The means of Libertarian Socialism

[Satanic_Surfer]

This is a mature try to create a thread where to discuss the values behind Anarchism, please read this message, if you have any further questions about Anarchism afterwards, feel free to ask. :)

As a reply to the anti-anarcho-thread that the local moderator has put up, this one should do the work. First on the list to bring up is the question of how a certain political path should be more or less available, as threads basically buildt upon racism are completely allowed in this toyforum? Racism is after all, not politics, but only paranoia and unknowing beliefs.

Secondly it is quite ironic of a person supporting fascist ideals (the "stomp on the poor" kind) to talk about what to say and what not to say.

To give a deaper image of what Anarchism is, since it seems to be very missunderstood, i shall try to enlighten the "dark parts" of the forum.

Anarchism, as we speak about Libertarian Socialism and not the Liberal Capitalism kind, wich is hardly known outside of the US anyways, is based upon a few simple ideas and ideals. First of all the Marx influences are in there as it is a part of the Socialist movement. Anarchism is often called AnarchoCommunism, this might seem a bit weird too as Communism supports a dictatorship, yet a working class' one but still a dictatorship. Anarchists believe strongly that power corrupts, as simple as that. A good example should be the American government where the politicans tend to be capitalists who has in one or another way bought the power, just like the multinational corporations who "support president campaigns" in order to buy themselves some "extra rights". A good example of that is how the trial against Microsoft was put down on orders of the American president. Microsoft has even developed a backdoors program for the Chinese Communist government that locks sites or cencures words from internet from Chinese computers, including words such as freedom, democracy, oppression and Tibet liberty.

To solve the problem with corruption and denial of human rights, such as the PATRIOT ACT. Anarchists believe in a society without laws, without government, without police and millitary. But to see the whole truth, you have to look further into the issue. Anarchists believe the state is made to serve the rich, the ruling class and by force, it supports the poverty of the majority. Force such as police violence, warfare and taxation. Anarchists does not support the removal of taxes in the system of today, as it would not work. The system (with government) would have to be overthrown first, wich most likely would happen through a revolution. The leaders we (us who live in different countries) have voted for does not support us, as they are not the ones the police aims their sticks at when no one sees, and it is certainly a fact that the wellpaid politicans does know a little or nothing about the situation of the ordinary working man/woman out there in the society.

Anarchists are against private property. Because private property equals pretty much "stealing", to the Anarchists. That is because Anarchists believe you cannot own nature, therefore land and sea cannot be owned, used but not owned. The solution is "public property" wich is not the property of the indevidual but the property of the collective. This is a way to add MORE property to each indevidual, not removing any. And i believe the words "public property" does not need to be described.

It is hard to critisize Anarchists on a solid ground as Libertarian Socialism has never occured. It is easier for example to critisize Communists for what Communism has done and especially it is easy to critisize the supporters of Capitalism as Capitalism kills more people every day, than we ever will know in our whole lifes. Thanks to the Capitalist system, 10% of the population of Earth owns 90% of the recources of Earth, and the true winners in Capitalism will surely be the capitalists. This is a fact that all Socialist movement work against.

Anarchists support free sexuality, where the sex between human beings that does not harm anybody, cannot be negative in any way, can it? Anarchists believe that music, food, a home and much more is counted to "human rights", wich probably makes Anarchists the greatest human rights activists of today. Anarchists choose to work by "Direct Action" wich is the ignorance of waiting for your chance to vote, if u even live in a country where every human has a right to vote (unlike USA). Direct Action means taking action against the threats to the people, by confronting them directly. This includes a wide range of situations, everything between putting up posters, to confronting fascists and Nazi scum physically on the streets. Anarchists does not support death penalty, unlike Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea and USA and the likes of them.

Anarchists believe that every man/woman should do what he/she has an interest of doing. Not many people has an interest of standing in a factory every day for a minimum wage, making cars wich the upper class later on will sell for great amounts of money. But Anarchists believe that humanity would double its' evolving by letting every person have a choise all by themselves of what to work with. Be it painting or be it designing clothes. Anarchists still believe that this way, we would develop to a completely new level of society within a very little amount of time.

The most common critics against Anarchists is usually that "people are too ignorant/selfish/egoistic/stupid/immature/whatever to guide themselves and lead themselves through their lives". But Anarchists first wants to know how it possibly can be the way that if people would be too little knowing to rule over themselves, howcomes some people (governments and its alikes, the ruling class) are able to rule us ALL?! Should not ruling over one million people be one million times harder than ruling over oneself?

And if anybody has further questions about the means of Libertarian Socialism and Anarchists who supports the idea. Feel free to ask me through this thread, i will gladly answer all your questions without the use of offence, i hope this thread will work as a base for conversation. Please let the oneliner offence and curses, out this time, okay? ;)

I hope this was any use for the understanding of the ideas behind Anarchism.
//Greetings from Satanic_Surfer

Questions?

[wheelchairman]

You've offered nothing new in this field.

However, I'll give you my opinion. What a piss poor shallow analysis. Marx would scream in his grave. You are not based upon his ideas because the First International split because you guys are sectarian nutheads.

Let's move on to the problem of analysis. You believe power corrupts, however crudely put, that is true. However you fail to realize that a class struggle exists even after a revolution. And that destruction of the state does not equal destruction of classes. Interests will last even after material posession is appropriated. This is something anarchists don't account for. This is why any attempt at anarchism is only done by idealistic students and has always failed. This is why the working class unionizes, and when revolutions occur, support communism. This is why everyone thinks you are a joke. You're an entire class of students who think they have society figured out, yet your analysis is far too simplistic.

Society is far too complicated to say "away with teh state". The state is more than a tool of class, it is a central unification of the class struggle. It must be used in the class struggle after the revolution. Because the resisting class will be organized and in a position to crush the worker's revolution. (anarchists are idiots, and they say "well if there is arevolution, there will be no resistance because the people will want it." This is ignorant of every revolution in history, not to mention the necessary political analysis required to lead.

Moving on, I hate it when people say "true anarchism has never existed." "true capitalism has never existed" "true socialism/communism has never existed." That's a joke of a defence and should be ignored by anyone with intellect. It simply means that their concept of their beliefs can only exist in theory, and that such a person will quickly make a distance between themselves and whatever revolution, because they are too chickenshit to stand up to their beliefs in the face of criticism. I'm a communist, I've seen communism attempted, it's not perfect, but then again it's human. It's made mistakes but so did the first attempts at capitalisim. Like everything else. I even uphold a lot of things etc.

[Satanic_Surfer]

Wheely of course... you know, i almost expected a oneliner out of you as first reply. I apreciate that you took your time though... even you obviously like to curse a lot.

You might expect something alike back at you but i spare you that bull.
I think you have missunderstood something now, what i wrote was not a thick book about the means of Anarchism, but only a simple explaination to the people who has only seen supporters of Libertarian Socialism stand up for their ideals by saying things such as "ANARCHY RULZ!!!" and i completely understand anyone who believes these threads to be "chickenshit".

Though i did have you in mind after all, because i didnt expect this to be anything very new to you as you are already involved in class struggle and the obvious is far behind. I completely agree that eventual Anarchists who believe that class struggle would end "after the revolution" has certainly missed the point! I never said either that "real Anarhy has never existed" because for real, Anarchy exists every day as Anarchists build their ideals around themselves right here and now. But the world has not gotten much better in generally thanks to it, surely not, it takes a lot more.

The removal of the state should not be concidered as something very far beyond your own ideals either as the state your country (wich for what i have understood is the US, right? I might be wrong, but in any case...) is not "your" state. It is the state of the right wing, it is the state of the rich. Even the Communists wants to crush the state in order to build up a new and improved one that shall work for representing the working class. And the reason for that IS that class struggle will not end after the revolution. Communists wants the state (as you said, together with working unions and the alikes) to be the base for future class struggle, in order to protect the class struggle from the former upper class. As you know, Karl Marx idea about Socialism and Communism has as a goal, to remove the Socialist state too, right? Stalin said that such a forthcoming step would have to wait until the enemy in the west (aka USA) have ceased to exist. The difference is that Anarchists believe that by evolving to the stage of Anarchy directly, would create an easier way for the class struggle to continue. As a Socialist state is a given target by any other Capitalist nation to crush, in order to put back the old system to power. Much like so called "terrorism" is hard to prevent by millitary force as there is no target, there is no great "leader of the terrorist" that has to be taken down in order to prevent future terrorism, as "terrorists" work in autonomy.

There is no way to end class struggle, because in a world where there is no class struggle, the ruling class would have all the power, aint that true? The image of the Anarchist believing that class struggle will end after the revolution is a missunderstanding. One of the main reasons why Anarchists wants to remove the state is so that there will be no simple target to crush for the enemy. That way Anarchists believe class struggle to be easier instead and more effective.

There are many "hobby Anarchists" i have to admit, many who are not serious about their so called ideals, there are many of those people in the Socialist movement generally, but to let these represent us would be a complete disaster.

[Satanic_Surfer]

Oh yes, sorry for assuming you live in USA, but i guess most of the people in here does, you seem to live in Denmark though. I guess Denmark doesnt have very solidaric values either though but i guess it's a step forwards at least.

[wheelchairman]

It's alright, I grew up in America. And don't take my cursing personally, I was in a bad mood. I saw a British film.

Stalin's theory of Socialism in one nation (which was founded upon the idea that the deconstruction of the state could not happen until foreign enemies no longer existed.) Is not something I uphold very strong. And certainly not an excuse to centralize the state in the way that happened after the October revolution through Stalin's period.

Yes, communists believe that destruction of the current state is necessary. And what the next state should look like is a large dividing line among communists, there are those that support soviet style dictatorship, and then others who see a much more liberal democratic method of proletariat state control (this is what I would like to see). The difference is of course, who the controlling class is. The problem with having no state in the midst of a fierce international class struggle is, while there would be no target for foreign capitalist militaries, there of course is also a reason why not everyone choses to become a "terrorist." It's not the kind of lifestyle in which you get to eat everyday. In fact, for many people, that kind of lifestyle, would mean a significant worsening in the quality of life. You got to understand, most people just want security, food, shelter, their loved ones. They don't have this obsession with state that anarchists have.

The thing with a state, is that even though it's a tool of class struggle. It is the focal point of organization on a nationwide basis. And the state must exist until each regions of a certain nation are self-sustainable. Let's take the former Yugoslavia as an example. The central state, should've equalized the production capabilities in each "region nation", however Tito didn't do this. He industrialized the already industrialized, and neglected industrializing the rest. This is why Slovenia and Croatia are significantly better off than Serbia and Bosnia, or Macedonia. The state can't be destroyed until this is accomplished. The state will also wither. This is the theory we communists support. It will wither with the withering of th class struggle. Every gain for the working class is a gain towards democracy. Towards independence. Parts of class control will disappear, and this will reflect in parts of the states disappearance. But this cannot be sudden, and as a tactical use against a united enemy, is just plain stupid.

Communists believe in a world with no class. Because we believe in a ruling class. Obviously we want the working class to take power.

Taking away the state, will only make the people wonder how long you can protect them against a foreign power.

[Satanic_Surfer]

You do proove a point, it is certainly hard for a "nation" to uphold any kind of defence towards an enemy that is ruled by a capitalist government/state. But the problem as i see it, is how the hiearchy develops problems with the power, making it corrupt very quickly, wich was one out of many reasons why Stalin never could uphold the Sovjet union the way it was meant to be. (Too much expensive wine i guess). But surely it is nothing compared to the crimes of Capitalism, rich is quite reliefing after all, but many people tend to listen to that propaganda of that "Socialism would not work" because they see the Sovjet union's Stalinism as the whole deal with Socialism. But genocide seems to fit more into the capitalist way though (luckily). However there are groups to both left and right (Marx, along with former US presidents) that meant that the goal would be in the end to remove the government and state either when the market is stable enough (bullshit to my ears, almost literally) or when people has become equals between classes already. Im in a doubt that either of these ever will happen though, but it does not mean we shall not work towards that goal, it only means that we cannot stop working towards it.

After all, Anarchists support the idea of Anarchy to simplefy it. But surely we shouldent let people just sit and rot away even in a Libertarian Socialist country, no. Working unions are still a great base as they are basically even TODAY ruled by working class people (or mostly at least). And working unions can exist without having any kinds of "leaders" or hiearchies, but only having representators for their members wills of course.

Now we're heading towards some kind of Syndicalism here, but maybe Syndicalism would be necessary in a Libertarian Socialism in order to actually have some sort of organisation for the hospitals and other places that are necessary for survival, health and wellbeing. Though maybe the most important issue about Socialism in order to make it work out, is unity. I often feel like if there would be a revolution today, it would somewhere stop because people couldent agree about what color the Socialist star should have, and it all would fail before it had gone anywhere. After all, the final goal is freedom from classes and equality for all, wich could be described as justice. What way it should be done is less important after all, but the class struggle unites the whole Socialist movement, sometimes i wonder what could be created if all Socialist workers of all countries actually WOULD unite? What could be created? And perhaps most importantly, is it a chance for that today, by uniting all of them at one spot? Great things can be done, the sooner the better is what i think.