In defense of Anarchism

[promethean75]

I refer you to a comprehensive interpretation of the Marxist idea/theory of revolution... particularly how and what circumstances might be in place (and have been at various points in history) that would facilitate such an attempt at a reformation of government. If a decentralization of western governments were to occur, that power would have to be transfered to another body or collection of bodies that governed democratically. That simply means decisions about economic production and distribution would be made by the producers themselves.... who would be organized into a complex network of local governments that cooperate with each other.

Also keep in mind that digital communication and AI would make this cooperation much more easy, streamlined and efficient.

The future is in your hands, comrade iwannaplato. Marx, Rosa and I have shown you the way.

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Karl-Marx ... chtenstein

[Iwannaplato]

I refer you to a comprehensive interpretation of the Marxist idea/theory of revolution... particularly how and what circumstances might be in place (and have been at various points in history) that would facilitate such an attempt at a reformation of government. If a decentralization of western governments were to occur, that power would have to be transfered to another body or collection of bodies that governed democratically. That simply means decisions about economic production and distribution would be made by the producers themselves.... who would be organized into a complex network of local governments that cooperate with each other.

Also keep in mind that digital communication and AI would make this cooperation much more easy, streamlined and efficient.

The future is in your hands, comrade iwannaplato. Marx, Rosa and I have shown you the way.

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Karl-Marx ... chtenstein

Didn't Marx think the state would wither away? that didn't happen.
There have been a wide variety of Marxist revolutions and I think the closest to not betraying the core ideas was probably Nicaragua, since the gave up power when they lost democratically (even if the US manipulated the election). IOW they were willing to give up power, if need be. They came back democratically, though there are questions about the validity of recent elections - could be questions from nefarious sources. HOwever.....it is still a centralized government. Maybe Cuba if allowed to trade would have let the power decentralize, but all we know is that in this reality, they did not.

I can't get any clear information about how Rosa (Luxemburg, I assume) planned to decentralize power If you have a link, let me know. However, so far, Marx and Rosa's work has not led to decentralized power and often certainly Marx's has led to ubelievably centralized power.

And then many anarchists reject marxism.

[promethean75]

unfortunately the Rosa Luxemburg to which you refer is still dead, but this Rosa i linked to is very much alive. In that link you'll find hyperlinks to her material at her site. go ahead, snoop around

The withering state business marx was on about was to say that if the revolution stabilized itself and got past the phase in which strict and organized hierarchies of power and authority among the ranks of the dictatorship of the proletariat were necessary, central authority would naturally ease up and begin to fade, since the problems, obstacles and oppositions that the revolution faced in its fledgling state that required it to need a rigid vanguard party to organize everything, would no longer exist.

the mature stage of the revolution, so to speak.

but the revolutions calling themselves 'marxist' throughout history never got past the marxist-leninist stage for two big reasons. one, china and russia were backward underdeveloped agrarian countries that couldn't match the productive power and output of competing capitalist markets in the west. they panicked. made rash decisions. lotta people died in the mayhem of trying ineffectually to maximize production as fast as possible.

note that none such conditions like those exist today. the whole world is modernized and logged on, bro. there is a surplus of every kind of commodity you can imagine, and if there ain't, they'll make it damn near over night. there are more empty unoccupied houses in this country than there are homeless people. that's a lot of available real estate man.  they got self driving cars even.

the usual formulas and arguments folks peddle to prove all revolutions are doomed to fail won't fly today, haus.

[promethean75]

Oh shit I didn't mention the second reason. It's because jackasses like mao and Stalin and Castro didn't WANT to step down and allow decentralization.

[Iwannaplato]

Oh shit I didn't mention the second reason. It's because jackasses like mao and Stalin and Castro didn't WANT to step down and allow decentralization.

It seems like power leads to jackasses, or jackasses find power. So...there's a problem. Castro is small potatoes and he was embargoed and more. The other two, wow, they really went to town. Communism seems very effective at creating centralized states with assembly line murder.

[promethean75]

and this 'withering' doesn't mean losing law and order. it's more so saying that one of the state's original and oldest roles was the protection of property rights, and therefore, for the proletariat (or say the greek slave), this 'state' did little to help improve their lot and in fact favored the wealthy property owning class more than them.

and since in theory when the means of production, distribution and exchange are owned and operated by the producers themselves, there is no more need for a structure of enforcement that exists for the sole purpose of protecting wealthy property from the lower classes. ergo, the 'state' withers away.

but law and order is always necessary in governing of any sort, so bakunin and proudhon and Kropotkin I think were naive to criticize marxism for being too authoritarian.

i mean.

bro u can't just have some kind of spontaneous temporary autonomous zone of pure anarchy that lasted longer than a few days before it fell apart. no. spontaneous order does NOT always happen and you gotta plan shit out... and you need to penalize people who break the laws that the body politic has agreed to establish.

i call those anarchists the industrial romantics. Thoreau and Emerson stayed in the woods by ponds more or less, so I'd hardly call them industrial.  Rousseau was a kind of proto-anarchist and neither was he industrial.

[Iwannaplato]

i mean.

bro u can't just have some kind of spontaneous temporary autonomous zone of pure anarchy that lasted longer than a few days before it fell apart. no. spontaneous order does NOT always happen and you gotta plan shit out... and you need to penalize people who break the laws that the body politic has agreed to establish.

I said there was a problem. But the earlier objection was based on the idea that anarchists want not state and no rules. That only true for a minority and it's true for the cliche image of the anarchist. Yes, getting down to small manageable communities is a problem. An authoritarian state from Marxism obviously did not work. Maybe it can, but then I'd need to see what plans are in place to avoid the previous glitches (and I use the word 'glitch' with near infinite irony)

I have no plan for effective decentralization. I have no idea how it is accomplished. My point was that anarchists in the main, did not want to end all rules and all enforcement or even local government.