Can we really change the world without taking power?

[catch]

afaq description is reasonable.
For me state means (pretty much) nation state, not any authoritarian system of government (feudal warlords may not be a model I aspire to, but I wouldn't call it a state), can't imagine it being maintained by anything other than rule by a minority, no. [/backs off from wall]

surely you haven't forgotten this thread?
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=118191&page=1&pp=25&highlight=anarchists+state

 

[TremulousTetra]

It's not just me who doesn't understand the 'logic' of your explanations. Why not answer the question for the sake of hibbee, who has not yet so far indicated he has been satisfied with the responses. The onus is on you to explain to people like hibbee.

It seems to me that bolshieboy is right. In the abstract they construct these massive differences, but then in reality support regimes like the Paris commune which Marxists would described as a state. They seem to prefer arguing about the language, than the reality.

Rmp3

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'm just going by what i've read.

Here: http://www.marxists.org/reference/a...-anarchy.htm#s1

"Critique of the Marxist Theory of the State" by Bakunin. Here is a quote from that:


Quote:
What does it mean that the proletariat will be elevated to a ruling class? Is it possible for the whole proletariat to stand at the head of the government? There are nearly forty million Germans. Can all forty million be members of the government? In such a case, there will be no government, no state, but, if there is to be a state there will be those who are ruled and those who are slaves.



The anarchist FAQ claims that a state is:


Quote:
1) A "monopoly of violence" in a given territorial area;
2) This violence having a "professional," institutional nature; and
3) A hierarchical nature, centralisation of power and initiative into the hands of a few.



I don't know why anarchists haven't answered RMP3 on this question.

yes that is a better explanation than I have received so far from people on urban. But the problem is you cannot take for granted that that explanation will be their position, because they will often just answer "but that is not my version of anarchism and you cannot impose up on me", you have to get them to put it in their own words. Rather labourious process, but a methodology of which they seem fond in my experience. [ no wonder anarchist groups are so small. ]

The problem is when you then come to apply;
Quote:
1) A "monopoly of violence" in a given territorial area;
2) This violence having a "professional," institutional nature; and
3) A hierarchical nature, centralisation of power and initiative into the hands of a few.
to such as the Paris commune which most anarchists seem to support (though I suppose one is going to pull me up now and say they don't support it).
1) the Paris commune did claim a monopoly of violence in a territorial area
2) there were paid professionals in their institutions of direction.
3) there was centralisation and initiative in the hands of a few

So all we are left with is the "hierarchical nature", which both the SWP members and anarchists agree we don't want in a workers state or a worker's autonomous zone.

Their arguments do not make sense to me, but I suppose that was always going to be the case in fairness to them. I'll leave it there.

Frats Rmp3

 

[Sorry.]

could you not just re-read the thread Catch linked to?

 

[TremulousTetra]

could you not just re-read the thread Catch linked to?

I have. Questions there remain unanswered so my view remains as above.

However to be fair, if it was that easy to convince somebody there wouldn't be so much division on the left would there?

I am interested enough to enquire, as is hibbee, but U75 anarchists do seem prefer defining themselves by what they are against rather than what they are for, which of course is fine with me if that is your choice.

Rmp3

 

[catch]

I have. Questions there remain unanswered so my view remains as above.

Yeah I know, you definitely didn't answer some of mine.

 

[Random]

The problem is when you then come to apply;
Quote:
1) A "monopoly of violence" in a given territorial area;
2) This violence having a "professional," institutional nature; and
3) A hierarchical nature, centralisation of power and initiative into the hands of a few.
to such as the Paris commune which most anarchists seem to support (though I suppose one is going to pull me up now and say they don't support it).

The Parils commune was not an anarchist or libertarian event. It was an example of one form of working class democracy, with it's own problems. It was the model for Lenin and Marx's ideas of a workers' state, remember?

It would be better to compare your ideas with examples from current anarchist/libertarian practise, such as the autonomous convergance centre ('Hori-Zone') in Scotland for the G8. I doubt you'd have found a professional, hierarchical monopoly of violence there.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yeah I know, you definitely didn't answer some of mine.

came on here a couple of years ago with a genuine interest in anarchism. Not "I'm going to become an anarchist" interest, just genuine interest because it was something novel to look at. have spent virtually the whole time answering questions about the SWP. so I have basically given up trying to find out U75 people's views.

secondly, of course I haven't answered all your questions and vice versa, if I could satisfy you on your questions you would be a member of the SWPand vice versa, surely? That was my point above.

 

[TremulousTetra]

The Parils commune was not an anarchist or libertarian event. It was an example of one form of working class democracy, with it's own problems. It was the model for Lenin and Marx's ideas of a workers' state, remember?

It would be better to compare your ideas with examples from current anarchist/libertarian practise, such as the autonomous convergance centre ('Hori-Zone') in Scotland for the G8. I doubt you'd have found a professional, hierarchical monopoly of violence there.

(though I suppose one is going to pull me up now and say they don't support it).