according
to the legal procedures, not chaos) in voter blocks per 100 of their
own choice, elect one delegate. These delegates group per 50 at
least, to form local Government. This means that if there are no 50
delegates in the entire nation, there is no Government left, however
it can be immediately started up again. If there is no motivation, it
will be less, and less powerful what is there. Because of the law,
the Government can not do anything that the People don't want. Even
if there is a Government, if it is constituted by a small minority -
because the rest doesn't care and thinks "let them worry about it,
it is going ok" for instance - that Government is tied to the will of
the People. The smaller the minority of Government itself, the less
their procedural power. This also represents a method of `withering'
or `building' the state, according to the present day need.

The Government is tied to the People:
- Representatives can be removed any day by their voter-block.
- Referendums are binding, the abstentions are filled in by the
representatives (who can be replaced, also after the referendum
has passed, the new representative changes the vote of abstentions).
- The Government has the legal task to find out what the People want,
then do it.
- A representative that breaks a promise is replaced temporarily by
the court for someone willing to do the promised task, with the power
of that delegate.
(...)

Moreover, if there are people who wish to experience a different Nation,
they can group together in a corner of the country, and elect
themselves into a new sovereign Nation. This procedure requires several
Referendums, and 10 years, after which that country can grow bigger
for another 10 years with more referendums in the original country.
See: Articles 1.2: Territory.

That means that if there is a schism in the People, some want to leave,
they can do that, if with enough people. There you can see that this
democracy is not fake democracy. This is also a strong protection for
opressed minorities, at least if carried out properly.
Post by Ron Allen
Marxism espouses a program that replaces the
modern liberal-capitalist state with a post-
revolutionary socialist-democratic state, and
it is this socialist-democratic state which will
wither away. A socialist-democratic state is
a natural, reasonable and logical state for
withering away. If by the withering away of the
socialist-democratic state is meant the eventual
anarchization of society, then the marxists
believe that this withering away of the state is
a spontaneous, natural and organic advancement
from statism to anarchism. The marxists believe
that the existence of the modern authoritarian
state constrains the transformation of society
from existing statism to a future anarchism.
It is because of the existence of the modern state
that the marxists believe that only an alternative
social-democratic state can be strong enough
overthrow the liberal-capitalist state. The
marxists have always doubted the ability of people
to overthrow the existing state without a
revolutionary state to replace it, an emergency
state to serve as a transitional mechanism between
capitalism and communism. In other words, the
capitalist state does not wither away; but, the
marxists believe that a transitional state will
wither away.
I do not expect the state to wither away at all, rather it will be
a great place and the center of many people's lives, where people
make *decisions*, which is what all being except plants do all the
time, and which differentiates a living creature from a machine.
The state isn't something you'd even want to wither away, the only
thing that should wither is oppression.

The state is the crowning achievement of society, like the brain in
the body, it makes decisions about the whole. Should we let `food'
wither away, because it is sometimes difficult to get right ? No,
because we like and need it. Do we want our brain taken out so that
every cell can do as it wants in our decaying body, total freedom
and anarchy ? That's how it will be with the state, try to take it
away and everyone will think you are mad, and say something like
`not here, go elsewhere with that crazy plan.' The question is only
to make it do the right thing, and not the wrong thing.

Anarchists can't solve that question, and have given up, if they ever
tried. The anarchists are now waiting until everyone is a saint, and
nobody needs the police anymore, because there is no more crime. How
that will happen, the anarchists don't know. The workers could and
did solve it in practice (quickly too), which the marxists noted
and agreed with (block-vote council government, with immediate
replacement). It was all kind of rudimentary then, and little or no
effort has since been spend to make it better (my Constitution is an
attempt to make it better). Still, the Marxists fail to solve the
economic question, my Constitution does that too.

*

Has everyone failed on our planet ? Nope, Moshe got it right, too.
And that's about 3500 years ago, around the year 2480 (we are now
in the year 5768). Marx should never have left Judaism, because the
answers were all there, in his Torah, though he did need to dig them
out and make them "secular," so that they could be molded to the present
day needs. The Torah specifies laws against money selling (Capitalism),
distribution of land to all as a legal right, obviously there is nothing
wrong with trade in the Torah. These are the essential ingredients of a
functioning economy ! Combine that with demorcatic council Government,
developed by the workers themselves, and all you need is write down
laws that describe it nicely, and that's basically it. Refine it over
time, and it should work. Removes the poisen (money selling, unfair
ownership, oppressive Government) from the system. Simple ...

With these ingredients and description, everyone can cook up their
own legal/economic system that should work.
--
http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb
#22 http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/no-id-theft.html
redflag
2007-12-12 08:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Visual Purple
Even otherwise erudite non-Leftists often equate Anarchism with
Marxism.
In that case they are _other_ than wise and other than erudite.

You can take that to the bank, buddy.

Loading...